This seems more like a media company thing than a tech company thing. Surely there have been other depictions of suicide in the media? Did they have the same corresponding uptick in suicide rates? That would have been a good addition to the article.
That being said, I really don't think we should dumb down or "tame" our art for the sake of safety. It's important to allow artists (the show creators in this case) the ability to tell any story that speaks to them, especially when that deals with sensitive issues like suicide.
The warning before the show seems like a good idea though.
Art shouldn't be free from criticism though. And the ways in which this particular work is poorly executed do to some degree line up with why this work can be harmful (or more than it should be), so I don't think dealing with these criticisms and making good art are mutually exclusive.
I haven't seen the show so can't comment on my opinion of it, but this is a personal choice. Almost certainly there are many people who enjoy the show in its current form.
Parents shouldn't let their children watch shows they don't approve of. For everyone else, just don't watch if it bothers you. Yes, it's fine to criticize and comment, but creators are under no obligation to listen to the critics and in most cases are better off sticking to their original vision.
I didn't say it was about people being offended. My point is that we shouldn't expect art to be bland and harmless. Some art will cause harm (just like tons of things in our society do: alcohol, gambling...). We collectively need to toughen up, accept that not everything is safe and enjoy the multitude of choices we have in how we live our lives.
Both of these are strictly regulated, right? I don't think you're suggesting that media companies should be similarly regulated, but I don't know why you'd mention them.
>We collectively need to toughen up
Unfortunate phrasing in the context of vulnerable children killing themselves.
You're skipping the concept of communal concepts though.
I have the message I get from my parents, the message I get from "everyone else" (which is really several messages from various groups), and the message I determine for myself. That latter is heavily influenced by what the other messages say. (See the other current HN article about student drinking being decided by how much they think others are drinking).
To simply say "Choose for yourself and your children, I'll do the same, and we shouldn't talk about it" is a de facto declaration that society as a whole approves of the behavior/activity.
On this particular issue I honestly have no idea where I stand...I know of and believe the impact that (deliberately or inadvertently) "encouraging" suicide has (or even just coverage)...but I also don't like the idea of being against discussing and exploring ideas. The solution is to DISCUSS what to do, not just pretend we're all fully informed individualists.
I mostly agree with this. Like I said, I think it's ok to criticize and talk about it. My point is that no artist is under any obligation to bend to the will of critics.
>Surely there have been other depictions of suicide in the media? Did they have the same corresponding uptick in suicide rates?
Yes.[0] Newspapers try not to cover suicide whenever possible and when they do they always also write about emergency suicide prevention hotlines. At least in switzerland.
They've unhelpfully put them in a section titled "harm and offence", so if I ever contact the BBC about poor reporting I have to say that I'm not bothered about offence, I'm letting them know about something that may cause harm.
The line is at consent. You can consent to watch something, child pornography most definitely does not have the consent of the people in it and is rightfully illegal.
Because there may be 100 things before it, so it's only 1% of what lead up to the event. & the things which came earlier had a longer time to cause impact. ie a series of early events can lead to a result, whereas what is the actual percentage of people immediately committing suicide after listening to something suicidal? Better to focus on how to mitigate people reaching this point, as opposed to the straw that broke the camel's back
If I drive a rental Ford Focus to the location where I commit suicide should Ford be investigated as strongly as my documented major depressive disorder and the breakup I had with my spouse? Should the DJ at the radio station I was listening to during the drive be scrutinized? Should you stake out the McDonald's that I went in to piss and grabbed a coffee from?
I think the conjecture is that across a random sample the last thing a (potential) suicidal person listened to will have no correlation. If millions can binge watch the same thing in the same day/week, we have the potential for be the thing that pushes a disproportionate number of people over the edge. Something as simple as normalizing a behavior can have a powerful effect for some people.
I'm not going to address "listened to," because that is limited to one medium. But we have learned that even when people may have had suicide ideation for some time, the actual decision to do it is often an impulsive act. So their state of mind immediately leading up to an attempt is relevant.
No one would care if this were just a story about suicide. This is a story that sympathetically portrays a girl who kills herself to make others feel sorry for her.
It serves as a very interesting test, either for those who want to limit some rights for safety reasons who fail to apply that logic here or for those who want to limit suicide as a topic for safety reasons but fail to apply it to other rights.
Probably needs a bit more research what kind of portrayals of suicide have that effect. Then yes. Content is banned from most impactful media channels for less.
I work for a crisis hotline specifically for transgender people of any age. Suicide contagion or "copycat suicide" is a very real thing. Addressing it requires a concerted effort by media and everyone involved when reporting or talking about a suicide to help contain the effect. When there is a situation that is already getting a lot of attention (in our community or nationally/internationally), we are very careful with how we spread even messages of love and solidarity.
I haven't looked to see whether our numbers reflect any trend from that time period two years ago, but I'd be curious to see at some point.
It's not just tech --there are huge companies across many industries which are culpable for societal harm but not held accountable.
When you have company so large as to have an unassailable position, there is no incentive to put ethics ahead of profit. (Outside of following the law, which can also be changed with some political campaign investments.)
Perceived affect? There's actual research data in this case. And what's wrong with raising awareness about how media can affect people's mental health?
I just hope that media created in the future won’t deliberately avoid saliant subjects because of the potential short-term (negative) impact on a certain subset of society.
It would be unfortunate if writers and directors were scared away from topics essential to the human condition because of popular backlash.
Would you please stop breaking the guidelines? We ban accounts that won't.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
While the Werther-effect[1][2] appears to be fairly well documented, it is very hard to point to causation in statistics like these.
However, in spite of the questionable stats, many media outlets such as the CBC err on the conservative side and have adopted practices to avoid detailed reporting on suicides to prevent the Werther effect.[3]
yeah my first thought is: Is the work of art causing people to commit suicide or are people who are already suicidal drawn to art about suicide and prone to romanticizing and copying the art
In either case, reducing the amount of art about suicide or making it more difficult to access would prevent at least some people from going through with suicide.
OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that there is an increase in the suicide rate following incidents of celebrity suicide in different countries, but there are no data on the overall suicide risk across countries. The duration of increased suicide rates is usually assumed to be on a monthly basis, but the weekly increase remains uncertain. This study aims at estimating the risk for suicide after the suicide deaths of entertainment celebrities in Asia during the first 4 weeks after the celebrity suicides and on a weekly basis.
METHOD: An ecological, retrospective time-series analysis and a meta-analysis of the suicide deaths in 3 Asian regions: Hong Kong (from 2001 to 2003), Taiwan, and South Korea (both from 2003 to 2005).
RESULTS: The combined risks for suicide were found to be 1.43 (95% CI = 1.23 to 1.66), 1.29 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.50), and 1.25 (95% CI = 1.08 to 1.45) in the first, second, and third week, respectively, after suicides of entertainment celebrities, while adjusting for secular trends, seasonality, economic situation, and temporal autocorrelation. The same-gender and same-method specific increases suggest that as people identify more with the celebrity, their risk for suicide rises. A medium-term rise in suicides up to 24 weeks after the incidents of celebrity suicide is also evident.
CONCLUSION: This study is the first to estimate risk for suicides following celebrity suicides across 3 Asian regions. The results provide important information for public health policy makers in assessing the elevated risk associated with excessive media coverage of celebrity suicide and developing timely evidence-based interventions.
I wonder if the Werther effect also applies to murder-suicides and spree killings. (My non-scientific intuition is that those behaviors are in the same direction.)
Personally I think the world would be better off if the media stopped reporting on spree killings, but I think any application of that policy would meet public backlash under the guise of "the public has a right to know."
> Researchers warn that their study could not prove causation. Some unknown third factor might have been responsible for the increase, they said. Still, citing the strong correlation, they cautioned against exposing children and adolescents to the series.
So, what's the point of the study if they choose to attack the show and ignore everything else?
If anything, a third factor like mass media talking about suicide among teenagers at the time of the release probably had much bigger effect on teenagers in the US than the show, giving them ideas and all.
> Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion; this is in contrast to deductive reasoning. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.
Not having seen the show I can't agree that's it is garbage but personally, I am of the opinion, that if there was even a tinge of doubt in anyone's mind about the possibility of the show inspiring people to end their lives then it should never have been put on tv.
