You’ve parked your car in a location of questionable security, and a homeless man is nearby. You’re considering offering him a beer in exchange for car-guarding services. This guide walks you through the rigorous and application of critical thinking to this decision.

Objective: Determine the probability that the beer-to-guard ratio results in adequate vehicle security.

Constraints: One beer, one homeless man, one vulnerable car.

Possible Outcomes:

1. He guards the car.
2. He guards the car for a bit, then leaves.
3. He takes the beer, vanishes, and your hubcaps are now “street art” somewhere else.

Questions to consider:

• Has the individual displayed previous guard-like behavior? (e.g., standing still, vigilant head swiveling, laser eyes)
  
• Does the man currently have possession of an open beer? (If yes, your beer’s marginal utility decreases.)
  
• Is he within easy walking distance of a liquor store or another car that looks more fun to guard?

Example hypothesis:

We can model this with the Beer-to-Vigilance Conversion Formula:



Where:

• B = Quality of Beer (cheap lager = 0.3, craft IPA = 0.8)
  
• M_loyalty = Motivation multiplier (if you chat nicely, +0.2)
  
• T_distraction = Time before something shiny appears
  
• A_wanderlust = Ambient urge to wander toward adventure

• Give him the beer.
• Check back discreetly in 3–5 minutes. If still present, increase confidence level.
• If he is not there but a different homeless man is, determine if “guarding by delegation” is acceptable.

Critical thinking tells us:

• Beer is a short-term contract.
  
• Loyalty varies based on personality, context, and carbonation level.
  
• The safest way to ensure car security remains a lock, an alarm, and possibly not parking there.

While the will of the bum will never be predicted to a certainty, using logic, probability, and ethical bribes will help you determine and calculate the risks and possible outcomes.