Reasons for suicide: “I am alone” “I am a burden” “I am not afraid to die”

A long but interesting article on why the rate of suicide is increasing all over the world. My friend who is a psychiatrist called it “well written, with some really good insights”, so I assume that the points made in the article are worth keeping in mind.

Here are some of the more intriguing points:

Throughout the developed world, for example, self-harm is now the leading cause of death for people 15 to 49, surpassing all cancers and heart disease.

and

In 2010 worldwide deaths from suicide outnumbered deaths from war (17,670), natural disasters (196,018), and murder (456,268)

and

And this assumes we can even rely on the official data. Many researchers believe it’s a dramatic undercount, a function of fewer autopsies and more deaths by poison and pills, where intention is hard to detect.

And none of this is easy to explain:

If four out of five suicide attempts are by women, why are four out of five suicides by men? If big cities and beautiful architecture are magnets for suicide, why are natural wonders and public parks as well? Prostitutes, athletes, and bulimics have an above-average risk for suicide, but what else do they have in common? Why are African-American people relatively safe? And twins?

So Thomas Joiner is now trying to come up with a theory of suicide, which attempts to explain why people commit suicide. According to him, people will die by suicide when they have a desire for suicide and the ability to kill themselves. And the desire to die comes from loneliness (“I am alone”) and a perceived burdensomeness (“I am a burden”).

He calls the first “low belonging,” and it’s the most intuitive idea in his formula. Joiner argues that “the desire to die” begins with loneliness, a thwarted need for inclusion and connection. That explains why suicide rates rise by a third on the continuum from married to never been married. It also accords with the fact that divorced people suffer the greatest suicide risk, while twins have reduced risk and mothers of small children have close to the lowest risk. A mother of six has six times the protection of her childless counterpart, according to one study. She may die of work and worry, but not of self-harm.

And if you think that having lots of friends on Facebook helps, think again:

But Facebook doesn’t help. “The greater the proportion of online interactions, the lonelier you are,” John Cacioppo, a professor at the University of Chicago and the world’s foremost expert on loneliness, told Marche. The opposite is also true: more face time, less loneliness.

The other condition for the desire to die is the feeling that you are a burden on your friends/family/others.

This explains why suicides rise with unemployment, and also with the number of days a person has been on bed rest. Just the experience of needing and receiving help from friends—rather than doing for oneself and others—can make a person pine for death. We’re a gregarious species, but also a gallant one, so fond of playing the savior that we’d rather die than switch roles with the saved. In this way suicide isn’t the ultimate act of selfishness or a bid for revenge, two of the more common cultural barbs. It’s closer to mistaken heroism.

The third condition is less intuitive. The “ability to kill yourself” really has to do with the fact that it’s hard to kill yourself. Joiner calls this condition “fearlessness.”

In this way, suicide isn’t about cowardice. It’s not painless or easy, like pulling the fire alarm to get out of math class. It takes “a kind of courage,” says Joiner, “a fearless endurance” that’s not laudable, but certainly not weak or impulsive. On the contrary, he says, suicide takes a slow habituation to pain, a numbness to violence. He points to that heightened suicide risk shared by athletes, doctors, prostitutes, and bulimics, among others—anybody with a history of tamping down the body’s instinct to scream, which goes a long way to unlocking the riddle of military suicides.

For the population at large, it might seem mildly reassuring at first. After all, most of us don’t fall into these categories. But Joiner believes there may be a side door to fearlessness: exposure to violence in media. Remember this debate? Well, it’s basically over. “The strength of the association between media violence and aggressive behavior,” the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2009, “is greater than the association between calcium intake and bone mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, and condom nonuse and sexually acquired HIV infection, and is nearly as strong as the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.”

So, here is my non-expert (possibly flawed(?)) conclusion: what could help with reducing suicidal tendencies and depression? Try to have more friends/family – the kind you meet in person regularly. This will not help when you’re already depressed; so you need to start now. And help other people – the more you help others, the more you’re helping yourself. And try to stay away from violence and pain in media and in real life.

Read the full article. (You can skim over the early parts which are focused on proving that the incidence of suicide is increasing, and go to the more interesting parts later on which give Thomas Joiner’s theory of why people commit suicide.)

Note: In the comments, Sandeep Gautam points out that Joiner’s theory seems to be more targeted towards developed nations, and does not account for the extreme financial hardships in developing countries which can drive people to suicide. He has a bunch of other interesting points to make. Read the full comment below.

And, by the way, if you’re in India and feeling emotionally distressed, or suicidal, and can’t think of anyone to share this with, call the Connecting India helpline at +91 9922001122, or 18002094353 (Toll-free). Or if you know someone else who is in this situation, give them this information. See Connecting India website for more details.

