What do you think about homeless people?

[fatmt]

In a recent politics discussion I posted a diagram about the traditional left-wing Vs. right-wing ideologies.

The diagram also includes homeless people where they are described either as "downtrodden, victims of the system" or people with "no work ethic, no sense of shame".



What is your view?

 

[Jon]

I don't look at it in such a binary way, but it is an interesting question and generalisation. For me, instead of imagining this binary choice, consider a grid containing 100 squares. The further left on the grid, the lower the inclination towards something, and similarly on the right hand side the higher the inclination. Each row on that grid are different domains, such as mental health issues, laziness, attitude, upbringing, luck and so on.

Within this framework, people can be affected by a number of these elements. They may get a 4 in the luck domain but a 1 in attitude.

So, a homeless person could be someone who is lazy, bad attitude, thinks the world owes them a living. But they could also be someone who had a really unfortunate upbringing, where there attitudes were partly moulded by their environment, leading them to take bad life choices. Or they could have a genetic profile that leads them to a high probability of drug use.

That is how I view the homeless.

I knew two people who were sponging off the state for 15 years. They weren't homeless because the government gave them a home for free. This was during a time of struggle when I didn't have my own front door, living with my parents, despite working my butt off and neither of these guys doing anything. One said working doesn't suit his lifestyle, which was getting up at 2pm in the afternoon and lazing around. "I've paid my taxes!", he said. The other said it is easy to fake depression at the doctors, and so therefore he doesn't have to work. Go figure.

 

[fatmt]

Thanks @Jon and, to be clear, I don't think issues should be framed within a binary approach either. Certainly not homelessness anyway.

I like the 'gradient' framework you mentioned, it sounds akin to what I tend to use when talking about mental health in general.


But that's a story for another day.

 

[Jon]

I like to use algos and engineering approaches. Everything else is too wishy washy for me.

I tot up the points. If the score is low, they are bone idle and lazy!

 

[fatmt]

I know two people that either were or are currently homeless. In both cases they (from my own point of view) got stuck in certain "mental loops", i.e.

one of them - while boasting extremely impressive professional credentials - insisted on working only in a very specific sector and refused to even consider any other option. They ended up on the street. Luckily not for long.

The other one consider their parents "the enemy", and they see themselves as victimized by their parents. So they decided to leave their home and live on the street.

These are not people who are either lazy or unlucky. They simply got stuck at some point and they were (or are) unable to see the way forward.


I think there's an important lesson here: like these two examples, we all have been stuck at some point in one way or another. It was maybe just thanks to a friend or a loved one who provided us with the perspective needed that we were able move on.

But this "getting stuck" could happen to anyone. And it could lead to situations such at these.

 

[Jon]

The quality of your life is based on your decision making and luck.

 

[fatmt]

decision making and luck.

Very true about luck but, as for decision making, if your cognitive processes are somehow impaired or clouded, how can you be expected to make sound decisions?

 

[Jon]

Are you saying that the luck part of my statement is true, but that your decision making does not help determine the outcome of your life? I think you are conflating blame with a selected part of that sentence. Your response reads as, "I agree that the quality of your life is based on luck, but not on your decision making, because you are not to blame for that." But what I said is nothing about blame. Even if you are not to blame for your own decisions, they still affect the outcome of your life.

You could also say that yours is a fatalistic argument. i.e. we have no control over our cognitive processes. "My thinking was clouded so I made bad decisions and I ended up on the street. It wasn't my fault, it was my cloudy thinking!" This absolves yourself of any accountability for your own actions.

Consequently, none of us are to blame for anything. We are mere vessels that are guided by forces outside of our control. "My laziness isn't my fault, it is because my mind told me not to do anything. You can't blame me!"

 

[fatmt]

@Jon

With written exchanges it's very easy to miscommunicate sometimes: I led you to believe that I disagreed about what you wrote.

In fact, I agreed on both your statements: decision making as well as luck determine your quality of life. I'd go as far as saying, the higher-quality your decision-making is, the less luck plays a part in your quality of life (to a degree).

As general statements go, do we agree on the above?


Now, about decision making within the context of this thread: based on what I wrote earlier, the two examples I observed look to me like a clear case of impaired decision-making (for whatever reason). So my conclusion is that homelessness in some instances can be a by-product of a clouded mind.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Jon]

I totally agree with what you referred to as "above." Sometimes you make your own luck.