> The spokesperson noted that the study conflicts with research published last week out of the University of Pennsylvania. That study found that young adults, ages 18-29, who watched the entire second season of the show "reported declines in suicide ideation and self-harm relative to those who did not watch the show at all."
Troubling that the spokesperson didn't realize the two studies are of different age groups -- the one with the rise being the one matching the age group of the teen in the show...
The article even points out that the study they cite isn't even as conclusive as they want it to be since they also saw a spike in suicide among people who only watched part of the show.
Arm-Chair Social Science (NB): I think that binge-watchable media when binge-watched does affect the viewer, you become part of the cast of characters as a social group - or perhaps your mind thinks so. I think that then makes the viewer susceptible to ideas in the show, like drinking when watching Mad Men.
Anecdotally, my times running at track & cross-country practice were ~10% faster (regardless of injuries, of which I had many) on days following watching The Flash, on Netflix.
Personally, I just envy Barry Allen's typing speed.
I know exactly what you mean - every time I watch Big Trouble In Little China I'll walk around for days carrying a six daemon bag. Really annoys my wife, every time I walk in the door I get the lecture - "Your too damn old to be walking around with wind, fire, all that kind of thing..."
Anecdote: my wife and I got rid of our TV 2.5 years ago. One of the best decisions we ever made. We're happier and vastly more productive. Our kids were sad the day we sold the TV, but they've seen the value in it and have thanked us.
Edit: We haven't substituted TV for smaller versions (phone, tablet). We use electronics for work and school but not entertainment. It's been amazing.
The biggest part of overcoming addictions is replacing them and the time they take with something else. If you don't mind sharing, what are you and your family doing instead?
We weren't intentional about replacing TV with something specific, so there are several things that cumulatively fill the void. We play, read, volunteer at the Salvation Army, I'm taking a couple classes at a local university, etc.
I don't bring it up to brag or say "hey be like me." Rather, as you pointed out, it seems like TV is an addiction for most folks. As the article highlights, it often has a negative impact on mood, thoughts etc. One day we just realized we were, in a sense, slaves to the box and dumped it. Never looked back.
Can't speak for other posters, but holier-than-thou wasn't my goal. I was trying to say "hey y'all, this was helpful for me" – sorry if it came across otherwise.
[Without writing on the ethical issues of producing such a show or the validity of the studies]
The Netflix spokesperson's response is utter nonsense:
"The spokesperson noted that the study conflicts with research published last week out of the University of Pennsylvania. That study found that young adults, ages 18-29, who watched the entire second season of the show 'reported declines in suicide ideation and self-harm relative to those who did not watch the show at all.'"
There isn't any conflict at all. The original study being discussed is data on the release of Season 1. Data on the effect of Season 2 is irrelevant (not to mention the article's note that the second study is still problematic regarding those who did not watch the entire season).
Ghastly thought: If the show didn't increase suicidal ideation in healthy individuals, but did make those with existing suicidal thoughts more likely to kill themselves, an observer would see a decrease in reported suicidal thought among the remaining viewers.
They also study two different age ranges. The increase in suicides was among youth ages 10-17, while the 18-34 group saw no change. This seems especially disingenuous to me.
I can't access the study. How did they distinguish correlation with this event from the fifty billion other things that happened during March 2017? E.g. did they check if the people who committed suicide tended to have a netflix account with this show in their history? Is it really just the date that they're using to correlate?
They kind of acknowledge in the study that it is essentially a garbage study. Didn't prevent them from publishing it though.
By the way, Russia pushed internet censorship to the population under this exact idea of saving children from suicide by censoring suicide ideas on the internet. And you can see from the comments here that people are easily convinced on such emotional issues, even if no actual facts are given.
This is generally how politics works when it involves the social sciences. Rarely at the studies anywhere near as strong as the reporting on them implies it or as politicians treat it, but as long as it serves as good propaganda it is used. People will generally call out the cases they disagree with while not investigating the findings they agree with. This can lead to polarized individuals who both feel that science backs their side.
> many are strongly opposed to the confusing messages in the show (justice in life is not possible, but kill yourself and you might just get revenge). Many experts insist that the show glamorizes suicide and may even set off or increase suicidal ideation in vulnerable teens.
From [0], April 2017
Suicide is a perfect example of an anti-social behavior that must be stigmatized because the stigma itself serves as a major barrier to its proliferation. Removing the stigma might make it easier on survivors and family, but it will actually increase the suicide rate by legitimizing suicide as an option for people that otherwise wouldn't do it. It's one of those situations where life must be accepted as something of a living hell and we can't make it better anytime soon.
When we interview people who attempted suicide but somehow survived (they would have died if they hadn't got timely medical attention) we see shame is a common emotion.
These people know that ending their life is wrong, and this knowledge combined with their desire to end their life makes them feel worse, and it prevents them seeking help, and it makes it more likely that they will die.
Yes, I realize that removing the stigma around suicide might help that subset of the population that are already in the midst of it, but what about in five years? Ten years? What effect will that have on others?
We can't know for sure, but there is a common theme when it comes to the normalization of anti-social behavior. It helps the one, but hurts the many.
You can look those that have attempted suicide in the eye and tell them not to be ashamed, but could you preach that message to a group of bullied teenagers after seeing the results of this study?
Example: if a doctor asks you about suicidal thoughts in a negative phrasing (e.g. "No thoughts of harming yourself?" or "You're not planning on doing anything silly, are you?"), then you're significantly less likely to admit to suicidal thoughts. We have clinically effective interventions for reducing suicide risk, so even very subtle stigma could cost lives by stopping people from coming forward.
Would a student be more likely to admit to "thoughts of doing a school shooting" if school shootings weren't stigmatized? Yes, probably. Would an abuser be more likely to admit to "thoughts of beating up his wife" if domestic violence was not stigmatized? Yes, probably. But there is a very good reason why we stigmatize anti-social behaviors. They hurt other people. The stigma reinforces that message and removing the stigma hides that message. We are "the other people" and if you do that, you will hurt us too, not just yourself, so we aren't going to pretend it's okay because it isn't.
The removal of stigmatization might make it easier for us to identify people doing awful things, but just knowing about something doesn't stop them from doing awful things. You aren't fixing the problem by getting them to admit it, you're just becoming more aware of that particular person's problems while also green-lighting half a dozen other people to do the same.
But then you run afoul of those seeking to having euthanasia viewed as a right. And as for the distinction between the two topics, people will commonly give a distinction that seems reasonable at the 50K' view but which breaks down at the 500' view.
Why should suicide be seen as anti-social? You are trying to force those who just want their unbearable pain to be over to continue to live. I never understood it being seen as selfish for a similar reason. I disagree stigma will reduce the suicide rate - when I do feel very suicidal, I can tell you I don't care what anyone thinks. Pretty much the only reason I am alive is I haven't figured out a way to actually end it that's somewhat guaranteed, painless, and irreversible - I know if I were to fail an attempt and end up in the hospital, people like you would force me to stay alive, weather it be throwing me in a padded white room or giving me drugs. Oh perhaps if I'm in enough physical pain, my pain will be legitimized and I'll be allowed euthanasia.
And yet, somehow I am the anti-social one.
[this is a throwaway account so that I can talk openly about being depressed and suicidal]
> Because you have value. Unless you're literally hitler, you have value, and probably a lot of it actually.
This is such an economists view on humanity and I can't help but wonder that assigning 'value' to people is part of what leads to increased suicide rates in the West in the first place.
You want this person to stay alive and continue suffering, because they represent value to you. Dead, they are of no value to you.
It's not the person's well-being you're interested in, it's what they can offer you to make your own life easier.
How is that not selfish but ending your own suffering is?
You've got a cynical view of things. Fact is, I and grandparent were reassuring sad-throwaway that they are worthy and valued. Your skepticism just throws another negative data point about humanity on the huge pile sad-throwaway has to contend with. Not cool, bro. You chose darkness.
Suicide causes long-term emotional pain for your family and friends.
>this is a throwaway account so that I can talk openly about being depressed and suicidal
Do you want people who don't know you and know hardly anything about your pain to engage in discussion with you? I will, but full disclosure -- it's because I don't want you or anyone to commit suicide.
>Suicide causes long-term emotional pain for your family and friends.
I have been in long-term emotional pain, and likely will be for the rest of my life. Yes, I do not want to cause others to feel pain - but why should I continue to deal with crushing pain just to spare others from pain that will likely pass?
