[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.