21 ms·

You are underestimating how effective a "management" technique is demonstrating that you can shoot underperforming minions. I am somewhat skeptical of this tak

You are underestimating how effective a "management" technique is demonstrating that you can shoot underperforming minions. I am somewhat skeptical of this take. I think if heaping abuse and threats of worse on people worked magic, there would be no homeless people in the US. Threats only work if the capacity is there -- or almost there -- and it's feasible to extract X with sufficient pressure. But you still can't get blood from a turnip.

1123581321 5y ago
The threat must be legible and have a credible threat of authoritative judgment so steps can be taken to predictably avoid the consequence. It's not at all clear to a homeless person what steps they should take to reduce suffering in their life. (I'm aware I'm replying to a homeless or formerly homeless person. And it needn't be said, but I'm not saying that an effective threat is moral.)
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Or the steps to reduce suffering are clear to them. You just don't like the conclusion they drew and don't approve. There is insufficient affordable housing in the US. We build apartments designed for a nuclear family and expect young single people to get roommates and split the rent and then you see questions on the internet about "How do I deal with this roommate from hell?" and we make horror movies about it like Single White Female and continue to not offer housing options suitable for living alone on a budget. Since WW2, we've torn down about a million SROs. We now think of SROs as housing for homeless people when it used to be normal market rate housing for single people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy Some people are homeless because they left abusive situations. They decided "I would rather sleep outside than continue to put up with this." But the narrative most people accept is that homeless people are all addicts and crazies and this somehow means it's a personal problem, they aren't trying hard enough, they would rather be high than in shelter. Addiction is a hard problem to solve no matter your social class. We don't act like "Wealthy rock stars with a drug habit must be wealthy because they take so many drugs." but we conclude that there is a cause and effect relationship between drug use and homelessness. It's basically prejudice talking. People on the street tend to be square pegs who have trouble finding a slot that fits them. We've actively eliminated a lot of those oddly shaped slots and then act like "You just don't want to make your life work." Homeless people aren't necessarily any more or less virtuous or hard working or whatever than anyone else. The fabric of their life came unraveled and they don't know how to readily weave it back together and then the world tells them "The beatings shall continue until morale improves."
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Yes, I agree with all that. Not sure where your second sentence is coming from. I was only responding to the idea that there is only one kind of way to threaten someone, that is ineffective.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      Chalk that second sentence up to baggage (and exhaustion). I wasn't trying to be argumentative. Just happy to expound on a topic I know something about.
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        I did appreciate reading it! :)
reincarnate0x14 5y ago
If police starting executing 10 random homeless people every night, it wouldn't necessarily "solve" homelessness but the homeless would get very creative, very quickly to figure out how to not be where-ever the police were looking. As with any management technique, it's about making sure you're focusing people on the right efforts, for values of "right" in terms of getting what you want. A horrifying police state has many examples both more and less efficient than Stalin and Beria, particularly if you take a view of the modern world through the lens of competitive authoritarianism. Was it purely luck that they happened to pick good candidates to run specific programs whereas say, Mao did not? Could be, but to pick another example, I'd wager that few people would argue against the notion that Fidel Castro did more, with less resources, and less terror, than Stalin in relative terms. But back to the homeless situation in the US, it's more than major political groups have no interest in solving the problem and that creeps into institutional policy in insidious ways, as opposed to whether or not harsh methods might have any positive results (ignoring the whole awfulness part). Malignant neglect is perhaps worse than active malice.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  If police starting executing 10 random homeless people every night, it wouldn't necessarily "solve" homelessness... That would rapidly cut back on the obviously, highly homeless population. Over the course of a year, that would be 3650 fewer homeless in the area. When I was homeless in San Diego, there was an estimated 10k homeless on the streets of that city. Such a policy would tentatively eliminate the population of street homeless in just three years. (Couch surfing is another form of homelessness but it is less obvious than people out in the street. Also some homeless float from cheap hotel to cheap hotel, being bled for more money each month than rent would cost but unable to arrange permanent housing.) In the meantime, lines at homeless services would get shorter. This would leave more resources to go around for the remaining homeless, making it easier for them to solve their problems. It would be draconian and have other effects, like normalizing the idea that police can play Judge Dredd and be judge, jury and executioner -- at least if you commit the crime of being very poor. Personally I would rather see us resolve the dire shortage of affordable housing that is a known root cause of homelessness in the US. My point being: If that policy were instituted and the homeless suddenly began getting their act together, it wouldn't be solely due to people being "more motivated" by fear. It would in part be because of reduced burden on limited resources for solving the problem in question. It might also be because fear of execution would free people up to try things that are currently "unthinkable." It would cut through their own internal red tape concerning "acceptable" behavior and likely also have other people looking the other way because "Well, hell, I would do that too in order to avoid being executed for the crime of being poor." It might also make people decide they strongly disapprove of this outcome and make them more likely to donate to homeless services or volunteer, thereby adding more resources to the system to solve the problem. Having written the above, it makes me wonder if these monsters were effective in part because they were operating in a low resource environment and reducing the burden on the available resources helped the remaining people be better fed and more effective and/or helped people decide they didn't care about looking foolish or breaking some social taboo. They cared about not being shot. Of course, it's politically incorrect to analyze it and then say that's what happened and thereby "justify" their abhorrent actions. So people say they were monsters and say that we just don't understand why anyone put up with them. Ideally, in a humane environment, we find ways to think outside the box without having to shoot people to make that socially acceptable.

