I guess they weren’t testing for whether they 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.

It’s much worse than wishy-washy. It’s purposefully deceitful.

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!

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.

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.

I am rapidly losing all faith in "science" as it is currently practiced. Between the overwhelming bias for only producing "correct" findings and outright fraud for professional advancement, and the coverup that frequently occurs in both cases, I think the level to which good intentions are presumed and trust is vested is neither deserved nor constructive. We are at a point that to me seems familiar as in many other industries when we empowered financial and technical agencies to self-certify only leading to unbelievably brazen deception with disastrous outcomes.

It is a shame to see so much potential wasted while years tick by that we will never get back.

"Public thinks homeless will spend cash on drugs, this is false. Our trial excluded people with drug issues, and we found no evidence cash was spent on drugs".

Well done!

Gotta get an ethics board to approve your study, which might affect the efficacy of the study, which might be an ethical concern. Oh dear.

Interested to see this study redone, but also toss them a handful of narcan and a wearable AED.

Are you saying they are wrong and the general public actually approves of unconditional cash transfers to homeless people /as long as they don’t have drug issues/?

I don’t personally see much support for giving cash to homeless people of any kind so I’m not seeing the hypocrisy in the statements here.

Do you support unconditional cash transfers to homeless people who are not drug users as defined by this study?