[dsfyu404ed]

>99% of the world's problems would be solved if we all just acted with very basic levels of conscientiousness and responsibility

Your expectations and the expectations in most parts of the west are that everyone take care to protect others from being harmed by their actions. Brazil, Indonesia, India, etc, expect people to be vigilant and steer clear of things that may do them harm. The only reason you see that as wrong is because it is foreign to you. If you grew up and lived in a different culture you'd almost certainly see that as right and anything opposite to that as wrong.

In the west we get everything in writing when we do business and rely on the ability of courts to enforce a contract to protect us when things go wrong (and this adds a lot of overhead, yes this has increased a lot in the past few generations). In China they rely less on contracts and legal solutions and rely more on the effects of a good/bad reputation to protect them from business dealings that go wrong. In the west we don't take people to court if we don't have to but it's the power of the court and ability to take things to court if needed that keeps things running smoothly, in other places the value of one's reputation performs that function.

Expectations of timeliness is another aspect by which cultures vary (as discussed at length in TFA). A meeting that starts on on time in Brazil would probably not be much appreciated. If meeting started late in Japan an apology would be in order at the very least.

These are just three examples of aspects of society that vary from culture to culture. Which is wrong and right depends on what you're used to. Personal physical safety is more likely to bring out people's inner puritanical crusader than the latter two which is why it tends to evoke such strong emotions.

Edit: changed the timing and contract law examples per comments.

[AlexB138]

In many societies they mutilate the genitals of female children. In many others they carry out honor killings when a member of the family acts, as they see it, incorrectly. These are two examples of aspect of society that vary from culture to culture.

Cultural relativism is largely nonsense. Leaving a giant pit in the road for people to drive into is objectively a dangerous and selfish thing to do. Whether the expectation in the country is that people will do dangerous and selfish things doesn't change that fact, it just means the society has some huge problems.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Cultural relativism is largely nonsense

There are multiple optima on the cultural space. Americans' individualistic and Scandinavians' committee-loving systems both work well, and optimize for a complimentary set of problems. Saying "ignore the students–go to the beach," on the other hand, is an objectively worse cultural tenet than "balance everyone's needs."

[AlexB138]

Absolutely. In no way would I argue "It's what the West does, therefore it's right", and being aware of the "it's how we do it, so it's right" bias is worthwhile. There are definitely equally viable alternatives to many cultural norms. Unmarked pits in the road is not one, and I find the desire to treat all alternatives as equal, and a matter of culture, unsettling.

[heurist]

If you want to lure Feynman back to give more lectures, you roll out the red carpet the first time he comes. That's sales, not culture.

[kbutler]

Is balancing needs really the best, though?

Balancing everyone's needs tends to result in something that doesn't make anyone really happy.

This leads to a least common denominator result (you can have any color you want, as long as it's black) which is objectively worse in aggregate than "optimize for some, and let someone else optimize for the others".

[dsfyu404ed]

This is exactly the "where I draw the line (as a result of the culture in which I was raised and live) is right and everyone else is wrong" way of thinking that I was complaining about.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that where people draw the line on personal responsibility to do things to protect other people vs people's responsibility to look out for themselves varies greatly based on their culture and right and wrong is a matter of perspective and consensus.

Am I being dangerous or selfish if I don't pay a licensed plumber to connect my new gas stove or water heater? What about if I do my own electricity (the Aus vs US split on this one should be interesting)? What if I keep firearms in my home? Is it my fault if someone coming to knock on my door and annoy me trips over some kid's toys on my porch? What if my stairs are icy and they slip?

Reconciling differing opinions on public safety vs individual freedom to act (or not act) as we please is something society must do. As much as I'd love to push everyone I don't agree with off a cliff that's not an option.

[AlexB138]

Fair enough, that is a much more nuanced point than I originally took you to be making. I apologize for the misreading.

I think most of us would agree that the line is "when your negligence could likely and predictably lead to severe harm to others". As you've pointed out, there are a lot of details to decide there, and different cultures will figure those differently.

I do think that it is fair to say that leaving an unmarked pit in a road is, objectively, over the line though (as are my extreme examples). It could easily, predictably, lead to someone's death through no fault of their own, and is easily prevented. That balance between burden imposed to prevent harm and ability for individuals to protect themselves from that harm is important, I think.

I wish I had more time to mull this over and discuss with you, as I think there are a lot of interesting questions there.

[sonnyblarney]

"In the west we get everything in writing when we do business and rely on the ability of courts to enforce a contract to protect us "

No way.

The courts are a last resort both in business and for personal functions.

My grandfather ran a hardware store and lumberyard back in 'the olden days' and would make windows for a farmer who promised to pay with '1/2 a cow' during slaughter season. The farmer would bring the cow to the butcher 6 months later. Conscientiousness, trust, community.

Note that Brazil has quite a high rate of petty crime, whilst in Japan it's really quite low. Obviously so many factors ... but a fundamental one is culture.

[dmix]

This is probably a better example of how cultures are not a fixed thing and can evolve and change over time. Western culture, especially in rural areas and in smaller communities where you can know everyone (a more common phenomenon in the past), a contract would not have been needed. Or even have been insulting.

The "Gentleman's handshake" is a famous "old way" of doing things in America/the West. So this is not unique to foreign cultures.

But as we've industrialized, urbanized, globalized, etc, etc the use of contracts became a necessity and culture patterns began to reflect this. Partially as a reaction to need: it was harder to trust random people in a city with a few million people than a guy you know from town and see at Church. But also because it just made everything simpler and more efficient to just write it down. It makes any future disputes far less destructive, because what it says in the agreement is what matters, not what you think was the arrangement, which is a lot more personal and potentially destructive to relationships.

So therefore the cultures evolved largely out of need and rationality. And I expect many of the examples listed in China, Indonesia, etc to evolve in a similar way as the culture moves away from farming and rural areas to a globalized urban economy.

[rescbr]

> A train that leaves the station on time in Brazil would probably not be much appreciated.

Oh, it would be, as a train (or plane) is expected to depart at the right time. People get up and queue for their plane 15 minutes before boarding time, even though they have marked seats and boarding groups.

A meeting starting at the right time? Inconceivable.

[JumpCrisscross]

> A meeting starting at the right time? Inconceivable

I found a solution to this problem which is as effective as it is potentially insulting, and so is best left for later in one's career. Schedule a few more days than you think you'll need. Show up for meetings 15 minutes early and then, after waiting 15 minutes, leave. When asked about it, play dumb and imply you thought you got the time or location wrong. Reschedule, rinse, repeat. (It helps to have an aloof or distractible personality.)

By the end of the trip, you'll have isolated the most ambitious people (who will show up to things on time and thereby be able to interface with ambitious people outside their country), forged a solid and mutually-respectful working relationship with them, and found time to enjoy the place. Works well in Brazil, the Middle East and India.

[AlexB138]

> .. you'll have isolated the most ambitious people ... forged a solid and mutually-respectful working relationship with them

You'll have found people who are willing to play petty games instead of having frank conversations about expectations. Those sorts of things are anything but mutually-respectful and encourage future childish behavior. There is nothing wrong with explaining "The meeting starts at noon. I expect everyone attending to be there at noon, and the meeting will be canceled if you're not there on time", there is a problem with expecting people to read your mind when their default mode of operation is to act differently than you expect.

[JumpCrisscross]

> There is nothing wrong with explaining

I do--and did--this. And then for about half the meetings nobody showed up for thirty minutes. My point is that setting the expectation by example--in addition to explicitly communicating it in advance--works.