The Real Homeless Man Experiment

• 

  try2bhelpful on 04/01/2016 - 22:09

  +4

  I think the analysis is a bit too simplistic here. It is probably more that we think the guy in the suit may have found himself a little short of money as a once off so we may see ourselves in the same situation. People probably consider the homeless man will continue to look for handouts ongoing. A teenager, who was well dressed, once asked me for money - believe me I did not think he merited it compared to a homeless person. Personally I would prefer that our Government did something to ensure that homeless people have proper accomodation and health services; the current situation is appalling.

  • 

    scrimshaw on 04/01/2016 - 22:37

    +2

    I don't think this has anything to do with meritocracy, or the stratification of social classes.

    That's not what this experiment is trying to prove, and to apply it to Australian society is probably biased anyway since the location it was filmed was clearly not Australian.

    It's more to do with how people perceive hobo's — most people disliked being panhandled for various reasons. They aren't particularly grateful, they don't seem to actively contribute anything to society, and they're constantly harrasssing you if you happen to commute there everyday. So they don't give any, because people are sick of it.

    The other reason? Beggars are perceived to be a social problem.

    The video was filmed in the US… or maybe in Canada. In either case, there are more homeless people in the USA than there are in Australia — according to the stats, there are 610,042 homeless in any given night in January 2014. In Australia, that number is estimated to be just 105,237. Given these statistics there are also a larger number of beggars in the US — large enough for it to have a detrimental effect in some cities.

    In some countries there are actually organised groups of professional beggars who target specific cities and suburbs to maximise the amount of donations. The more the people give, the harder the beggars try. In particular, where begging becomes overly competitive it starts to cause something called 'rent exhaustion' the beggars then either fight each other for prime begging spots, or they resort to aggressive panhandling which then causes problems for the city's image and social security. For that reason, most people are actually discouraged to hand out to beggers because they don't want to contribute to the issue.

    • 

      Settero on 04/01/2016 - 23:15

      um america has roughly 320 million people to our 23 million ( 2014 numbers ), or 0.0019% (610k/320mil ) to Australia 0.0046% (105k/23mil) rate of homelessness using the numbers you provided.

      so how is the effect on american cities worse compared to ours ?

      now as to the op, he really does not look like a professional of any sort in that over sized suit… he looks poor, maybe not homeless , but struggling financially, as he is pretty old and has a suit that looks cheap/nasty, id give him the change just because it looks like he is putting in the effort, unlike the second part where he looks down/defeated and just not trying.

      it is sad but , all we can judge someone we have never met before is by their appearance , until we get to know them, and their story , what they wear/ how they talk and smell is all we know about them and how we judge them.

    • 

      DeafMutePretender on 05/01/2016 - 01:37

      +1

      The other reason? Beggars are perceived to be a social problem.

      Unfortunately, that's sort of a roundabout way of looking at things.

      Beggars are not a social problem, beggars are a symptom of the problem. Solve the problem itself and the beggar issue will take care of itself. However, doing that requires more thinking than simply temporarily booting beggars out of the city, out of sight out of mind, when the Olympics or whatever drops by.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 04/01/2016 - 23:33

    Agree with the first, disagree with the last.

    We need less government interference not more.

    • 

      try2bhelpful on 05/01/2016 - 07:15

      People should not be dependent on the "generosity" of charity; they need to be treated with dignity and respect. They only way to do that is to provide for citizens under a government scheme rather than the whims of whatever is currently philanthropically fashionable. A disproportiate number of homeless have mental issues and/or are substance abusers. (These things are probably related).

      "…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 05/01/2016 - 15:20

        I've seen how the government treats children. There's an entirely different world most people are blissfully unware of and utterly deceived about by media and government. It's disgusting. The stolen generation they apologised for never stopped. It's still going on, only worse - their dirty secret, hidden out of sight - and is no longer just aboriginal folks. Government are meant to govern - not control. Don't give them anything more because they do an appalling job with they've already taken over.

      • 

        try2bhelpful on 05/01/2016 - 21:43

        @realfamilyman: Yeah, 'cause the orphanages run by religious groups did a much better job, didn't they. If it comes down to government compared to religion, I'm taking government everytime.

      • 

        DeafMutePretender on 05/01/2016 - 22:18

        @try2bhelpful:

        Government steals a "generation" of children.
        Religious groups rape 'em.
        Capitalists use them as slave labour.