>Do you want people who don't know you and know hardly anything about your pain to engage in discussion with you?
I don't see how that makes a difference.
When I do speak to people in my life, it's not like it's helpful in any way. They just seem worried and concerned. That's touching, sure, but does not actually help.
If anything, people often say to speak to a therapist - someone who doesn't know you.
It's a nerd thing. If I see someone's shoe untied I tell them. If I see someone trying to cut their steak with the dull edge of a knife I tell them to flip it over. If I see someone forgetting that this world is big, and being alive is interesting, I tell them not to commit suicide.
A good therapist probably exists. You should figure out how to find her or him.
[EDIT] Admittedly, the untied shoe and the steak knife are trivial problems that disappear once corrected, while the suffering that leads to ideas of suicide isn't, but it's the same internal motivation for me in all three cases. I'll also add that although this is the main reason I don't want people to commit suicide, there are others. One of these is that people who seriously consider suicide are different thinkers than I am, and a diversity of minds is useful and interesting.
One of the most important things to understand about depression and suicide is that those who are in the middle of it are in an altered state of mind. They are locked into thought patterns that are self-reinforcing and prevent rational understanding. A person who is depressed and suicidal is literally unfit for making such decisions about their life.
When the suicidal thoughts and depressed state abate, it's as if the person is suddenly a different person, of a different mind. Problems that once seemed insurmountable are no longer so. Positive things that seemed irrelevant or invisible before are suddenly there again and meaningful. It doesn't mean that all of one's problems go away or don't matter; it means that life seems livable again--and the only thing that has changed is one's thought patterns.
It's almost like the mind is drunk on despair. And just like a drunk person is unfit to drive a car, a person who is "drunk on despair"--depressed and suicidal--is unfit to "drive" their own life.
If you recognize that you are in a state of mind like this, you must use whatever rational part of your mind that remains to reject all of the thoughts and impulses of the despairing part. Don't give the drunk the keys to the car; he will kill not only himself, but likely harm many others as well. And don't ignore him, because he'll probably get drunk again tomorrow and want the keys again. Go, take him to get help, now, while you can.
There are people whose entire life's work is to help people in need like this. Let them help you.
Because the pain is bearable if you've survived this long. Emotional pain can be controlled in ways physical pain can't. I wouldn't dare delegitimize your feelings, so understand that isn't what is intended when I say that it is all in your head.
>when I do feel very suicidal, I can tell you I don't care what anyone thinks.
That right there, thats antisocial. You aren't considering those around you. Do you have no family? No friends? No coworkers? Nobody? Even people who "truly have nobody" usually have people around them that they aren't appreciating. People who would be devastated, and feel guilty for the rest of their life.
It also is murder of your future self potential. You have absolutely no clue what the future holds, what your interaction with it might be, and in a sense you have no right to take that from your future self. Personally I see this as equivalent to murder. I've been in dark places before, and I am very very very happy that my past self didn't kill present me.
Suicide is a bug in the human program, it must be allowed in order for us to be able to think freely, but it is absolutely never the correct option for anyone that isn't terminally ill and on their deathbed already. (assisted suicide for physical issues with no potential good future makes sense. Suicide for anything else is almost certainly a mistake, an incorrect action)
Please get help, talk to people around you. Look at what causes the pain you feel and think about if you maybe are holding onto assumptions about how the world works that are keeping you from exploring what's good in life. One perspective I've seen is that nobody should be truly suicidal ever, because once you are, you may as well just do anything and everything you can imagine, you're already going to die, so why not during something exciting. Theres an irony in it, since someone suicidal often may not feel they even have doing anything they could imagine as an option, and if they were to actually do such things, they'd likely no longer be suicidal. If you at all can, try to do the things. I don't know what else to say, I've been in a place where I'd say similar things as you do, and looking back it was absolutely wrong. Not that you are bad at all, but you are wrong in the way you are looking at things, and that, at least in part, is causing your pain. The real cause of the pain is something only you know, best of luck dealing with it.
One of the most important things to understand about depression and suicide is that those who are in the middle of it are in an altered state of mind. They are locked into thought patterns that are self-reinforcing and prevent rational understanding. A person who is depressed and suicidal is literally unfit for making such decisions about their life.
When the suicidal thoughts and depressed state abate, it's as if the person is suddenly a different person, of a different mind. Problems that once seemed insurmountable are no longer so. Positive things that seemed irrelevant or invisible before are suddenly there again and meaningful. It doesn't mean that all of one's problems go away or don't matter; it means that life seems livable again--and the only thing that has changed is one's thought patterns.
It's almost like the mind is drunk on despair. And just like a drunk person is unfit to drive a car, a person who is "drunk on despair"--depressed and suicidal--is unfit to "drive" their own life.
If you recognize that you are in a state of mind like this, you must use whatever rational part of your mind that remains to reject all of the thoughts and impulses of the despairing part. Don't give the drunk the keys to the car; he will kill not only himself, but likely harm many others as well. And don't ignore him, because he'll probably get drunk again tomorrow and want the keys again. Go, take him to get help, now, while you can.
There are people whose entire life's work is to help people in need like this. Let them help you.
The problem is that for some people, that 'drunk' state is chronic, never-ending and for all intents and purposes, permanent.
Depression isn't just the low feeling after a bad breakup, or a job loss or some other life hurdle. Sometimes it's a chronic condition that may not ever end because it doesn't have any of those typical 'triggers', it's clinical and relentless.
When you understand that, you'll see why that in telling someone their planned suicide is merely 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem' they look at you with nothing more than contempt.
Because you don't understand what its like. You never will.
Your comment may be an example of what I'm talking about: it's not a rational response to what I said, so you may be inhibited from understanding my comment rationally. Let's look at each part:
> The problem is that for some people, that 'drunk' state is chronic, never-ending and for all intents and purposes, permanent.
There is undoubtedly an element of "talking past each other" here. There are degrees of despair, of depression. There are permanent circumstances and temporary ones. But you have generalized to one extreme while ignoring the other, which isn't right or fair.
There are many people who want to commit suicide and even attempt it due to truly temporary circumstances. It is absolutely true that in such cases, the real problem was the state of mind and not the circumstances. So it's absolutely right to remind such people that they are contemplating "a permanent solution to a temporary problem."
And it's absolutely wrong for you to lump such cases into others, as if they were right to consider or actually commit suicide.
Beyond that, there are many people who live fulfilling, meaningful lives despite debilitating, permanent circumstances. What is the difference between their difficult yet livable lives and those who choose suicide? The difference is state of mind. This does not belittle their suffering--it honors those who carry on despite suffering. Their example edifies us all--if we are willing to see it.
> Depression isn't just the low feeling after a bad breakup, or a job loss or some other life hurdle. Sometimes it's a chronic condition that may not ever end because it doesn't have any of those typical 'triggers', it's clinical and relentless.
> When you understand that, you'll see why that in telling someone their planned suicide is merely 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem' they look at you with nothing more than contempt.
> Because you don't understand what its like. You never will.
That is definitely an irrational response to my comment. You have no idea who I am and what my experiences are. You have created an image of me in your mind and are misdirecting your anger toward it.
I have no idea who you are or what your experiences are; I don't know if you are seeking escape from your own problems, or whether you feel guilt about others' poor choices that you weren't able to prevent.
But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally.
This is not necessarily something to be ashamed of; it's part of the human condition. We all suffer this at times in our lives.
The question now is whether you will remain angry and in denial, or whether you are willing to recognize the problem and seek help to grow. Maybe you are going through the stages of grief, in which case you should recognize that and give yourself time; recognize that what has happened, has happened, and what remains now is to adjust your state of mind and move on.
In any case, what is clear from your comment is that your current state of mind is unfit for interpreting and judging rationally. You absolutely can see circumstances and past events differently in the future, if you will allow yourself.
There are people who make it their life's work to help people in need like this, to solve serious problems, to adapt, to grieve, to grow. This does not promise solutions to all problems, nor permanent ones. But life remains livable and worth living. Let those people help you find a way forward.
I'm trying to interpret your post in the most charitable way possible but the common theme I'm seeing (and I apologise if I'm wrong) in all those paragraphs is
"You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are broken. Live is awesome, accept it."
You are never going to reach anyone suffering from a mental illness with that attitude. You simply will not.