If Kapil Sibal is Such an Idiot, How Come You’re not the Prime Minister?

Kapil Sibal
Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr

It is so common to hear people going on and on and on about how somebody famous and/or powerful is a complete idiot for doing something. They don’t understand how someone can be so totally bone-headed.

If you find yourself ever thinking like this (and I think this happens to all of us once in a while), stop and consider this question:

If that guy is such an idiot, and you can clearly see his faults, how come you are poor and unknown and that person is rich and famous?

In other words, the people who are in charge did not get there by being idiots, so if they are doing something that seems idiotic to you, which is more likely: that they are being idiots, or that you don’t have all the data, you are not seeing all the angles that they can see, and hence you are making mistaken assumptions based on an incomplete understanding of the situation?

Take, for example, the case of Kapil Sibal asking Google, Facebook, and co. to actively screen and filter all content before it is uploaded on their sites. Yes, on the face of it, it does seem rather an idiotic thing to say. However, my dear reader, I am willing to bet that Kapil Sibal is much smarter than you and me combined. He is a lawyer, he was the Solicitor-General of India, he had cleared the IAS exam (which is ridiculously difficult), and he has beaten Kyuki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi in an election. So the best you and I can say is that we don’t really understand why Kapil Sibal is making such statements. There could be any number of reasons that you’ll never know. Maybe this is a move designed to win over rural voters. Maybe this is just a public stunt to soften up Google, Facebook for a backroom deal later on at terms very favorable to the Congress party. Maybe this is a way to make sure that Google, Facebook are very co-operative and pliable when police (or other government bodies) approach them with requests for private data. Maybe he is the unlucky one who got picked by Sonia to make ridiculous statements to divert media attention away from the FDI issue. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Specifically, if you don’t understand Kapil Sibal’s motivations, you can’t really call him stupid.

Update 1: Do I agree with Kapil Sibal? Of course not. Pre-screen is neither possible, nor desirable. But I’m willing to bet that Kapil Sibal already knew both those things. My point is, saying we should oppose this is not the same as saying Kapil Sibal is an idiot

Update 2: Some people are interpreting my argument as “If you are not rich or famous, you shouldn’t air your opinion.” I’m definitely not saying that. All I am saying is that if your opinion is predicated on the fact that someone rich/famous is an idiot, then you really haven’t understood the situation, and should probably spend some more time thinking about the situation.  Feel free to express your opinion, and disagree. Feel free to even call that person an idiot. But if you actually think that person is an idiot, you are deluded.

Update 3: This article is not really about Kapil Sibal. The issue is broader. There are lots of people who keep saying/thinking that CEOs/VPs of large companies are idiots, or top actors/actresses are idiots, and talentless. SibalGate was a lucky coincidence which gave me a very current example to hang my argument on, but my argument is more general.

For example, consider all those who think Rakhi Sawant is a talentless idiot. Really?! Her job is to be in the news, be controversial, and keep getting paid to appear on TV and in movies. And she is doing her job far better than most of us are doing our own jobs. How then is she a talentless idiot? She is very smart, and does have lots of talent (in PR and marketing) – just not the talent you were looking for (acting). (By the way, I stole this argument from Scott Adams.)

What I’m talking about can more generally be stated as: “If everyone else is such an idiot, how come you’re not rich?”. This is a also known as the “Fallacy of Chesterton’s Fence.”.

This argument was long ago presented by G.K. Chesterton as follows:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

So next time you think the world is being run by idiots, stop and think a little more…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Can a rainbow last forever?

Yesterday, I had a late-night, deep discussion with a friend of what is happiness, and she shared this poem that she had written over 10 years ago:

If I close
my eyes
i can see

As a child
prancing
to school

Dangling
onto
Pappa’s hand

The swaying palms
the washed out blue
Of an empty sky

I remember the joy
of rain bubbles
going `plink’

Delighting for hours
in rainbows
in the oil slick

But that was
aeons ago
And today, i’m wiser

I think I know
these little joys
are impermanent

I seek important
`big’ reasons
to be happy

Reasons
less ephemeral
than rain bubbles

Reasons
less elusive than
the smell of new earth

I continue in
my quest for
a permanent rainbow

My very own
that nothing, no one
can take away from me

But then why …

Do little nothings
of long ago
still gladden my heart

While I have
no memories
of yesterday or day before ?

In my search
for `meaningful’ joy
am I forgetting

To conceive today
the smiles
for tomorrow ?

Does happiness
know
the difference

Between
rainbows in oilslick
and rainbows in the sky ?

– deePa