Why Men Kill themselves

[nonsequitur]

I heard this on the mosaic podcast while at work; was very thought-provoking. For those who listen to podcasts, I highly recommend it, there's some really good stuff on neuroscience/psychology.

Specifically with regards to suicide, I do believe that social perfectionism is a factor, especially with East Asians where it's not even what you think others expect of you - others will come right out and tell you their (often unreasonable) expectations of you. In work cultures like Japan and Korea where women are taught to make coffee, work the photocopier, look pretty and quit to take care of the family when they get married, all of the financial pressure falls on the shoulders of the men. Women equally have social pressure but by and large the men take the brunt of it - and it's a shaming culture where any failure is seen as a familial/personal quality.

This extends not just to adults, the suicide rates of male kids in schools in particular are really high. In a highly meritocratic environment where grades are seen as the only road to social acceptance/success, failure to enter a "good" school or failing an exam is a very big deal. Here, we often get reports of kids in primary/secondary schools jumping off a block of flats after national exam results are released. I went to an all-girls' elite private school and every single year I know of at least 1 classmate who committed suicide or attempted it, though it was hushed up. Most of them were popular, prefects with good grades. Social perfectionism was definitely a factor there.

On the flip side, those who can't/won't deal with this pressure often retreat in the other direction and become shut-ins. I do believe that the Hikikomori phenomenon is a different response to the same pressure, and have a male cousin, an only son who has refused to interact with the world outside of his immediate family for the last 12 years (he is now 31 years old). This is also a lot more prevalent among males, particularly only/eldest sons who in Asian cultures are expected to be the head of the family and highly successful.. Hearing the judgments that people like my father pass on my cousin, I don't blame him at all for wanting to avoid the world.

 

[Masokissed]

TL;DR

They're sad.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Why is death rate rising for white, middle-aged Americans? - BBC News

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...hite-middle-age-suicide-in-america-skyrockets

The true cause is hopelessness, but for many this appears to be aggravated by economic hardship

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

It's not just men. It's white men. I think that distinction is important and has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Also the epidemic is greater than just Suicide. Drug abuse and alcoholism not to mention depression that while debilitating doesn't lead to suicide also plague this troubled subset of the population.

I think it has to do with relative change. When you are accustomed to a particular way things are and they change suddenly/drastically it is much more likely to cause sadness, anger, etc with a negative change than if the way things are is constant even at a low level. This is part of why it is difficult to get people to adopt political change or other forms of change unless the level hits a low state (like starvation).

 

[Lark]

Did a lot of people change their usernames lately or did we get in influx of new members or a lot of old member accounts reactivating because I dont recongise the lion's share of people posting at the minute.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Did a lot of people change their usernames lately or did we get in influx of new members or a lot of old member accounts reactivating because I dont recongise the lion's share of people posting at the minute.

I've felt that way for years.

 

[metasapiens]

Lack of self-awareness.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Because the order of the white feather shamed them.

Just kidding

 

[Pionart]

Why do PEOPLE kill themselves.

We have IMMEDIATE purpose and HIGHER purpose which is CONCRETE and ABSTRACT

So we are kept alive because a) it feels good to be alive, and/or b) by going as we are we are moving towards a higher good

So, just cut out a) and b)

If a) life feels shit, AND b) you are not, nor will you ever, make any significant progress towards a higher goal

then

 

[Coriolis]

I see a couple of reasons for this. If there is a lot of truth to biological determinism (even if it is balanced out by socialogical determinism), this is seen as morally reprehensible by those of the unconstrained vision. It smacks of sexism, of racism, of all the evils that have been perpetrated in the name of some people being innately "better" than another. It makes true equality impossible, therefore it has to be false: the only alternative is to abandon one's belief system ... or move the goal posts of the arguments to a comfortable place where the matter is serious doubt.

Similarly on the constrained vision side, the notion that society forms the kind of person you are is what is reprehensible. Constraint of behavior is OK: one might think bad thoughts but not act on them. But if the unconstrained vision is true, then those bad thoughts are not OK, and we run into the problem of hate crimes and thought police.

The real truth is mixed, in my opinion. Some things are innate, and others are not. We need a constrained vision with checks and balances because people will be assholes without it. Proof? The internet. But the unconstrained vision isn't entirely wrong, either. Society does shape the kind of people we are, and this is evident over and over again, from country to country, from culture to culture. The question in any given instance is which vision is applicable.