Let's first address the fact that you seem to be addressing me as if I'm the one currently struggling with suicide (I'm not). You're telling me that my opinions on the subject are invalid and dismissable simply for that reason. Not only does that break HN's guidelines, but it's a complete non-sequitur and a poison pill to the debate.
This is why people who actually need help won't listen to you and others like you, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions, because you are not actually interested in listening to them which is what they need most. You want them to stay alive, but beyond that people don't really give the depressive much thought.
I have to wonder how much they just want to stop something they find deeply uncomfortable, not for the sake of the depressed person, but for themselves.
> And it's absolutely wrong for you to lump such cases into others, as if they were right to consider or actually commit suicide.
Nowhere did I say they should definitely commit suicide so I'd appreciate it if you didn't heavily imply that. I simply said that you telling them that their problem is temporary is not going to help as much as you think. Simply pointing out the obvious to these people isn't the profound insight you think it is. They've heard it a million times before and it doesn't help.
And then there are the people for whom the problem is simply not temporary, but chronic.
> But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally.
Again. Awesome way to completely dismiss what I'm saying. Address what I'm saying, not the reasons you have invented in your head for why you think I might be saying them.
And be charitable with your interpretations of what I'm saying. It's an HN guideline.
> That is definitely an irrational response to my comment. You have no idea who I am and what my experiences are. You have created an image of me in your mind and are misdirecting your anger toward it.
When I said 'you' here I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant you as in people who try to reason with depressives in this way by telling them their problems are temporary. Even if that was true (which you acknowledge in some cases it simply isn't) I'm, just telling you that it is a seriously unhelpful and often condescending manner to take with such a person.
> But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally.
You keep attacking me rather than the points I am making. You are really not coming across positively by doing this. It is completely toxic to a debate. It may also come as a surprise to you but people with depression or anxiety or whetever else are still capable of critical thinking and reasoning. They are not psychotic.
In fact the next four paragraphs are more the same dismissive crap without subtance. You've broken at least two of the site guidelines regarding charitable interpretations of another user's posts and addressing the point of their posts instead of shallow dismissals in the form of ad-hominem attacks on their character.
You are only interested in being listened to, not in listening. That there, is the crux of my argument. You suck at reasoning with depressives, and apparently people who disagree with you.
And in spite of me knowing nothing about you or your life, I'm comfortable making the assertion that you know nothing about this subject and have had very little exposure to people who do. You are no more than an armchair psychologist.
That much is clear to me simply because you clearly have not the first idea of how to actually talk to someone with these kinds of issues.
The common theme in your writing is projection and hypocrisy.
> "You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are broken. Live is awesome, accept it."
People are broken. Life is not always awesome. We live, we suffer, we die. Along the way, we cause suffering for others and ourselves. Do you deny this?
Yet, that is not the totality of human existence. We have the capacity for good as well as evil.
What you should accept is that circumstances can be interpreted and handled in many ways; some are productive, some destructive. The choice is yours.
> You are never going to reach anyone suffering from a mental illness with that attitude. You simply will not.
I hate to sound petty, but must I direct you to the post from "sad-throwaway" in which he indicated that I did? Perhaps your beliefs do not encompass the entirety of human experience. [1]
> Let's first address the fact that you seem to be addressing me as if I'm the one currently struggling with suicide (I'm not).
I'm glad you're not suicidal.
I did not say that you were. Unlike you, I did not make such unfounded assumptions. I said that it was a possibility, which, not knowing you, it was.
> You're telling me that my opinions on the subject are invalid and dismissable simply for that reason.
No, I said that your reaction to my comment was objectively irrational, which it was.
> Not only does that break HN's guidelines, but it's a complete non-sequitur and a poison pill to the debate.
Had I taken all the poison pills you have deposited here, I'd be dead many times over.
> This is why people who actually need help won't listen to you and others like you, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions
See #1.
> because you are not actually interested in listening to them which is what they need most
As I said, you have conjured an image of me in your mind. That is irrational. I am not the other people you have dealt with in your life. Stop treating me as if I am. [2]
> You want them to stay alive, but
"Yeah, you want to save their lives, but you don't actually care about them!"
> beyond that people don't really give the depressive much thought. I have to wonder how much they just want to stop something they find deeply uncomfortable, not for the sake of the depressed person, but for themselves.
See #2.
> Nowhere did I say they should definitely commit suicide so I'd appreciate it if you didn't heavily imply that.
I need not imply that; your other comments in these threads have shown that you don't actually object to suicide when you think it's justified. Why you think you're qualified to make such decisions is unknown; regardless, you are not.
> you telling them that their problem is temporary is not going to help as much as you think. Simply pointing out the obvious to these people isn't the profound insight you think it is. They've heard it a million times before and it doesn't help.
See #1.
There are many truths in any circumstance. Depending on one's state of mind, some are more acceptable than others.
So what is your argument? Should there be a decision tree, used to decide which truths to present to which people, depending on their state of mind? Who will make it? You?
Or is your argument that, if I present one of those truths in a case in which you, personally, don't think it will be effective, that it is proof that I don't care about other people and their suffering? Such an argument would be plainly illogical, yet it seems to be what you're getting at.
I suggest you stop wasting time--write your dissertations and journal articles and books, and get yourself on the DSM committee, so your profound insight can start benefiting the mental health community. Or you can keep pontificating on the Internet.
> And then there are the people for whom the problem is simply not temporary, but chronic.
Such profound insight. I have never experienced nor thought of such a thing. Thank you for sharing!
> Again. Awesome way to completely dismiss what I'm saying.
It is awesome, because your reponse to my comment is objectively irrational. It's amazing, actually, because rather than deal with that problem, you double-down on it, accusing me in your next sentence of your own irrational behavior:
> Address what I'm saying, not the reasons you have invented in your head for why you think I might be saying them.
See #2.
> And be charitable with your interpretations of what I'm saying. It's an HN guideline.
Practice your own admonitions.
> When I said 'you' here I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant you as in people who try to reason with depressives in this way by telling them their problems are temporary.
Stop saying "you" when you don't mean me. Stop attacking me for what other people do. See #2.
If you want to address "people" who do something you don't like, go write a blog. Don't respond to me personally complaining about other people's actions.
> Even if that was true (which you acknowledge in some cases it simply isn't) I'm, just telling you that it is a seriously unhelpful and often condescending manner to take with such a person.
More profound insights from you! Thank you so much!
Meanwhile, see #1.
Also, lose the weasel words. "Often condescending" means that it's not always condescending, which means that it can be helpful. See #1.
What is condescending is your attempting to assume a position of authority, presuming to instruct others as to what is and is not universally helpful--in direct contravention of the evidence staring you in the face. See #1.
Open your mind to the possibility that your experiences are not universal, and things that you haven't found helpful may in fact be helpful to others.
> > But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally.
> You keep attacking me rather than the points I am making.
No, I attacked your response, which was irrational. I then drew a conclusion about your state of mind based on your making an irrational response. Your words and yourself are not the same thing.
> You are really not coming across positively by doing this.
Do you mean that you don't like me? Or that I won't get as many upvotes as you unless I talk like you? Thank you for telling me! I'll be sure to adjust my performance for our audience.
> It is completely toxic to a debate.
So we're having a debate? Well then, what is actually toxic to a debate are these things you have done:
1. Ascribing to me thoughts, beliefs, and motivations which I have not exhibited.
2. Attacking me for other people's actions.
3. Doubling-down on those mistakes rather than admitting and correcting them.
4. Refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your assertions.
> In fact the next four paragraphs are more the same dismissive crap without subtance. You've broken at least two of the site guidelines regarding charitable interpretations of another user's posts and addressing the point of their posts instead of shallow dismissals in the form of ad-hominem attacks on their character.
I could also cite you for multiple violations of The Guidelines. I'll settle for admonishing you for the general "charitable interpretation" one, which should cover things like attacking your made-up image of me and blaming me for others' actions. If you stop breaking your rules, then you can complain.
> You are only interested in being listened to, not in listening. That there, is the crux of my argument. You suck at reasoning with depressives, and apparently people who disagree with you.
So you finally admit it: according to you, the crux of your argument is based entirely on your mind-reading me through the Internet. And you think you are an authority on reasoning with people! I rest my case.