        Seems like our last great hope is for the benevolent dictator to rise up and save us all.

      • 

        try2bhelpful on 05/01/2016 - 23:17

        @DeafMutePretender: Lord vetinari? Seriously - I agree Society makes me sick sometimes and these poor people are still being victimised.

• 

  p1 ama on 04/01/2016 - 22:12

  +2

  I thought this through, I don't think it's so much about deserving, I think it's who we relate with more.

  Think about it for a second. Most of us would relate to the guy in a suit, we can imagine going to work and not realising that we didn't have enough for a ticket and we can imagine what the embarrassment or the pain in that situation would be, so we're more than ready to help him.

  Most of us cannot imagine being homeless because we've never been in such a situation and thus, we can't really know what it feels like or what it must be like for this guy. I think it just comes down to an issue of empathy. Who are we able to empathise with more? The person we empathise with more and feel like we have more in common with, we would want to help.

  Think of the reverse situation. Someone who has been homeless and understands the pain of being homeless will be more likely to help another person who is homeless.

• 

  indium on 04/01/2016 - 22:28

  +5

  You've looked too far into this.

  Think about the first time someone 'homeless' or 'poor' asked you for spare change, I bet you gave it to them. Probably gave it to them the second time as well. After that you start to get sick of being heckled for money because you realise the people asking for it don't respect you or are grateful for giving them money, all they see you for is a source of money for themselves and guilt people everyday in giving to them.

  If a guy in a business suit asked me for spare change, which has never happened before, than I would give it to him. If I got heckled everyday by multiple businessman than I would think twice.

  I give my spare change to the ones who don't ask, I don't have a coin section in my wallet because coins are bulky so am happy to give them away although I don't really pay with cash anywhere anymore so it's not often I have coins. I'd rather reward the ones who do the right thing.

• 

  cypher67 on 04/01/2016 - 23:39

  People will just assume the homeless guy wants it for drugs or alcohol, same reason I'll never give a homeless guy money if I even suspect he smokes cigarettes.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 05/01/2016 - 00:33

  +1

  That video is over 18 months old, old news.

• 

  DeafMutePretender on 05/01/2016 - 01:31

  Interestin 'speriment

  That's a lot of trouble to save a letter or two. The apostrophe is probably thinking to himself "Really, bro? Did you really need to bring me into this?"

  I'll give you credit for refraining from using the word "gummints" though.

  One theory about what causes this behaviour says it occurs because we live in a meritocracy: a society that rewards it's members for having specialised skills that few people have.

  We live in a meritocracy… until we don't. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch could find someone (other than his sons) worthy of taking the reins of his business. But no, it just so happens that the person who is most "suitable" for managing his business are his family members. Yep, it's just a coincidence.

  Some more examples of real world nepotism (the antonym of meritocracy) include our politicians (too many lawyers, not enough scientists and engineers, you know, people that can actually fix things) and Hollywood (seriously, all of the big name actors and actresses are related to each other). Then the music industry. Let's ignore personal tastes and preferences for a second and agree that Justin Bieber etc are poor examples of "music" yet they're rewarded handsomely for it. While your favourite obscure band/musician that creates great music goes unnoticed. Meritocracy? Pfft.

  From this position it's an easy jump to the position that therefore people deserve the place they have in society. Societies winners deserve their place because of merit - and logically, therefore, if you are a loser in such a society you also deserve your place.

  That sounds like the "[Just World Fallacy]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis), a view commonly espoused by the right-wing Republicans of the USA. And it is exactly that, a fallacy. Some people do good things yet are never rewarded or noticed for it. Some people do bad, borderline sociopathic things and make money from it. Like they say "A good deed never goes unpunished"

  Of course nobody rationally thinks this through to themselves and perhaps you believe you are not living in such a society - and yet the homeless man does not recieve money for a bus fare, only the man who looks like a winner.

  I think you're onto something here. I suspect it has something to do with the [Halo Effect] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect). It's about appearance. We respond more favourably to people who we deem have a good appearance, and less favourably to someone who does not.

  It might very well be the case that the homeless man is a good man, a better man, has a heart of gold, has a better soul than the one in the suit, and more deserving of the greenback. But because of the Just World Fallacy, because of the Halo Effect, and I'm sure, because of many other things outside of his control, people will treat him unfavourably and he will not receive the three fiddy.

  I guess even the homeless have got to get the marketing right ;)

  No amount of marketing will fix his ugly face.