Which vision is applicable with respect to gender? That's still too broad: some aspects are social, some are innate. I've some opinions on the matter, that I've stated elsewhere. I think that there are innate feelings and reactions that are mostly hard-wired, the same way you can't completely tame a tiger cub or a zebra, but - society can to a degree put a check on what is acceptable behavior or not. I think where the unconstrained vision starts going bad is at the point where it becomes more concerned with thought crimes than with actual behavior. Those objectionable thoughts a reflect very important and natural drives to reproduce that simply do not go away.

Where to start? I watched this awhile ago when you recommended it before. I will reserve my broader comments for that discussion. Here I will say only that it is a bit of a force-fit to the present discussion. First, the two visions in the video reference human nature as a whole, which is how it should be taken given we are all one species. Second, you are ascribing moral arguments to people which they have not made. Third, those arguments can be supported by either vision. For instance, even if one accepts that the majority of apparent gender characteristics are innate, there is such a broad spectrum represented across both sexes that there will be significant crossover. It is therefore morally wrong to place restrictions based on sex/gender, because that is unfair to those individuals who are not close to the mean in attributes. It would become a bit like the argument for gay rights, since we know sexual preference is hardwired, and still consider it morally right to protect the rights of that minority (or at least most of us do).

Bottom line: it isn't that hard to separate the factual discussion from the moral one. In fact, it is essential if the moral discussion is to be based on reality and not wishful thinking. In that spirit, we must be cautious in constraining the actions of others - or making assumptions about them - when supporting evidence is scarce and often flimsy.

As for thought crimes, I agree that penalizing thoughts goes too far. Many people do have thoughts that are harmful, but it is neither effective nor even feasible to police thoughts. The best we can do is impose standards for behavior, but that can come to influence thoughts, eventually.

 

[uumlau]

Where to start? I watched this awhile ago when you recommended it before. I will reserve my broader comments for that discussion. Here I will say only that it is a bit of a force-fit to the present discussion.

There's a whole book. The video you are likely referencing just covers the topic broadly.

First, the two visions in the video reference human nature as a whole, which is how it should be taken given we are all one species.

So your point, here, is that something that applies to human nature as a whole cannot possibly fit w/r to aspects of human nature? That most certainly doesn't follow.

Second, you are ascribing moral arguments to people which they have not made.

Ascribing to whom? I am describing in abstract, not ascribing in particular. I am not debating with anyone in that post, just making broad observations in general, discerning patterns.

Third, those arguments can be supported by either vision. For instance, even if one accepts that the majority of apparent gender characteristics are innate, there is such a broad spectrum represented across both sexes that there will be significant crossover. It is therefore morally wrong to place restrictions based on sex/gender, because that is unfair to those individuals who are not close to the mean in attributes. It would become a bit like the argument for gay rights, since we know sexual preference is hardwired, and still consider it morally right to protect the rights of that minority (or at least most of us do).

Bottom line: it isn't that hard to separate the factual discussion from the moral one. In fact, it is essential if the moral discussion is to be based on reality and not wishful thinking. In that spirit, we must be cautious in constraining the actions of others - or making assumptions about them - when supporting evidence is scarce and often flimsy.

Hrm. Where to start?

I'll be honest: this reads as rather incoherent to me. You are clearly making unstated assumptions, here, to be so confident that there is a counterexample to be made. Without those assumptions being stated, I cannot be sure which are missing the mark.

I'll attempt to clarify, but I'm not sure if it will help. It's possible that your assumptions are unstated because you don't realize that you're making them, in which case, my clarification will seem outright nonsense.

Both visions believe in "laws" which place restrictions, but these are not the "constraints" of the constrained vision. The constraint of the constrained vision insofar as laws go is that laws should take into account human nature being relatively fixed. That is to say, the constrained vision believes that certain laws "just won't work" because it's like legislating that PI = 3. Therefore the constrained vision focuses on processes (that constrain human action) over results (that try to direct/shape human action/nature).

If you want to translate this into gender issues, the constrained vision has a process for prosecuting people who commit rapes, while the unconstrained vision (via notions of rape culture, etc.) strives to teach people not to rape. Each vision considers the other's approach wholly inadequate. More specifically to this thread, the notion of "toxic masculinity" is very much of the unconstrained vision: that particular men are behaving badly because they are being taught a negative masculine image. The constrained vision would instead argue that such men have not been "taught" anything at all, and are just acting like immature men, that they haven't been compelled to grow up yet, and would deal with them (in terms of process) by punishing specific misbehavior, not by trying to "fix them".