By the way, telling me that I suck is definitely against The Guidelines. It's also an ad hominem. I'm only telling you because, apparently, you aren't aware, otherwise you wouldn't have said that, right?
> And in spite of me knowing nothing about you or your life, I'm comfortable making the assertion that you know nothing about this subject and have had very little exposure to people who do.
If this were a debate, why would I need to argue after your saying this? Of what value is an admitted argument from ignorance?
And why would I bother, since it shows that you are not arguing with me, but with your preconceived notions.
By the way, it's not merely an assertion, it's an assumption. See #2.
> That much is clear to me simply because you clearly have not the first idea of how to actually talk to someone with these kinds of issues.
"I favor a different approach, therefore you know nothing and have no experience." Solid argument. Definitely a winning line in this "debate."
If there's any rational part of your intellect available for talking to, that doesn't have a preformulated response ready, please pass this along: Notice a key distinction between us: I have never assumed your experiences or lack thereof. In fact, I have explicitly admitted my ignorance of them. In contrast, I have lost count of the number of times you have accused me of ignorance and assumed my experiences or lack thereof. You are not being rational, nor logical, nor (to the extent relevant) scientific You are simply regurgitating attacks against people who are not myself.
Quite frankly, it's a waste of our time. Either step up to the plate, or go back to the dugout. Standing outside the batter's box, saying, "The pitcher made a face at me," swinging the bat, and circling the bases, doesn't count as a home run.
I think its selfish and unfair to judge other people selfish and unfair just because you want to save yourself the pain of loss.
That said, I do think people have the right to voluntarily end their own existence, but clearly many suicides are a result of temporary mental problems like severe depression, or temporary life problems like crippling debt, job loss or loss of a relationship. These things could have potentially been resolved.
I also think it's totally possible to have just had enough of life as well. It's an unpopular opinion because survival instinct is such a strong force, but I really don't think life is for everybody, and if that person wants to check out they are going to do it whether you like it or not.
A comedian once said;
“Life is like a movie, if you've sat through more than half of it and it’s sucked every second so far, it probably isn't going to get great right at the end and make it all worthwhile. None should blame you for walking out early.”
I tend to agree with that. Not all suicides are the result of mental illness. Some people just want to check out early because they never enjoyed being here, despite not having what outside observers may identify as mental or personal problems.
Some societies glorified suicide, or held it as a way out of dishonour (think the ship's captain locking himself in a room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver, or the Samurai that accepted their own deaths long before they walked on the battlefield).
I think our attitudes towards suicide are partly social (it alarms us to see members of our own species ending their lives, as it doesn't jive well with our world view) and partly cultural/religious (Abrahamic religions treated suicide as a mortal sin) and other cultures may see the act of self-termination differently.
I also don't think its helpful to throw accusations of 'mental illness' around as easily as we seem to. Whether it is a suicide or a mass murder, instantly jumping to mental illness absolves us of the need to understand this uncomfortable aspect of humanity.
It is easier than accepting the cultural and philisophical factors at play, and the realisation that we are all capable of these acts given the right set of circumstances.
Philosophers have long pondered this question. You can find arguments for and against here;
I personally don't think it's likely that any show can be solely responsible for suicides. What seems much more realistic is that the show speaks to a real depression in youth and unfortunately this may have led to "premature" suicide in some (by premature here, I mean that the show may have resulted in a more timely suicide by those who were already suicidal).
It's unfortunate that the show itself is being attacked, rather than this being an opportunity to investigate the root cause.
Do you really think a perfectly healthy and happy individual could watch _any_ show and want to kill themselves thereafter? Of course not.
There's a difference between someone who has suicidal ideation and someone who takes suicidal action, and all the research we have tells us that shows like 13 reasons tip can tip people from the first group into the second group, and that they would not have attempted suicide without the programme.
This is not a controversial viewpoint in suicide research.
It doesn't have to be solely responsible to be reprehensible. Contributing to teen suicide by glamorizing it on television is like glamorizing terrorists (Rolling Stone - Tsarnaev) or school shooters in my mind.
Nobody thinks the show provokes something in ordinary kids who are perfectly healthy & happy. The concern is specifically about giving a nudge to a kid who is on the precipice.
When the show debuted, the National Association of School Psychologists issued a warning statement: "We do not recommend that vulnerable youth, especially those who have any degree of suicidal ideation, watch this series." -- TFA
Throwaway here. Agreed. I wonder if showing young kids who are being bullied videos that promote that the "purpose of life is to get through it without killing yourself" actually serves to implant suicidal ideas into the young child's mind. Reflecting on being suicidal for many decades, I recall distinctly being pulled aside and shown this video as a young child in public school in America.
>They just shouldn't be thinking about stuff like that
Some of them are thinking about stuff like that. Some of them will act on those thoughts. If you don't open the conversation, you can't make a positive intervention.
The evidence clearly suggests that, while irresponsible reporting and fictional depictions of suicide can increase suicide rates, healthy conversations and questions about suicide reduce suicide.
Just an anecdote but at the depths of a bout of depression I had several years ago I decided to watch “the bridge”, a documentary profiling people have committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.
Suicidal ideation absolutely increased for me and I even drove up to a bridge in Spokane just to “think about it.” I thought about jumping for about 10 minutes before I got in my car, drove home, and set up some time to talk to a therapist. I absolutely can see how a movie can push someone over the edge. I was lucky to get home and see my roommate had invited a few friends over...took me out of my thoughts long enough to recognize just how close I had gotten.
wow, thank you for writing that. Must be hard to recall something so personal. I'm sorry to hear about you going through that in any way at all from the beginning. I hope you're doing better now.
Thank you. I’m definitely doing better now :) running my own startup and happy with my dog and partner. Suicidal thoughts and depression are phases you can heal from with therapy, support, and potentially medication. I feel strongly for people who are down—you can get through this!
Thank you for sharing your story - glad to hear you are doing better now. I truly appreciate people who are open about their mental health journey because of how much help and validation it can offer others.
Interesting downvotes, considering that statement is the entire gist of the results of the study, as well as a counterpoint to the parent comment and the reasoning behind the grandparent comment.
While the film's subject matter is certainly intense, I had a positive take-away from it as well, which is that a large percentage of people who experience a failed suicide attempt are glad they failed. This was the logic used to justify constructing suicide prevention barriers on bridges. If you take away the immediate opportunity for people to take their own lives, a few determined people may find another way, but many more will give up their attempt.
Isn't this just (literal) survivorship bias? I'd think that people that want to kill themselves very much would try again until they succeed, leaving only people who did not desire to die as strongly to report on how they felt about their failed attempt.
A failed suicide attempt at the bridge is still a traumatic event that puts you in the hospital. It will take some time before you have the opportunity to try again, and if you succeed, the fact that you failed in your previous attempt will be known to anyone doing a study.
This would be true except that a large percentage of suicides are snap decisions in the moment, not planned out. For example, switching to natural gas from coal gas in the UK ended up dropping suicide rates in general.[0]
I also read another study that looked at two similar bridges about a mile or so away from each other: 1 bridge was popular for suicides, and as such had guards put up. You'd think that those people would have just gone to the other bridge, but suicide rates declined in general. I can't find the source at the moment.
> I'd think that people that want to kill themselves very much would try again until they succeed
No, this is a myth. Clearly there are differences in suicidality. Some people self harm frequently and severely for years before dying. Other people experience "rapid onset despair" and make an attempt.
Recovery is possible for both groups. Most people who attempt suicide do not make another attempt.
(Also, I'm not trying to police your language. Use whatever words you like. But if you're talking to suicide researchers you may want to avoid "sucessful" or "failed" suicide, and use "died by suicide" or "killed themselves" (both for the UK) or "completed suicide" for the US.)
> I had a positive take-away from it as well, which is that a large percentage of people who experience a failed suicide attempt are glad they failed.
I watched the film during a time in my life when I was very depressed. I noticed that the data they used to draw this conclusion was something like a survey of how many people had reattempted suicide. Prevention techniques were considered a success if the person ultimately did not kill themself.
On the flip side, I seem to remember one woman who noted a paradox that sometimes when people are treated and start to feel better, that's when they find the motivation to actually carry out a suicide plan. As I recall she sort of calls into question whether the treatment is actually a good idea if it will lead to that outcome.
