We have to be smart.

(#192)

I would even say that it would be smarter to actually be smart instead of just trying to be smart. This business of trying to be smart reeks of Portuguese cunning.

The phrase always works well in any circumstance.

We have to be smart.

We typically use this phrase when we don't know what to say and want to come across as reasonably intellectually gifted.

We have to be smart.

Furthermore, it has the advantage of being able to be said in various ways and with different cadences, giving it a different meaning depending on the context.

For example, it can sound like a threat: We have to be smart! This applies as a response to a previous threat. We can use this tone if we are threatened by a stronger and more overbearing entity. If our reaction cannot be immediate, given the power of the threatening entity, the only solution is to act strong and threaten that, next time, we will be smart, which is an acknowledgment of the entity's current shortcomings.

The phrase can also be said in a sly tone. As if to say that we have a brilliant solution to the problem, but that we're not going to tell anyone, since we don't really know what to do.

We have to be smart.

And then there's the philosophical approach. The idea is to repeat the phrase twice. The first time in quick bursts, to grab attention, and the second time more slowly, to give it an air of depth.

We have to be smart. We have to be... in-te-li-gen-tes.

But the smartest way is to use it as a personal mantra.

The folks at neurolinguistic programming have already figured out what armies and religion have known for centuries. If you repeat nonsense, you risk believing what you say.

Saying "We have to be smart" is a good trick.

Self-help books that explain how to succeed in life remind us that it's important to have a personal mantra, that is, a phrase that can be repeated ad nauseam, both for ourselves and for others to hear.

"We have to be smart" is the best mantra one can have. If it's not possible to actually become smart, at least there's the hope of starting to believe in it, which, at the very least, can be very good for our own mental health.

It's always better than having those mantras we all repeat, like "It has to be..." or "What has to be, has great power..." or even "What can we do?" usually said in a lamenting tone. These are very dangerous mantras, as they lead us to a dead end of enormous conformism. It's halfway to depression. In short, it's a lack of intelligence.

Attention language purists! There's an interesting discussion on Ciberdúvidas about whether to say "temos que" or "temos de". I prefer "Temos que". According to Maria Regina Rocha, author of the book "Cuidado com a língua!" and 189 articles on Ciberdúvidas, it would be more correct to say "temos DE ser inteligente". It would certainly be more intelligent of me to use this form. However, using "que" gives tremendous force to the expression. My apologies to Maria Regina Rocha for my mistake. But in matters of errors, I think I'm in good company, because according to Maria Regina, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, on April 17, 2005, at 9:30 PM, often made the mistake of using "Ter que" instead of "ter de". Thank goodness for Edite Prada, who, in October 2008, thought the two expressions were equivalent. See how intelligent I am in defending myself beforehand against language purists. I've already silenced a friend of mine who always comes with the talk about speaking good Portuguese.

“We have to be smart” is only not suitable for funerals. When faced with someone's death, it's not worth being smart. Death is, in fact, the true democratizing entity. Before it, the poor and the rich, the intelligent and the less gifted, hippies and simpletons, leftists and even millionaires succumb in the cold arms of the great reaper of life.

“We have to be smart” should be used when we’re in trouble. And right now, not only are each of us reasonably in trouble, but humanity as a whole is in trouble. Not only do we have to say “We have to be smart” several times a day, but we actually have to try to be smart.

I would even say it would be smarter to actually be smart instead of just trying to be smart. This business of trying to be smart reeks of Portuguese cunning. If I don't succeed, at least I look good in the picture. Now, it's worth following the example of the most intelligent man of the 21st century. I'm referring to Barack Obama, who, much to the dismay of white racists, was a handsome, charming, and above all, intelligent black man. Obama didn't try. He decided and went for it, and told everyone: We can do it. To which we would add in these times, "at home." In good Portuguese, it would be "People can do it, but at home."

And that's where the problem lies, because after a week of quarantine in Portugal, we don't really know how to be intelligent.

Leadership trainees like to emphasize that problems should be transformed into challenges. I say trainees, because true leaders don't emphasize this; they act, and they fool us all.

In the business world, the saying goes, "turning problems into opportunities."

My apologies to the listeners, but after eight days locked up at home, I still haven't been able to see the challenge or even the opportunity. But I probably don't have the knack for leadership or entrepreneurship either.

Perhaps in a week, having overcome the challenge and glimpsed the opportunity, I will finally be able to have a flash of intelligence.

However, all that remains for me is to repeat the phrase I chose as my personal mantra, now in a philosophical tone, to offer a note of hope.

Attention:

We have to be smart (and fast).

(Now more slowly.)

We have... TO... be in-te-li-gen-ts.

And I add: "People will manage...but at home."

March 20, 2020

©Eduardo Rui Alves