[Smileyferret]

“The specific bias in the current context is the tendency for the public to think that homeless individuals will increase spending on temptation goods (alcohol, drugs, cigarettes) when given the cash transfer compared to people who are not homeless. This bias can favor the provision of paternalistic forms of aid over more agentic forms of aid, thus presenting a barrier to the cash transfer policy.”

Earlier in the paper:

“Our preregistered screening criteria were: … [history of homelessness less than 2 years and] nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10), alcohol use (AUDIT),and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) based on predefined thresholds. These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer.”

… Are you kidding me? Talk about hypocrisy.

[clnq]

I guess they weren’t testing for whether the bias is true.

Though yeah, it’s a bit wishy washy to call something a bias and not real, then design your test to avoid challenging the notion.

A bias could still be present though. A phenomenon can exist but be overestimated or underestimated in degree due to bias.

[MathMonkeyMan]

People don't want to support cash transfers because they think that the beneficiaries will blow it on drugs. But they're wrong: if you eliminate anybody who would blow it on drugs, then that problem doesn't occur at all!

[mcv]

I think I've also heard of similar experiments where a significant number of the people who used drugs actually quit using drugs once they got other options.

I don't have a link, though. Just a vague memory of reading about this once.

[clnq]

Yeah, and we couldn’t disqualify people from UBI anyways, as that could mean banishment from an UBI-inflated economy. They might be unable to afford even the most basic necessities when the economy adjusts to everyone’s increased spending power.

So with UBI will come a certain amount of UBI spent on blow. And maybe that’s fine if overall humanity is better off. It doesn’t need to be perfect, just considerably better.

[anon373839]

It’s much worse than wishy-washy. It’s purposefully deceitful.

[throw__away7391]

I am rapidly losing all faith in "science" as it is currently practiced. Between the overwhelming bias for only producing "correct" findings and outright fraud for professional advancement, and the coverup that frequently occurs in both cases, I think the level to which good intentions are presumed and trust is vested is neither deserved nor constructive. We are at a point that to me seems familiar as in many other industries when we empowered financial and technical agencies to self-certify only leading to unbelievably brazen deception with disastrous outcomes.

It is a shame to see so much potential wasted while years tick by that we will never get back.

[refurb]

"Public thinks homeless will spend cash on drugs, this is false. Our trial excluded people with drug issues, and we found no evidence cash was spent on drugs".

Well done!

[cherry_tree]

Are you saying they are wrong and the general public actually approves of unconditional cash transfers to homeless people /as long as they don’t have drug issues/?

I don’t personally see much support for giving cash to homeless people of any kind so I’m not seeing the hypocrisy in the statements here.

Do you support unconditional cash transfers to homeless people who are not drug users as defined by this study?

[extraduder_ire]

Gotta get an ethics board to approve your study, which might affect the efficacy of the study, which might be an ethical concern. Oh dear.

Interested to see this study redone, but also toss them a handful of narcan and a wearable AED.