What I noticed (and felt quite bitter about at the time) is that everyone seemed to be focused almost entirely on their own goals (avoiding the anguish of their loved one dying) and somewhat oblivious to the goals of their suffering friend or family member (escaping the anguish they likely feel all or most of the time).
The metric for success should be not "did this person ultimately avoid dying" but "did this person find a way to keep living without being in misery?" To show that you need to know more than just whether the person died or not.
> The metric for success should be not "did this person ultimately avoid dying" but "did this person find a way to keep living without being in misery?"
I would agree with your metric for success. You're absolutely correct that the former (by itself) isn't sufficient. My point is that it's hard to accomplish the latter (sp?) without first accomplishing the former.
> On the flip side, I seem to remember one woman who noted a paradox that sometimes when people are treated and start to feel better, that's when they find the motivation to actually carry out a suicide plan.
I'd be interested to see how many people who have contemplated suicide fall into the category you describe, as a percentage of the total group. I'd hope (perhaps a bit optimistically?) that they are in the minority. But I don't have data to make any claims one way or the other.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I hope you're in a better place now.
Glad you pulled yourself out friend. Thank you for the insight. I always hated when kids would say "kill yourself" or similar in high school for this very reason. Hope you're doing well.
Has it? Do we have any reason to believe this is definite? Moreover, do we have any evidence that this behavior didn't exist or existed at a lesser scale 30 years ago? Maybe the GP simply did not see it happening.
Either way it seems like speculation, maybe it should be presented as such instead of stating it as fact?
Insisting on evidence that proves a negative claim is an impossible standard. In the absence of evidence one can assume that a statement is anecdotal, especially when information like location and timeframe are not included.
I don't believe these anecdotes reflect reality, and I don't think they really bring anything of substance to the conversation. It's borderline alarmist at best.
In my experience it's teens being edgy, not meant seriously. But when it's a depressed person hearing it you never know.
Tbf 30 years ago fights seemed common whereas there were very few when I was in school. Seems like physical violence has evolved into verbal because it's harder to trace and punish. (Just a guess)
Interesting that the movie "Heathers" came out 30 years ago this year. It's about exactly this thing. If you didn't experience it 30 years ago, you may have been simply lucky.
The producers, directors, and show runners for this were pure garbage people. They consulted with psychologist before the shows release and were advised about specific things they should not show or do and they ignored them all. Chief among the advice given was that they not explicitly show the suicide. This show is like a wet dream for anyone with suicidal ideation. The main character kills herself and gets to leave behind videos for all the people who were mean to her and they all feel bad regret their actions. It was insane to believe that an incredibly popular show romanticizing suicide wouldn't lead to a spike in teen suicides.
The second season doesn't do it any justice. She starts re-appearing to the main character (Clay) and is able to talk and interact with him. It's supposed to be him imagining her, but it's really sickening how they present it as 'you don't really go away'.
Strange question, but what does the hotline actually do? Supposing you call them with serious suicidal ideation, do they dispatch police? Direct you to a shrink? Just talk?
Under the understanding that suicide is an act of spontaneity and not always highly determined, a hotline gives the amount of time necessary for an acute urge to pass. Depending on the source, it also informs people where and how to get help.
Of course, much of the effects relies on the skill of the folk on the other line. But it is always extremely important to have something, anything, interrupt what is often a compulsion that passes.
This is a tough one. I watched the first season of this show last month and I'm still traumatized. Like not in a "Netflix is bad for producing this" but because it's utterly heartbreaking. If you're of sound mind, I'd encourage you to watch it.
What I find interesting about the show is how polarizing opinions are. I've seen some online comments about how this show is an unrealistic tale of miscommunication, which may well be the most reductive unempathetic thing I've ever read online.
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that those who don't relate to the issues raised have never experienced this loss of social connection (as well as the far darker things that happen as a result in this show).
As for this increasing the likelihood of suicide for those vulnerable to such thoughts, it wouldn't surprise me if that's true. But does that mean it shouldn't be shown? That's a problematic precedent. We have alcoholics. We still sell alcohol. We have gambling addicts but we still have gambling. Which of these is OK and which isn't?
Perhaps we'd be better off if we tackled the issues that create a permissive culture for bullying and ostracism (eg "kids will be kids") that makes life hell for so many kids in the first place?
I watched this show after I listened to all the hype about this and while the study seems like it may be credible, I don't really get it.
They spent the entire first season delving into the mindset of a girl who had committed suicide and everything that led to her making that decision. From bitchy and macho high school popularity, to bullying to rape and then the trivialization of her experience leading up to that decision. It was a show about all of life's very real events that contribute to the thought processes that go on inside the head of someone in this state. I understand the repercussions it may have caused a spike in teen suicide and while I hate to minimize that, it served a far greater purpose which was helping everyone that doesn't suffer from suicidal thoughts understand just what someone with depression battles silently every day.
As someone who does battle depression every day, I can assure you, this topic needs to be brought to the forefront of people's understanding. It's still a common mentality that depression isn't a thing, that it's just people whining about not being able to deal with life. People need to know how to read the signs that are routinely missed, misunderstood, trivialized and invalidated in the most mentally devastating manner that lead to suicidal thoughts.
I'm sad that there seemed to be a teen suicide spike, I'm sad that people chose to look at this show as an ideation of teen suicide, but it was a very real treatise on what it is to go through depression and suicidal thoughts and it's a topic that needs to be discussed openly instead of being swept under the carpet and ignored, belittled and stigmatized.
I applaud the show for the ground they broke. It needed to be.
The things you're discussing are very important and certainly one of the reasons The Bell Jar first hit me like a ton of bricks when I was young but this show's problem is it frames suicide as a way to 'get back at' the people who hurt you. It's a harmful revenge fantasy.
While I can see your point, usually people considering suicide aren't looking for a way to get revenge or get back at anyone. They're suffering and can't see any way out. Like people who cut, or turn to drugs or alcohol to numb the pain they can't deal with, suicide ends it, once and for all.
As they say though, it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Oluo literally cites a study that suggests that, contra your confidence, revenge absolutely can be a factor:
"A strong relational theme that the participants described explicitly was revenge. Several adolescents explained the aggressiveness of their act as a way to make other people feel guilty for their deaths and made the vindictive intent of the attempted suicide very plain"
most of the criticism i've heard about 13 reasons why is less that it portrays a 'taboo subject,' but rather that it does so in a way that glamorizes suicide.
from some perspectives, hannah got everything she wanted by killing herself. she got attention to her case and revenge on the people who mistreated her - and the show portrays that she wouldn't be able to achieve that if she hadn't committed suicide.
not everyone sees the series that way, of course. but for a certain subset of people - often young people who are bullied and neglected, who feel victimized by the world but helpless about it - it's very easy to interpret the series into 'suicide is how i win.'
I see it as less about how I win than here's how I get people to realize the effect their behaviour had on me to a point that I considered that suicide was the only viable to way to end a suffering I can't see any other way out of.
these kindsa shows glamorizing the effects are ignoring one crucial fact - when the person affected dies, it becomes 10 times easier for everyone to ignore/avoid the issues that led to her death. sure some people may reform/chase the issues but those are statistical outliers.
there is also the "they were mentally unstable and any testimony they provided posthumously is suspect" which lawyers can and will use
The other issue is that the kind of people that bully someone to the point that suicide is the only way out often lack the empathy and self-reflection to understand that they were the cause of the problem.
The way they called this out in the show could be interpreted as vengeful, but is there any other way they could have addressed this angle?
The jock football captain raped her and then showed such little remorse, not only brushing it off as nothing, but that because of who he was, she obviously was "gagging for him" (to coin a British phrase.) He thought of it as having done her a favour by gracing her with his attention. Is there any other way to demonstrate what effect that had on her mental state to someone with such narcissistic tendencies than to choose a tactic like this to make him hear her and understand the effect he had on her? He clearly lacked empathy and had little if any ability, or want to self reflect. If she'd still been alive, he probably never would have listened to the tape. He'd have scoffed at her and belittled her and would never have given his behaviour a second thought. He only listened to the tapes because he was backed into a corner where he needed to know what was said so he could get in front of it and keep himself out of trouble. He needed to keep himself in everyone else's good graces because the image he needed to uphold to maintain his place in society was more important to him than his integrity.