1123581321 5y ago

The threat must be legible and have a credible threat of authoritative judgment so steps can be taken to predictably avoid the consequence. It's not at all clear to a homeless person what steps they should take to reduce suffering in their life. (I'm aware I'm replying to a homeless or formerly homeless person. And it needn't be said, but I'm not saying that an effective threat is moral.)

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Or the steps to reduce suffering are clear to them. You just don't like the conclusion they drew and don't approve. There is insufficient affordable housing in the US. We build apartments designed for a nuclear family and expect young single people to get roommates and split the rent and then you see questions on the internet about "How do I deal with this roommate from hell?" and we make horror movies about it like Single White Female and continue to not offer housing options suitable for living alone on a budget. Since WW2, we've torn down about a million SROs. We now think of SROs as housing for homeless people when it used to be normal market rate housing for single people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy Some people are homeless because they left abusive situations. They decided "I would rather sleep outside than continue to put up with this." But the narrative most people accept is that homeless people are all addicts and crazies and this somehow means it's a personal problem, they aren't trying hard enough, they would rather be high than in shelter. Addiction is a hard problem to solve no matter your social class. We don't act like "Wealthy rock stars with a drug habit must be wealthy because they take so many drugs." but we conclude that there is a cause and effect relationship between drug use and homelessness. It's basically prejudice talking. People on the street tend to be square pegs who have trouble finding a slot that fits them. We've actively eliminated a lot of those oddly shaped slots and then act like "You just don't want to make your life work." Homeless people aren't necessarily any more or less virtuous or hard working or whatever than anyone else. The fabric of their life came unraveled and they don't know how to readily weave it back together and then the world tells them "The beatings shall continue until morale improves."
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Yes, I agree with all that. Not sure where your second sentence is coming from. I was only responding to the idea that there is only one kind of way to threaten someone, that is ineffective.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Chalk that second sentence up to baggage (and exhaustion). I wasn't trying to be argumentative. Just happy to expound on a topic I know something about.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      I did appreciate reading it! :)

reincarnate0x14 5y ago

If police starting executing 10 random homeless people every night, it wouldn't necessarily "solve" homelessness but the homeless would get very creative, very quickly to figure out how to not be where-ever the police were looking. As with any management technique, it's about making sure you're focusing people on the right efforts, for values of "right" in terms of getting what you want. A horrifying police state has many examples both more and less efficient than Stalin and Beria, particularly if you take a view of the modern world through the lens of competitive authoritarianism. Was it purely luck that they happened to pick good candidates to run specific programs whereas say, Mao did not? Could be, but to pick another example, I'd wager that few people would argue against the notion that Fidel Castro did more, with less resources, and less terror, than Stalin in relative terms. But back to the homeless situation in the US, it's more than major political groups have no interest in solving the problem and that creeps into institutional policy in insidious ways, as opposed to whether or not harsh methods might have any positive results (ignoring the whole awfulness part). Malignant neglect is perhaps worse than active malice.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
If police starting executing 10 random homeless people every night, it wouldn't necessarily "solve" homelessness... That would rapidly cut back on the obviously, highly homeless population. Over the course of a year, that would be 3650 fewer homeless in the area. When I was homeless in San Diego, there was an estimated 10k homeless on the streets of that city. Such a policy would tentatively eliminate the population of street homeless in just three years. (Couch surfing is another form of homelessness but it is less obvious than people out in the street. Also some homeless float from cheap hotel to cheap hotel, being bled for more money each month than rent would cost but unable to arrange permanent housing.) In the meantime, lines at homeless services would get shorter. This would leave more resources to go around for the remaining homeless, making it easier for them to solve their problems. It would be draconian and have other effects, like normalizing the idea that police can play Judge Dredd and be judge, jury and executioner -- at least if you commit the crime of being very poor. Personally I would rather see us resolve the dire shortage of affordable housing that is a known root cause of homelessness in the US. My point being: If that policy were instituted and the homeless suddenly began getting their act together, it wouldn't be solely due to people being "more motivated" by fear. It would in part be because of reduced burden on limited resources for solving the problem in question. It might also be because fear of execution would free people up to try things that are currently "unthinkable." It would cut through their own internal red tape concerning "acceptable" behavior and likely also have other people looking the other way because "Well, hell, I would do that too in order to avoid being executed for the crime of being poor." It might also make people decide they strongly disapprove of this outcome and make them more likely to donate to homeless services or volunteer, thereby adding more resources to the system to solve the problem. Having written the above, it makes me wonder if these monsters were effective in part because they were operating in a low resource environment and reducing the burden on the available resources helped the remaining people be better fed and more effective and/or helped people decide they didn't care about looking foolish or breaking some social taboo. They cared about not being shot. Of course, it's politically incorrect to analyze it and then say that's what happened and thereby "justify" their abhorrent actions. So people say they were monsters and say that we just don't understand why anyone put up with them. Ideally, in a humane environment, we find ways to think outside the box without having to shoot people to make that socially acceptable.