Reflecting on assumptions--and homelessness
Thinking about Issues--Judith Lewis
I've been thinking about how fortunate I am to have friends whose ideologies differ from mine, but who are still willing to engage in dialog with me. Although I have to confess that being human, I most often think I'm right and they're wrong (and I'm sure they think the same thing in reverse).
I've been thinking about how fortunate I am to have friends whose ideologies differ from mine, but who are still willing to engage in dialog with me. Although I have to confess that being human, I most often think I'm right and they're wrong (and I'm sure they think the same thing in reverse).
The gift these friends give me, however, is that in attempting to refute their opinions or conclusions, it pushes me to think about what I believe--and furthermore to do some research and fact checking to see what is really true--or as close to the truth as I can get.
For example, recently someone sent a joke about a homeless man supposedly illustrating the difference between Republicans and Liberals--where the obvious assumption is that the only reason he's homeless is because he doesn't want to work. The gist of the joke is that Liberals want to give him money for doing nothing instead of putting him to work.
I was motivated to do some research to see what the latest evidence about homelessness says about who is homeless and why. Recent studies indicate about 25% of the homeless are individuals with untreated mental illness, 40% of homeless men have served in the armed forces, as compared to 34% of the general adult male population. A very recent trend is that families are the largest and fastest growing segment of the homeless population, one in five people in a soup kitchen line is a child. 44 percent of the homeless did some work for pay in the month before being surveyed, although only 13 percent held a regular job.
Problems with alcohol, drugs, and mental health among homeless people are well documented and often occur together. Among adults using homeless services, 31 percent reported a combination of mental health and substance abuse problems (alcohol and/or drugs) within the past year. An additional 17 percent reported problems with drugs and/or alcohol problems, but no mental health problems. Further, 12 percent reported only problems with alcohol, and 15 percent reported only mental health problems.
So, yes, a goodly number meet the stereotype of the down and out homeless drunk that cops find on the street. However, I have come to question the assumption that they are there solely of their own doing, that they're too lazy to work, or that they're homeless because of their lack of moral character.
Recent research has shown that a large percentage of substance abusers are, in fact, mentally ill, and are self-medicating. Further, research has shown that both alcoholism and addiction as well as many mental illnesses are biological in nature and tend to run in families. So, including those facts into my assumptions, I have to rethink the stereotype of just who is homeless and why.
My current assessment is that we should look at the issues of substance abuse and mental illness from a medical/biological viewpoint, just as we look at cancer, heart problems or related medical issues such as obesity. Yes, there is a free will issue in making choices about how someone deals with an illness--whether we follow doctor's orders, whether we eat right and exercise. I'd say just as a guess that it's about 70/30: meaning 70% of the condition is outside the individual's control with 30% being the degree of free will and control they have over their own circumstances. Or perhaps even less control, since the disease itself affects the thinking process. A statistic that I recently came across said that of people who diet and lost weight, only 5% actually keep it off permanently. That gives some indication of just how difficult it is for human beings to use their "free will" to overcome addictive behavior like over-eating.
But, the underlying illness of addiction or mental illness is not a "choice" for which one should be morally blamed anymore than one should judge and chastise women who get breast cancer or men who get prostate cancer. Unfortunately, that is not the case and the stereotype of the homeless and drug abusers and the mentally ill all carry a stigma of being "bad and lazy and immoral people." Same goes for poor people in general. We need to understand "why" they're poor, before we make judgments that they're just too lazy to work and get ahead.
Now if I hadn't gotten that email, I wouldn't have given the issue much thought. So, again, thank you to my friends who think I'm crazy and misguided, but who are still willing to have political and social issues discussions with me. And thank you too, to those who occasionally give me feedback that I might not be so crazy after all. 
I've been reading a wonderful little book that I recommend to friends to understand how much of what we believe nowadays is disinformation. The book is un-Spun: finding facts in a world of disinformation by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. They are also the founders of the Website "factcheck.org" which I frequently pass on to my friends when there is some question of truthfulness in what is being printed, broadcast, or passed around on the Internet. I've included some excerpts from that book below.
Un-spun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation
fackcheck.org HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY OTHER PEOPLE ARE SO UNREASONABLE and hard to convince? Why is it that they disregard hard facts that prove you're right and they're wrong? The fact is, we humans aren't wired to think very rationally. That's been confirmed recently by brain scans, but our irrational reaction to hard evidence has been the subject of scholarly study for some time.
...the discomfort at being confronted with evidence of error is a universal human emotion. It's just no fun to admit we've been wrong. So we strive to avoid that unpleasant feeling of psychological conflict-what Festinger calls cognitive dissonance-that occurs when deeply held beliefs are challenged by conflicting evidence.You base your belief, not on evidence, logic or reason, but simply because you want to believe so badly, the thought of it being wrong invalidates your very existence and that makes your head hurt."In the past half century, the science of psychology has taught us a lot about how and why we get things wrong. As we'll see, our minds betray us not only when it comes to politics, but in all sorts of matters, from how we see a sporting event, or even a war, to the way we process a sales pitch.Humans are not by nature the fact-driven, rational beings we like to think we are. We get the facts wrong more often than we think we do. And we do so in predictable ways: we engage in wishful thinking. We embrace information that supports our beliefs and reject evidence that challenges them. Our minds tend to take shortcuts, which require some effort to avoid. Only a few of us go to moonbat extremes, but more often than most of us would imagine, the human mind operates in ways that defy logic.
Psychological experiments have shown, for one thing, that humans tend to seek out even weak evidence to support their existing beliefs, and to ignore evidence that undercuts those beliefs. In the process, we apply stringent tests to evidence we don't want to hear, while letting slide uncritically into our minds any information that suits our needs. Psychology also tells us that we rarely work through reasons and evidence in a systematic way, weighing information carefully and suspending the impulse to draw conclusions. Instead, much of the time we use mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that save us mental effort. These habits often work reasonably well, but they also can lead us to conclusions we might dismiss if we applied more thought.


Comments