5 ms·

am i the only person that finds this creepy? (yes, i understand that in some sense he's helping the homeless guy; no i cannot yet fully articulate why this bot

am i the only person that finds this creepy? (yes, i understand that in some sense he's helping the homeless guy; no i cannot yet fully articulate why this bothers me).

jonbishop 17y ago
"Before you get all 'ugh, you are mocking a homeless man' on me, realize this... This experiment improved this bums ROI" I got the same feeling. It's because he doesn't treat the guy like a person; he never calls the homeless man by his name, Keith, but keeps referring to him as a bum.
- physcab 17y ago
  I didn't get that feeling at all. It seemed like he referred to him as the "homeless man". Either way, I felt he focused more on the problem of A/B testing than making any denigrating comments about the homeless.
  - andrewcooke 17y ago
    if he was "making [...] denigrating comments about the homeless" then it would be obviously wrong. that's really not what we are discussing here - it's certainly not what i felt (i would have simply flamed away if that were the case). in general, saying "it's not [some extreme caricature of a position]" isn't much use in arguing against anything, and doesn't really help anyone much...
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I feel like he did more harm than good. Panhandling, unless extraordinarily effective and coupled with a lack of substance abuse problems (all too common with the homeless) will not pull this man out of poverty for good, or even in the medium-term. Giving this man more money, but without coupling that with professional assistance, may do him a lot more harm than good. There's a reason why real academic studies have to pass through an ethics review, and I take issue with how cavalier this guy is about his study. If the author of the blog has experience working with the homeless, then ignore all I've said above. But otherwise, he's operating way outside his field of expertise involving people and situations he doesn't understand, and complexities he does not seem to be aware of. This is dangerous.
  - guelo 17y ago
    Giving poor people more money might hurt them? You're an asshole. I'm sure if someone gives YOU more money it'll be put to excellent use, right?
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      Strong agree. Everyone seems to excuse their lack of charity by assuming the person who needs help will waste the money on hookers and blow. Maybe there is a significant contingent that does, statistically, but there's no way to know if the particular bum right in front of you right now is going to do that or not. Is it really so preposterous to assume that this guy's medical expenses caused his financial difficulties instead of assuming that he wasted everything he had on drugs? Sounds believable to me.
    - lsc 17y ago
      leaving aside the issues of 'privilege' for a moment, I think you might have something of a point; I'm watching one of my friends start a startup that will almost certainly crash and burn because he's writing all his business plans to say what he thinks the investors want to hear, rather than coming up with a workable plan. It'd be quite difficult to answer this question in a scientific manner, but I bet that large investments kill more businesses than they help (vs. bootstrapping)
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      > "You're an asshole." And you can't seem to make your point without name-calling. Kudos. This is where even a cursory familiarity with the issues surrounding homelessness in your area would be greatly helpful. A huge portion of the homeless population has severe substance abuse problems and/or mental health issues. I highly doubt a bum is going to be spending his panhandling dollars on hookers, but alcohol and blow is more than likely. Given what I know of the proportions through volunteer work, it is entirely unsafe to by default assume a homeless person does not have significant substance abuse problems. Sadly, this is one part of the homeless stereotype that is rooted in reality. This isn't to pass judgment, but rather to point out that if you really want to help people get off the streets for good, and bootstrap themselves out of poverty, you need to do a lot more than just give money. For a great many homeless people the cause of their homelessness is a lot more than just being down on their luck, it has to do with long-standing problems - substance abuse, toxic environment, and other negative influences. Giving money without resolving these other external issues will just exacerbate the problem. And note that we're not talking about poor people, we're talking about the homeless. These are people who can't show up to an interview showered with a clean t-shirt - they are not at all like the "merely" poor. Do these guys make enough from panhandling to afford even a shitty room somewhere? Odds are, no, and that's pretty much a bare minimum requirement if your goal is to get off the streets, clean up, and get employed. I contribute to organizations that do this for this very reason - my money is doing much more good (heck, it's at least not doing bad) in the hands of professionals who are able to offer an environment where people have access to the help they need, and the stability to make lasting changes in their life. And FYI, I'm contributing significant amounts of my money and time to this particular issue, a lot more than change most people give to the homeless in any given year. What are you doing about it?
prewett 17y ago
I had the same feeling. I think it's because, as a reader, I am unconvinced that the guy is deserving of more money. He might be, or he might be one of the many homeless that have basically chosen to be homeless. My default is to suspect the latter, so his statement comes across to me as better enabling this guy to milk money out of people. Mind you, he might truly be in need, but the article does not demonstrate that. It merely assumes that giving money to the homeless is good, which I disagree with. Note: Helping those who wish to not be homeless I support; but I don't think that simply giving them money will achieve that.
mtarnovan 17y ago
I wouldn't call it creepy. But it struck me as extremely cynical.
mcantor 17y ago
Also, two front-page articles about homeless people in just one hour... that's a little odd.
physcab 17y ago
I am not sure if this is what you feel or not (and this may be over-analyzing), but for many people, homelessness is a problem that should be delegated for others to do something about. They don't like the presence of them in their neighborhoods (for whatever reasons) and they often have misconceptions of homelessness that exacerbate the problem. What works for me is to just chat with them. They don't all beg, but even if they do, one thing they all have in common is the need for ordinary conversation. The fact that someone posted a story about A/B testing a homeless person's sign sends me two messages. a) They are thinking about homelessness and want to do something about it. b) They are trying to relate it to another problem that many other (non-homeless) people experience. I'm not sure what the author's motivations are, but they definitely got their message across, and they will definitely get people talking about it.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  i don't think that it's that, although i am aware it's a (subconscious) possibility. rather, it seems like it's connected to relative levels of power / wealth. i am wary of doing anything that "uses" someone when there's a large difference (in power / wealth) because it would be so easy to coerce them. one way in which i can draw a difference: i really don't think this involved "ordinary conversation" (and if i am wrong, and it was - obviously there is no way for me to know for certain - then that would make me much more comfortable; it's also true that i am a poor communicator and i may be projecting my lack of ability...).
clutchski 17y ago
Overlaying the company logo on a different place on the homeless dude's coat in every picture is creepy. That's a person, not a billboard or a wall in the subway.
- sp332 17y ago
  Ceci n'est pas un pipe. It's a watermark on a photograph, not a brand on a person.
  - techiferous 17y ago
    Take a second look. He's not talking about the watermark, but the logo on the coat.
    - sp332 17y ago
      Um, no. No matter what position Keith takes, the logo is always perfectly horizontal. And in the last image, the logo is more than twice as large as in the other photos. Definitely obviously 'shopped.
      - techiferous 17y ago
        Yes, of course. But that's not a watermark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermark
        sp332 17y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking
        techiferous 17y ago
        Yes, I know what a watermark is. There is a watermark on the photos and you have to look closely to see it. The logo on the coat is not a watermark, since watermarks are not opaque.
nym 17y ago
I thought the guy was disfigured until I read this comment and realized the blog author had watermarked over the guy's face.