The constrained vision would have nothing like "teach gay people not to be gay". This isn't a strictly conservative/liberal thing. It just kind of looks that way because in recent years most of the unconstrained vision has been very liberal. But things such as Prohibition and eugenics back in the 30s (things we'd consider to be conservative today) are very much of the unconstrained vision.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[...]
If you want to translate this into gender issues, the constrained vision has a process for prosecuting people who commit rapes, while the unconstrained vision (via notions of rape culture, etc.) strives to teach people not to rape. Each vision considers the other's approach wholly inadequate. More specifically to this thread, the notion of "toxic masculinity" is very much of the unconstrained vision: that particular men are behaving badly because they are being taught a negative masculine image. The constrained vision would instead argue that such men have not been "taught" anything at all, and are just acting like immature men, that they haven't been compelled to grow up yet, and would deal with them (in terms of process) by punishing specific misbehavior, not by trying to "fix them". [...].

I think the unconstrained vision has some merits in the sense of engaging in public awareness campaigns. But eventually such campaigns cease to have effect, and one has to switch to the constrained vision (punishment for actual crimes) for further effect.

Neutral example:

Once upon a time, almost no one wore seat belts. It was considered kind of a "pussy" thing to do. So the government did a big push with public awareness commercials and messages (unconstrained vision) for many years, and got a compliance level of perhaps 60%. (I'm pulling the numbers out of my butt, of course. I'm too lazy to do the real research.) At that point, there really wasn't much use in browbeating the public with further commercials. To get further gains, it was necessary to switch to treating it as a criminal matter: Click it or ticket (constrained vision). So let's say that compliance is now at 85%. And even if 15% still refuse to wear seat belts, it's a nice revenue stream for the government to penalize law-breakers.

More to the point of the thread:

Rape is a much more serious offense then not wearing seat belts. But in any case, I can still understand starting with public awareness campaigns (unconstrained vision) to educate men about the boundaries between consensual and non-consensual sex*, and also to encourage women to come forward and report rapes. But as in the previous example, I think there's a limit to what those kinds of public awareness campaigns can achieve. At some point the public is about as educated as it's going to get, and it simply becomes a criminal matter. You quit browbeating the public with commercials and instead throw the freed-up funds into prosecutions and harsher penalties. And even if you can't pin a crime on a date rapist, you can probably fuck up his life pretty good by keeping the cops and detectives up his ass for a good long time.

How does this relate the subject of the thread: male suicides?

Well, I already posted** about how feminism deliberately broke down some of the social networks of men in order to deal with sexism and discrimination. I don't have a problem with that. But at some point, you have to stop the negative messages about men's social ties in general (unconstrained vision) and switch to prosecuting actual specific instances of discrimination (constrained vision). Because if you simply keep slamming men's social ties as being negative and discriminatory, eventually men find themselves isolated and alone.

Same with public awareness campaigns about rape and violence against women (unconstrained vision). You start with the public awareness campaigns, but then at some point you need to figure you've reached saturation point and switch the emphasis to prosecutions of actual criminals (constrained vision). Because if you keep on hammering the public ad nauseum with public awareness campaigns (unconstrained vision) about how men are raping and murdering women, eventually men again get stigmatized with that message. And that becomes another factor isolating men and leading to social and personal difficulties for them (and presumably more depression and suicides).

Tl;dr: At some point, feminists need to cut out the constant negative putdowns of men in general (unconstrained vision) and instead focus on slamming the actual criminals who do that shit (constrained vision). Whether women want to believe it or not, most men don't actually rape or murder. So stop treating it as a male issue and instead treat it as a criminal matter.

**************
* Link to Flowchart: Was it rape?
Was it rape? [flowchart] - The Illustrated Guide to Law's Tumblr

** Here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/general-psychology/82482-kill-themselves-25.html#post2625000

 

[Coriolis]

First, here are the moral arguments you are ascribing to "those of the unconstrained vision" in the first paragraph, and a much more limited example, "on the constrained vision side" in the second. Assuming that no one on the thread favors either position, then indeed you are "not ascribing in particular".

