There might be a difference between colloquial terms and control theory/system modelling there. Negative isn't pejorative when referring to a loop, it's (mostly) stabilizing.
A negative feedback loop example is a nuclear reactor (goes down when it's too high, goes higher when it's too low). A positive feedback loop example is a nuclear bomb (goes higher when it's high).
I think you’re misunderstanding what I am suggesting. People can be homeless for very long periods, so there may be some threshold below which you see positive tendencies and above which you see negative tendencies.
I've tried to think about what you're saying and my (perhaps incorrect) take is that you're saying people homeless below certain thresholds (say, amount of time for example) might have benefited from the homelessness (negative feedback loop) whereas above a threshold things would get worse (positive feedback loop) ?
If I understood that correctly, that would bring in the assumption that homelessness can be to some extent a positive thing. Stretching my mind to include even a teenage runaway for a day perhaps I could see that, but otherwise I could hardly visualize anything about basic needs not being covered that doesn't automatically triggers a positive feedback loop (i.e. no access to sanitation makes you dirtier which makes you less likely to access sanitation, no access to food makes you less likely to have the energy and composure to heighten your chances to get food, not having a physical address to be in makes you less likely to kick-start any life since most parts of society such as renting/jobs/phones depend on each others - getting a job without a place can be harder, and getting a job without a place too, likewise to get a phone without an address or to get a job without a phone)
I was suggesting the equilibrium point as a homeless person.
To use an overly simplified example, an alcoholic homeless person would be less able to get money when drunk than sober.
I am not saying that specific example is accurate, but there does seem to be a balance point where homeless people can acquire money but not savings to eventually stop being homeless.
I mean, I suppose if you zoom in on the shitty parts of life and you want to debate whether there are zones of stability in crappiness, all the best to you. That there are local extrema doesn't really deal with the global analysis, which I suppose brings it back to the initial discussions, as I'm not sure anybody would give a passably livable or somewhat positive evaluation of "being homeless and just a bit drunk but not too drunk".
I not suggesting anyone is going to recommend being homeless. However, understanding issues is important when trying to address them. For example is it better to give 100$ to a homeless shelter, food kitchen, or a homeless person.
