"Don't worry, he'll get what he deserves..."

Hmm, how to start... For those of you who don't know the quarter system, midterms are upon us! Well, South Campus peoples at least... Technically it's week 4, and teachers like to have 2 midterms, even though I think that sorta defeats the definition of midterm. Today, I had my psychological stats midterm. I studied a little bit/already know most of this stuff due to AP Stats just last year, but it was still a little iffy. For some reason, the psych department seems to like to give tests that have tricky questions on them. Oh well, hopefully that went well...

Anyways, the midterm relates due to a passing thought that came to me afterwards. As I was walking back from the midterm some of the stuff I learned first quarter in Introduction to Psychology (Psych 10) was flashing through my head. It was primarily terms and aspects dealing with social psychology, since that probably is my favorite branch. Well, one of the concepts that flashed into my head was quite related back to a certain class in Latin 2 that happened two years ago...

Even though this seems somewhat tangenty, it is connected, don't worry haha. As mostly everybody knows (since I assume the most people that read this blog are Valley people), Mrs. Anderson is the Latin teacher. She's a really nice person and all, but one class something she said bothered me more than usual.

Due to how classes are an hour 15, most teachers choose not to spend the whole time teaching but usually give an opening word to ease people into the class and get things started. I can't exactly remember what brought it up, but somehow we got onto the topic of homeless people. If I remember correctly, somebody brought up an old Valley student who was supposedly a genius yet later became homeless. At this point many students, including myself, believed that he had fallen upon hard times and was thus no longer able to support a home. Yet, Anderson soon told us that the student was checked out by Valley, and it was found that he was addicted to alcohol and drugs, and thus she felt no remorse for him.

Anderson soon elaborated on how at one point during her life she had joined with the Church to partake in a form of a homeless ministry. During this event many members of the Church got together and prepared to help by cooking or by helping with supplies. After this was done, many homeless people came and got the food, and it seemed like the event was effective. Well, as the event was winding down, the pastor of the Church took Mrs. Anderson around and showed her the homeless while talking with them.

For whatever reason, each time the pastor passed by one, he would point out certain traits that that homeless person had. For example, and this is all according to Anderson herself, "You see that person? He's been here for a while. He's a drinker and drug user. And same with that person over there. Drinking and drugs are quite common on the streets..." Well, the pastor showed Mrs. Anderson quite a few of the people that had come. After all this, Mrs. Anderson came to the conclusion that all the people on the streets lived a lifestyle of the homeless people that she had seen, and thus she did not feel called to go out and help them anymore. Thus, she left us with a warning about "helping the homeless", for many of them would be all to eager to take our money and use it for who knows what.

Ok, maybe I am being biased without realizing it in my presentation of Mrs. Anderson's story, but as you can probably guess a few red flags were going off in my brain. First off of all, just because all of the homeless people that Mrs. Anderson did have substance abuse problems (assuming that they did) does not mean that all homeless people do have substance abuse problems. For those of you who read the last post, this goes back to the problem of induction. Second of all, time is not taken into account for any of these cases. This sounds somewhat odd, but I believe the proper term for the fallacy is "Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc" which roughly translates to "After this, therefore, because of this." On first glance, this looks like quite a bit of Latin mumbo jumbo, which is understandable. Yet, for clarity reasons I believe (ironically), logic likes to talk in very specific terms. This Post Hoc fallacy is in reference typically to the purpose of something, and is also typically known as the "False Cause" fallacy, or the infamous phrase "correlation does not equal causation!".

Enough with the logic terms. Anyways, what I'm trying to say here is that Mrs. Anderson saw a large amount of people on the street that were homeless. Out of this group, all of them she also believed to be substance abusers. She felt justified in not helping them because she believed their actions of substance abuse is what got them onto the street in the first place. But, this is where I call for a red flag. True, assuming that the homeless people were substance abusers, there can definitely be said that homelessness and substance abuse have a high correlation (On a personal note, I don't believe that all homeless people are this way, even if some might be). Yet, looking at the previous paragraphs end, we know that correlation does not equal causation. In other words, just because a large number of the homeless people that Mrs. Anderson interacted with are substance abusers does not mean that there substance abuse caused them to be homeless.

This might sound a little confusing, so let's break it down to a simple example. Let's imagine that we have a farmer, and on the farmer's, err, farm, we have a rooster. Every morning, right before the sun rises, the rooster gives a loud crow. Shortly after, the sun rises, and the farmer's day begins. In other words, there is a one to one correlation of the sun rising and the rooster crowing.

Hopefully, you can now see what I am getting at. Even though there is an incredibly strong correlation between the rooster crowing and the sun rising, the rooster's crowing is not responsible for the sun rising. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. The sun "rises" for another scientific principles involving the revolutions and rotation of the planets. The rooster's crow happens at the same time, though, even though it is not responsible for the sun rising.

Hopefully you can understand what I'm getting at. Just because a homeless person maybe be a substance abuser, that does not mean that their substance abuse is the reason why they are homeless. There are a ton of other possibilities, such as a person losing their home, being forced to live on the street, then becoming substance abusers in order to cope with the troubles present in their lives (please note, I am not saying that substance abuse is right, but that it is more understandable in this situation). Even though this is just one example, I hope that I am getting the point across that substance abuse may not be the reason why are all people are homeless, even if it is the reason why some people are.

Now, let's work on tying this all back... Why do we find it so much easier to believe that homeless people are homeless because of substance abuse? Why don't we naturally consider other reasons, such as economic troubles or problems with family? Sure, these reasons make sense once presented, but it's not something that is typically thought of initially.

Psychologists typically label this mode of thinking as Belief in a Just World. In other words, we naturally believe that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. When we see homelessness, we naturally think of it as a bad thing. Thus, in order for the people to be experiencing a bad thing, they must be bad people, which is why it is so natural to think that they must be homeless since they are substance abusers. On our psych midterm, this belief was presented by a story of a mother handing some food to a homeless person. As soon as they passed, the child asked, "Mommy, why are you helping the bad person?" As you can see, the child illustrates the concept of Belief in a Just World, for he believes that the person is homeless because he is a bad person, whether or not this is actually true.

Now, hopefully, you as the reader can clearly provide examples as why this belief is false. The homeless example is one, but perhaps the most familiar example is that of Job. Job himself was considered to be a good person and led a holy lifestyle. But, Satan soon came to bother Job, and he lost practically everything that he had. Yet, Job remained strong in his belief in God, and he eventually came out strong. Thus, Job hopefully is a more familiar story to bad things happening to good people, which is a contradiction to a Belief in a Just World.

Bad things happen to good people... Even though it is a hard concept to accept, it is one that is important to keep in mind. It is often too easy to justify how we feel about helping those in need by simply believing that they "deserve it", as the title relates. I'm not trying to give a huge calling to go out and live on the streets helping those in need. I'm just hoping that you, as the reader, will be a little more enlightened by this entry and view the world a little bit differently. If you are being called to help, good for you, but it is definitely a hard step to take. But, above all else, with a realization of personal bias one is able to make steps to overcome it. Thus, please just keep this entry and your thoughts it take one step farther to how you view those who you originally labeled as "bad people", and hopefully change should naturally follow. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this, and good luck with the rest of your endeavors...