I see a couple of reasons for this. If there is a lot of truth to biological determinism (even if it is balanced out by socialogical determinism), this is seen as morally reprehensible by those of the unconstrained vision. It smacks of sexism, of racism, of all the evils that have been perpetrated in the name of some people being innately "better" than another. It makes true equality impossible, therefore it has to be false: the only alternative is to abandon one's belief system ... or move the goal posts of the arguments to a comfortable place where the matter is serious doubt.

Similarly on the constrained vision side, the notion that society forms the kind of person you are is what is reprehensible. Constraint of behavior is OK: one might think bad thoughts but not act on them. But if the unconstrained vision is true, then those bad thoughts are not OK, and we run into the problem of hate crimes and thought police.

I'm not sure I can explain the point I labelled "bottom line" any more clearly. I was making a distinction between the facts of the matter (is human nature really fixed, or not, or some mixture?) and any moral valuation that might be applied to the answer. We have established with reasonable confidence that certain traits, e.g. handedness, are innate. Whether we want to consider the fact that handedness is innate good or bad, it is part of our reality. The moral judgment is more rightly applied to what we then do about it. Do we designate one handedness better than the other, and when a child shows a preference for the wrong hand, tie it behind his back to force use of the other? Or do we say neither is better than the other, and let each person proceed in his or her natural way? One can make a corresponding argument for behaviors that have been demonstrated to result from environmental influence.

The biggest problem I see is when we try to constrain people to act against their inherent nature, as with the lefties who had their hands tied as children. How do we know what someone's innate nature is? We apply as few constraints as possible, and turn them loose.

So your point, here, is that something that applies to human nature as a whole cannot possibly fit w/r to aspects of human nature? That most certainly doesn't follow.

The video was focusing on society as a whole, and issues of law and social policy affecting everyone. As such, whichever vision or combination thereof one accepts, it makes sense to base it on human nature as it applies to everyone: our basic humanity. Sure, we can go beyond this to ask whether there are different variants of human nature for different groups of humans, but then why stop at sex? There are differences among races and ethnic groups; sexual orientations; conditions like dyslexia, autism, and that handedness I already mentioned. These examples probably seem silly, because we have already learned alot about what is hard-wired in these cases. Eventually we have to face the issue of when it is justifiable to treat certain subsets of humanity differently than others. IME, this is the question at the root of sexism, racism, anti-semitism, anti-gay-ism, and all the other "-isms" out there that single out one segment of humanity vs. another or vs. the rest. (You might be surprised how much my argument against this rests on a rather constrained view of human nature.)

Both visions believe in "laws" which place restrictions, but these are not the "constraints" of the constrained vision. The constraint of the constrained vision insofar as laws go is that laws should take into account human nature being relatively fixed. That is to say, the constrained vision believes that certain laws "just won't work" because it's like legislating that PI = 3. Therefore the constrained vision focuses on processes (that constrain human action) over results (that try to direct/shape human action/nature).

Interesting that you mention this. My immediate impression after watching the video was exactly that: the constrained vision is process-oriented, while the unconstrained is goal-oriented. Ordinarily I have no patience for a focus on process. It allows that any outcome is acceptable, as long as the "correct" process has been followed. I am sure my workplace is not the only one suffering significantly due to such a mentality. (This is a major motivation in my desire to leave.)

I think the unconstrained vision has some merits in the sense of engaging in public awareness campaigns. But eventually such campaigns cease to have effect, and one has to switch to the constrained vision (punishment for actual crimes) for further effect.

Each vision has merit only to the degree that it conforms with reality. Until we understand better what really is innate and immutable and what is a product of external influences, we are grasping at straws. Bottom line is that we need to stop the destructive behavior, whether that be rape, suicide, vandalism, etc. In the absence of mapping all these behaviors to brain physiology, we can look at which approaches actually work.

At some point, feminists need to cut out the constant negative putdowns of men in general (unconstrained vision) and instead focus on slamming the actual criminals who do that shit (constrained vision). Whether women want to believe it or not, most men don't actually rape or murder. So stop treating it as a male issue and instead treat it as a criminal matter.

At some point. people need to cut out misrepresenting feminists, who they are, what they think, and what they do.

I agree that rape should be treated first and foremost as a criminal matter, even though the vast majority of rapes are committed by men. As with any crime, though, we are now approaching the argument of punishment vs. rehabilitation, which I will not get into here.

Now substitute "terrorism" for rape, "Muslims" for men, and make the highlighted argument in the thread about the recent attacks in Belgium.