Sure, she was mentally unstable... but why was she mentally unstable? The eloquence demonstrated on the tapes were evidence that the torment of her life was the cause of this instability. Any sufficiently skilled lawyer would've been able to argue that point from the tapes alone.
I wouldn't take ranting on cassette tapes and then offing yourself as a sign of mental stability(and i would be more likely to be selected for a jury as a result). The average judge wouldn't even bother listening to the tapes and would ask for a transcript and MAYBE listen to one or two tapes for emotional context(good luck if those were the most incoherent tapes).
Also you are SEVERELY over-estimating how much empathy the average society has for dead people. sure it's shocking but the human mind bounces back REALLY quickly. if it didn't then every school shooting would paralyze the state/country it happened in for years(and clearly it doesn't). it took the world only a decade to forget the atrocities of the world war. 9/11 is a joke to most people now and mostly written off as a one-off.
You don't effect change by taking your ball and going home
As humans, we are really good at clinging onto things that support what we want to believe and forgetting about the things that oppose our beliefs. You see this today: if someone you know does something bad, you are very likely to say "that's just one thing, overall they're a good person". It's the same with religion and politics, you have to have a very open mind to accept new information that may change your beliefs, often it's easier to just let the information slip in one ear and out the other and continue with your daily life.
Someone already thinking about suicide or depression might watch the show (first season, maybe the second as well) and see that suicide is a viable option, and the potential benefits you get for executing it (leaving your mark on the world, leaving behind your story, etc).
Someone depressed, but -not- thinking about self-harm will see how accurate it is and will be able to identify with it, as with you and a few friends I know that have watched it. I had no idea these friends I've had for years were depressed until they watched the show, so it did bring positive change to their lives.
I watched the show and I didn't get it. I mean, she wasn't around to see the effects, so what was the point? I mean, she did all this for revenge. But she's gone, so ... ?
Not trying to be insensitive, I just plain don't understand why she thought suicide was the solution for her problems.
> It was a show about all of life's very real events that contribute to the thought processes that go on inside the head of someone in this state.
But no, it's fiction. It's not real, and it's not based on reality. We don't get any actual insight into what goes on in the head of of young person who is suicidal or who dies by suicide. We get what some author and show-runner think might be going on in that person's head.
Which is still much better than none at all. It's another perspective, which as fictitious as you make it, is still different than what most people think right now and push them further toward trying to understands depression.
I have a feeling that it's more than what "they think might be going on" and contains actual research toward how a suicidal people think, but I have no source for it.
The article states "Researchers warn that their study could not prove causation.".
What about Romeo and Juliet? What about the Bible ( Jesus )? What about Socrates? Our cultural icons committed suicide. And if this show was funded Disney or NBC rather than Netflix, would we even have this study?
The 10-19 population in the US is about 42 million. And there was suicide increase of 195. Even if the study was true and all 195 committed suicide because of the show, should we stop the 42 million who didn't commit suicide from watching it?
I'm so disappointed at the comments here. Every single time, it seems like it's the "won't you think of the children" nanny state crowd supporting censorship. It's strange that art is being attacked and free expression.
Which is odd since the same people denouncing this show here are the same ones who attacked the study linking shows with transgender themes and increase in transgender association ( especially amongst young girls ).
So we do simply block everything anyone can say is bad for a small segment of the population?
Even more, do we stop the news from talking about it because doesn't the media coverage of suicide also increase suicides? Should media be banned from coverage suicide of celebrities? How much of the increase in suicide was a result of media coverage over the show?
Once again, is it because the demographics skews so old here? I just can't understand the shortsighted support for censorship here. How can someone be on "hacker" news and have a "nanny state" mindset.
> Even more, do we stop the news from talking about it because doesn't the media coverage of suicide also increase suicides?
Responsible media already is careful about how they discuss suicide for exactly this reason.
One of the major problems with the series is that the people behind it did not understand the area they were venturing into. They thought that creating a topic for discussion was helpful. They were wrong, and by what I read, could not understand why. They did not listen to experts in the area for how to do that responsibly.
I think most of the comments are saying that the show’s producers should have self-censored since the show was targeted to the same people who could be driven to suicidal ideation by it. They’re not talking about banning the speech, they’re holding the creators responsible for the effects of the speech.
The law gives you the freedom to promote racism for example, but just because it’s legal doesn’t free you from responsibility. People are still going to condemn you and that doesn’t necessarily mean they think what you did should be illegal.
You keep using the word "banned", but people who work in suicide prevention aren't calling for bans on all coverage of suicide. They're calling for responsible coverage.
I think people are suggesting only that if you make media about suicide, you need to be thoughtful about how you market it and present it, if you care about not triggering suicides.
> What about Romeo and Juliet? What about the Bible ( Jesus )? What about Socrates? Our cultural icons committed suicide.
Jesus didn't commit suicide; sacrificing yourself for others is quite different from deciding you don't want to live anymore.
As to your other two examples, what of them? Maybe reading Romeo and Juliet is an unhealthy thing for depressed people to do. Has anybody studied that? "[New thing] can't be bad because [old thing like it] exists" isn't an argument.
It's also possible that watching a movie that's entirely about suicide, with dramatic music and visuals, has more of an emotional effect than reading a play that includes suicide.
> So we do simply block everything anyone can say is bad for a small segment of the population?
I wouldn't say "let's use the law to censor this". But I wouldn't celebrate, promote, or support it, either.
Jesus, arguably, could have chosen not to die for humanits sins or whatever. If his choice to die for our sins was indeed a choice, is it not noble suicide? Or is it meaningless other than his suvvering because he is immortal as well?
Socrates chose to stick to 'the truth' and be found guilty rather than argue his way out disingenously. Another arguably suicidal martyrs death.
Is suicide by cop suicide might be the better question in both cases.
By that measure, anyone considered a martyr could also be considered to have committed suicide.
Jesus presumably knew the outcome of his time on earth ahead of time. He was well aware of the approximate time he'd be killed. Evidence from the Bible clearly shows Jesus had superhuman powers and so it's likely he could have at least escaped his executioners.
And yet he chose the path that lead to death. Is that suicide?
For that matter, did Jesus have a choice? God commanded Abraham to kill his own son. Did Abraham's son have any choice in the matter? If not, why do we assume Jesus had free agency?
The breakdowns by age and gender make me suspicious of p-hacking. It seems this journal does not require pre-registration of studies so it's hard to know if the study was pre-registered. It very likely was not.
Note that the only statistically significant finding was for boys, ages 10-17. No other category had a significant increase. That sounds like a negative result across most dimensions of analysis to me.
>There was a 28.9% increase in suicide among Americans ages 10-17
>The study found that boys were far more likely than girls to kill themselves after the show debuted. Suicide rates for females did increase, but it was not statistically significant
This is an enormous effect size. What exactly is the supposed method of action here? So only boys, who watch netflix, only ages 10-17, who decided to watch a show about a girl committing suicide (teen boys do not usually watch female-led dark serial dramas), account for the majority of the 30% increase in suicide across their entire age group?
>The spokesperson noted that the study conflicts with research published last week out of the University of Pennsylvania. That study found that young adults, ages 18-29, who watched the entire second season of the show "reported declines in suicide ideation
Now we have two seemingly "significant" studies with opposite conclusions. It beggars belief (if either of them are even representative of a real life causative factor at all).
Girls, older teens, and adults are completely immune from this effect. What possible method of action would affect such a specific demographic so disproportionately, with absolutely no spillover to any other demographic? How can it be that teenage girls, who watch more dramas and presumably empathize with a female lead more, show absolutely no effect? Or could it be that the researchers had an expected result, broke down the data until they found a dimension that had a large enough increase by chance, and submitted it to a journal full of peer reviewers who would find the result plausible and prestigious to their field?
>How can it be that teenage girls, who watch more dramas and presumably empathize with a female lead more, show absolutely no effect?
In general women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are much more likely to succeed because of the methods they tend to choose. The data for attempted suicides is much less granular and reliable than the data for successful suicides.
I don't see how an age group of 10-17 which is at a much more formative time in their lives with some not having fully developed brains points to p-hacking. Gender difference is interesting but doesn't mean p-hacking because the reasoning for it is non-obvious.
It's also possible that the 10-17 audience of 13 Reasons Why was significantly more male, but Netflix does not release that data. But there are plenty of plausible reasons for the gender divide.