am i the only person that finds this creepy? (yes, i understand that in some sense he's helping the homeless guy; no i cannot yet fully articulate why this bothers me).

jonbishop 17y ago

"Before you get all 'ugh, you are mocking a homeless man' on me, realize this... This experiment improved this bums ROI" I got the same feeling. It's because he doesn't treat the guy like a person; he never calls the homeless man by his name, Keith, but keeps referring to him as a bum.

physcab 17y ago
I didn't get that feeling at all. It seemed like he referred to him as the "homeless man". Either way, I felt he focused more on the problem of A/B testing than making any denigrating comments about the homeless.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  if he was "making [...] denigrating comments about the homeless" then it would be obviously wrong. that's really not what we are discussing here - it's certainly not what i felt (i would have simply flamed away if that were the case). in general, saying "it's not [some extreme caricature of a position]" isn't much use in arguing against anything, and doesn't really help anyone much...
potatolicious 17y ago
I feel like he did more harm than good. Panhandling, unless extraordinarily effective and coupled with a lack of substance abuse problems (all too common with the homeless) will not pull this man out of poverty for good, or even in the medium-term. Giving this man more money, but without coupling that with professional assistance, may do him a lot more harm than good. There's a reason why real academic studies have to pass through an ethics review, and I take issue with how cavalier this guy is about his study. If the author of the blog has experience working with the homeless, then ignore all I've said above. But otherwise, he's operating way outside his field of expertise involving people and situations he doesn't understand, and complexities he does not seem to be aware of. This is dangerous.
- guelo 17y ago
  Giving poor people more money might hurt them? You're an asshole. I'm sure if someone gives YOU more money it'll be put to excellent use, right?
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    Strong agree. Everyone seems to excuse their lack of charity by assuming the person who needs help will waste the money on hookers and blow. Maybe there is a significant contingent that does, statistically, but there's no way to know if the particular bum right in front of you right now is going to do that or not. Is it really so preposterous to assume that this guy's medical expenses caused his financial difficulties instead of assuming that he wasted everything he had on drugs? Sounds believable to me.
  - lsc 17y ago
    leaving aside the issues of 'privilege' for a moment, I think you might have something of a point; I'm watching one of my friends start a startup that will almost certainly crash and burn because he's writing all his business plans to say what he thinks the investors want to hear, rather than coming up with a workable plan. It'd be quite difficult to answer this question in a scientific manner, but I bet that large investments kill more businesses than they help (vs. bootstrapping)
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    > "You're an asshole." And you can't seem to make your point without name-calling. Kudos. This is where even a cursory familiarity with the issues surrounding homelessness in your area would be greatly helpful. A huge portion of the homeless population has severe substance abuse problems and/or mental health issues. I highly doubt a bum is going to be spending his panhandling dollars on hookers, but alcohol and blow is more than likely. Given what I know of the proportions through volunteer work, it is entirely unsafe to by default assume a homeless person does not have significant substance abuse problems. Sadly, this is one part of the homeless stereotype that is rooted in reality. This isn't to pass judgment, but rather to point out that if you really want to help people get off the streets for good, and bootstrap themselves out of poverty, you need to do a lot more than just give money. For a great many homeless people the cause of their homelessness is a lot more than just being down on their luck, it has to do with long-standing problems - substance abuse, toxic environment, and other negative influences. Giving money without resolving these other external issues will just exacerbate the problem. And note that we're not talking about poor people, we're talking about the homeless. These are people who can't show up to an interview showered with a clean t-shirt - they are not at all like the "merely" poor. Do these guys make enough from panhandling to afford even a shitty room somewhere? Odds are, no, and that's pretty much a bare minimum requirement if your goal is to get off the streets, clean up, and get employed. I contribute to organizations that do this for this very reason - my money is doing much more good (heck, it's at least not doing bad) in the hands of professionals who are able to offer an environment where people have access to the help they need, and the stability to make lasting changes in their life. And FYI, I'm contributing significant amounts of my money and time to this particular issue, a lot more than change most people give to the homeless in any given year. What are you doing about it?