I know exactly what you are saying. My point really is that a) you then absolve anyone of self accountability, b) everybody does not think with perfect clarity. We are riddled with biases. We might be clearer on some issues, more clouded than on others. But if person A decides to make an effort to do something and person B says, "I can't be bothered", then person B might want to argue their decision is based on preference, which is based on his upbringing, which is all out of his control. i.e. "I'm lazy, its not my fault, blame others. Call me cloudy!"

 

[fatmt]

You just reminded me of Doreens' story

 

[Jon]

Haha. There are plenty of Doreens out there.

 

[fatmt]

So, going back to the serious part

My point really is that a) you then absolve anyone of self accountability, b) everybody does not think with perfect clarity. We are riddled with biases. We might be clearer on some issues, more clouded than on others. But if person A decides to make an effort to do something and person B says, "I can't be bothered", then person B might want to argue their decision is based on preference, which is based on his upbringing, which is all out of his control. i.e. "I'm lazy, its not my fault, blame others. Call me cloudy!"

You are right when you say that nobody thinks with perfect clarity, we all have biases, etc. etc.

But there are gradients, right? So, while we all have biases, some people will just be plainly lazier and not bothered to advance their position (the government provides for them and whatnot). Other people, though, may be thinking they are genuinely working towards something when in reality are stuck mentally.

The proportion of the latter group of people won't be 100% of the homeless population. It won't be 0% either.

So in answer to your point, rather than absolving anyone of self-accountability, can I just absolve those who I see as stuck mentally?

 

[Jon]

But there are gradients, right?

Indeed there are, and not necessarily global gradients, but gradients at the granular level. The homeless person might have clouded thinking in one area, but clearer thinking in another area than a non-homeless person.

Other people, though, may be thinking they are genuinely working towards something when in reality are stuck mentally.

You mean like in business, where there is a competition. All are working genuinely towards something where in reality some are making better decisions than the others, and so rise to the top. Like in sports. Marriage. And so on.

can I just absolve those who I see as stuck mentally?

How will you distinguish between those who are stuck mentally, and those who are using deception to exploit the system, like the person I told you about earlier who was unemployed for 15 years? With that outlook, should you therefore absolve people on a gradient too, depending on how "guilty" you believe them to be? "I semi-absolve you for being a guilty *@£%^@£."

Come over to the dark side, its warm and welcoming!

 

[fatmt]

How will you distinguish between those who are stuck mentally, and those who are using deception to exploit the system, like the person I told you about earlier who was unemployed for 15 years?

It's easy to distinguish. If you were homeless/unemployed but then you've been rehoused, government provides for you, etc. that's one thing.

But if you are currently homeless, nobody is helping you out, etc. and it is clear that the theories you spew about the world make you sound like you have the high moral ground, when you don't even know where the next meal is going to come from, I'd say that is a pretty indicative pointer.

 

[Jon]

Can you give an example of what someone might say?

 

[fatmt]

Can you give an example of what someone might say?

you mean an example of the theories you spew about the world make you sound like you have the high moral ground?

 

[Jon]

Yes. I assume you were referring to the homeless person doing the spewing.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have seen many studies regarding homeless people. That profile (of why they are homeless) is about to change drastically in the USA and probably in other parts of the world as well. The refugee crisis in Europe, from the sketchy reports I have seen and don't fully trust, has also contributed to young and not-so-young people living in streets, subways, etc. But the USA news media have stopped covering things like that because of the pandemic giving them so many headlines.

Last year, there were significant percentages of people with an identifiable mental issue. (I will avoid saying "mental defect" although there are a few developmentally disabled in that group.) Others had a substance abuse problem. A large group of the "mental issue" cases had a type of depression for cause, i.e. PTSD. Some had stress related issues.

This year, in the USA, the barriers to eviction by landlords who have federal subsidies has kept a lot of people off the streets, but as of this month, at least in New Orleans, the barriers are down and the courts that deal with evictions are already badly backlogged. The tenants have no jobs and nowhere near enough cash to make it past a months-long crisis. The landlords, because they were supplying utilities in most cases, had expenses that drained their reserves - not to mention that their properties might have been mortgaged to the hilt anyway.

 

[fatmt]

Yes. I assume you were referring to the homeless person doing the spewing.

Correct:

Narcissist people such as my father know how to lie with great credibility. They are pathological liars. When they are about to be found out they turn violent