> Now we have two seemingly "significant" studies with opposite conclusions
But not conflicting results. There's nothing that says one age group, with vastly more life experience, would be affected less or even differently than another with significantly less life experience.
> Or could it be that the researchers had an expected result, broke down the data until they found a dimension that had a large enough increase by chance, and submitted it to a journal full of peer reviewers who would find the result plausible and prestigious to their field?
A result in either direction would have been interesting for the field, so I don't think this is the motivation. The positive does get a bit more media attention, but I think this view is overly skeptical.
The paper's own discussion section explicitly acknowledges potential weaknesses:
This study has several important limitations. First, the quasi-experimental design of our
study limits our ability to draw any causal conclusions between the release of 13 Reasons Why
and increased suicide rates in young people in the U.S. Nevertheless, the time series and
forecasting approaches employed in this study allow us to make credible inferences about this
association. The initial increase in youth suicide rates in the month immediately following the
series release is concordant with a prior report showing a spike in Internet searches about
suicide in the month following release,46 and a small single-hospital study showing an increase
in suicide attempt admissions after the series’ premiere. Second, we were unable to assess
whether the observed increase in youth suicide rates was attributable to the portrayal of suicide
in the series, a lack of adherence to media guidelines (e.g., failure to provide national suicide
prevention resources until later months), or other factors. The observation that the series was
first released on March 31, 2017 and suicide rates increased that month also raises questions
about effects of pre-release media promotion of the series premiere. Third, we did not examine
the impact of 13 Reasons Why on specific methods of suicide (e.g., suicide by cutting) due to
small cell sizes, which would result in unstable estimates. Fourth, there may have been other
events or unmeasured factors that occurred during the study period that might be associated
with increased suicide rates. Fifth, our study may have lacked sufficient statistical power to
detect a significant association in 10- to 17-year-old girls. Finally, as with most studies looking at
possible contagion, we have little understanding of “dose” or context, including who specifically
watched the series, when they watched, whether they binge-watched, if it was further discussed
in peer-groups, how secondary discussions may have influenced vulnerable individuals, and
whether the subsequent focus on suicide prevention may have actually mitigated some of the
pronounced contagion effects.
"Second, we were unable to assess whether the observed increase in youth suicide rates was attributable to the portrayal of suicide in the series."
This is so intellectually dishonest. It feels like a Motte and Bailey[0] argument. Scientists go around parading a correlation as causation. The title of the paper implies causality. They speculate idly about the causation in public. They make no effort to correct media sources suggesting a cause. And then, when challenged, they fall back on "well, nobody can establish causation here..."
I'm not even sure there's a correlation, let alone causation!
Let's look at the statistics (the newest from the US government are 2017). Around 79% of suicides are men. That edges up to around 82% in the 14-25 age group and down to 75% in the 10-14 age group (though the rate there is much lower).
Suicide is the second biggest cause of death in the 15-24 age group. Furthermore, there is a youth suicide epidemic with the rate for the 15-24 age group going from 9.7 in 2007 up to 14.46 in 2017 (per 100K with most of that jump occurring in just the last 4 years). That's an almost 50% increase over the past decade generally speaking. Between 2016 and 2017 there's an abrupt jump of 1.3 per 100K.
Most interesting to the study in question is the 10-14 age group. despite rises in other rates, their rate is basically unchanged until the year that show was released. At that point, we see a doubling of the suicide rate (from 0.73 to 1.34) for the 10-14 age from 2016 to 2017. That is definitely statistically significant.
Suicide Contagion is a rather well-known effect. Furthermore, it is known that adolescents and young adults are particularly susceptible to this effect.
Season 1 and 2 are very different (also reflected in their critic ratings). The first season has been out much longer than the second, so statistics there are probably more accurate. It may also be true that those who dealt with the first season and moved on to the second were less at risk to begin with. In addition, the show is about a bunch of high-school kids, so I'd guess they would find it more attractive than most dramas while lots of older people would find it less appealing.
TL;DR: Males are generally the ones committing suicide. The show targets the age groups in question. Those age groups saw a big jump in suicide rates the year the show came out (including a group that had previously been all but unaffected by other changes). This all seems inline with the study in question.
Young women are the group that has lowest risk for death by suicide, although much higher risk for self harm.
Young people in general have lower risk of death by suicide, and any increase in this age group is worrying.
These are mostly preventable deaths. The reward - a not very good tv show - doesn't in my mind justify the risk - more young people dying preventable deaths.
Thank you for taking the time to write this comment; it's a good example of the kind of critical thinking that everyone should apply to research reports.
“In the month following the show's debut in March 2017, there was a 28.9% increase in suicide among Americans ages 10-17, said the study, published Monday in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The number of suicides was greater than that seen in any single month over the five-year period researchers examined”
"Are you okay? Is something wrong? Can I help you? Those are the words I desperately wanted to hear right before I catapulted myself over the rail." — Kevin Hines, survived jumping from the GGB almost twenty years ago.
Is there liability in this situation? It seems to me that a group of parents whose children (1) watched the show and (2) then attempted suicide have a case.
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you ought not be allowed to yell: "suicide is a legitimate way to get revenge" to a group of at-risk children.
I certainly hope someone going to jail or for that matter being successfully sued depends upon more than a study which at best shows that suicide rates among one age range of one gender happened to increase around the same time a movie was released but by its own admission demonstrates no casual causation between the two.
Mentally healthy people in good situations don't suddenly commit suicide because of a TV show. Hormonal imbalances, school bullies, unsympathetic parents, pessimism on the news and other media, unrealistic expectations for yourself (because of the aforementioned people and media), and an endless list of other factors can drive a person to the edge. The show shouldn't shoulder all the liability for breaking a taboo and talking about it.
I genuinely don't understand downvotes for this. The TV show glorifies suicide, which is a known risk factor, especially for children. This is legitimately dangerous.
I find this data peculiar. It's not like we see spikes of murders after horror movies get released or anything like that. All forms of violent crime have been on the decline for decades virtually without exception. And even shows that one might think "glorify crime" like Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, The Sopranos, etc. don't elicit this kind of copycat activity.
I wonder what it is about suicidal content that affects people so uniquely.
There are probably always a significant number of people suffering with depression who are already close to committing suicide and it's easy to nudge them over the edge (unfortunate choice of words, but I can't think of another way to phrase it), and I don't think the same is true about people who plan on committing murder. There's usually a specific reason why people commit murder, whereas depression usually happens over time and can't be blamed on a single happening.
I've seen numerous highly questionable shows promoted on Netflix.
Tinfoil hat thought: if they optimize for programming that reinforces negative, antisocial emotions and behaviors, then they'll motivate their audience to be ever more antisocial and ever more Netflix binging.
"Let's A/B test everything to see what leads to higher rates of binge watching"
rather than a specific set of OTHER behaviors.
Plus, given how a show can become a hit just based on "Hey, did you see this totally awesome new show??" style recommendations I would imagine there is a sweetspot of Netflix wanting you to watch the show but then talk to your friends about it. In other words, you need to have friends to be able to hype their show.
Yes, they've shown the negative tweets and Facebook posts generate a high level of engagement. I think the same reasoning applies to Netflix.
It's like the tech industry is run by frat boys trying to 'neg' the general population, like a dysfunctional relationship where the boyfriend tells the girlfriend she's ugly and fat so she won't leave him.
If a company intentionally creates a show that triggers effects known to cause death in viewers, are they legally responsible for murdering their customers?
Yes, I'd say if there were clear connections to triggering very harmful behavior in people, you created the painting with full knowledge of its implications, and there is no other compelling reason to create the painting besides the triggering effect, then you should be held responsible.
What makes pictures special that absolutely everything should be allowed? Clearly some material has very harmful effects on people, and should be handled appropriately.
Given that putting aspirin pills in blister packs vs bottles has a measurable impact on suicides [0], it does not surprise me at all that show about suicide would raise the rate amongst teens.
The bad takeway from this is that there are producers etc who will exploit this kind of thing.
The good takeway is that even small "nudges" in the right direction can accumulate and lead to larger changes.
I think of the latter everytime I'm faced with a large cultural or organizational change that seems daunting.
The show never had any legitimately well-argued message about suicide prevention so this is unsurprising. It mainly relied on shock factor in an “edgy way.
This stands under my general concern that tech companies are neither cognizant of nor culpable for the impact they have on society.
reply