prewett 17y ago

I had the same feeling. I think it's because, as a reader, I am unconvinced that the guy is deserving of more money. He might be, or he might be one of the many homeless that have basically chosen to be homeless. My default is to suspect the latter, so his statement comes across to me as better enabling this guy to milk money out of people. Mind you, he might truly be in need, but the article does not demonstrate that. It merely assumes that giving money to the homeless is good, which I disagree with. Note: Helping those who wish to not be homeless I support; but I don't think that simply giving them money will achieve that.

mtarnovan 17y ago

I wouldn't call it creepy. But it struck me as extremely cynical.

mcantor 17y ago

Also, two front-page articles about homeless people in just one hour... that's a little odd.

physcab 17y ago

I am not sure if this is what you feel or not (and this may be over-analyzing), but for many people, homelessness is a problem that should be delegated for others to do something about. They don't like the presence of them in their neighborhoods (for whatever reasons) and they often have misconceptions of homelessness that exacerbate the problem. What works for me is to just chat with them. They don't all beg, but even if they do, one thing they all have in common is the need for ordinary conversation. The fact that someone posted a story about A/B testing a homeless person's sign sends me two messages. a) They are thinking about homelessness and want to do something about it. b) They are trying to relate it to another problem that many other (non-homeless) people experience. I'm not sure what the author's motivations are, but they definitely got their message across, and they will definitely get people talking about it.

andrewcooke 17y ago
i don't think that it's that, although i am aware it's a (subconscious) possibility. rather, it seems like it's connected to relative levels of power / wealth. i am wary of doing anything that "uses" someone when there's a large difference (in power / wealth) because it would be so easy to coerce them. one way in which i can draw a difference: i really don't think this involved "ordinary conversation" (and if i am wrong, and it was - obviously there is no way for me to know for certain - then that would make me much more comfortable; it's also true that i am a poor communicator and i may be projecting my lack of ability...).

clutchski 17y ago

Overlaying the company logo on a different place on the homeless dude's coat in every picture is creepy. That's a person, not a billboard or a wall in the subway.

sp332 17y ago
Ceci n'est pas un pipe. It's a watermark on a photograph, not a brand on a person.
- techiferous 17y ago
  Take a second look. He's not talking about the watermark, but the logo on the coat.
  - sp332 17y ago
    Um, no. No matter what position Keith takes, the logo is always perfectly horizontal. And in the last image, the logo is more than twice as large as in the other photos. Definitely obviously 'shopped.
    - techiferous 17y ago
      Yes, of course. But that's not a watermark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermark
      - sp332 17y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking
        techiferous 17y ago
        Yes, I know what a watermark is. There is a watermark on the photos and you have to look closely to see it. The logo on the coat is not a watermark, since watermarks are not opaque.

nym 17y ago

I thought the guy was disfigured until I read this comment and realized the blog author had watermarked over the guy's face.