When it comes to suicide there are times when moving from abstracts to details will kill people.
I posted about this some before.
https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/15/contagion-responsibility-death-and-self-righteousness/
[W]e need to recognize contagion. We need to accept responsibility when we are part of contagion that causes death. And we need to review how self-righteous, how narcissistic we are. Are we the ones who walk away from Omelas or are we those who not only know of the horror, but relish our part in it?
So. What has gone on?
- People have acknowledged that they can’t establish a classic correlation with the statistics.
- However, they have lots of anecdotal evidence.
- That is enough for them to make a strong post hoc ergo prompter hoc argument.
- With that they weaponize things.
The issue is that the weaponized histrionics are well known to cause deaths.
As far as I can tell, no one who has been weaponizing has acknowledged the blood on their hands.
Discussion:
First. Do not give details, or get away from abstraction to specifics–that will kill people.
Second, how do you feel about anecdotal evidence? Post hoc ergo prompter hoc arguments?
Third, is there any hypocrisy in weaponizing things (which is known to cause deaths) to claim others have caused deaths?
What should people do?
I read this…
“As far as I can tell, no one who has been weaponizing has acknowledged the blood on their hands.”
…and I wondered to myself is this itself was weaponizing, and then I read this…
Third, is there any hypocrisy in weaponizing things (which is known to cause deaths) to claim others have caused deaths?
…and I was glad that you are open to asking the question.
Tricky.
Perhaps there’s a belief in a greater good argument, on the part of the weaponisers, that over the longer term getting what they see as the original harm removed will result in fewer overall deaths, even if numbers increase during weaponisation. That would assume they are analysing what they are doing, rather than simply responding without much thought in the heat of the moment, which they may well not, in which case lack of thought may cost lives.
Consider a scenario where statistics are on the side of activists rather than simply anecdotal evidence: would the activism be justified in a situation where public shaming is judged the only way to get change? Where all other routes have been exhausted?
Anecdotal evidence only is difficult, but it likely takes time to get solid statistical evidence. Which inevitably would require waiting for more deaths. Emotive. Once the weaponised idea has been voiced it has to be very difficult to separate deaths caused by the original harm from those that would not have occurred without the weaponisation. At that point is it even possible to get reliable statistical evidence anymore? I’m not a statistician, but it looks very difficult to me.
But it is a human tendency to respond emotionally to ones own anecdotal experience, and the experiences of those we know.
Good comments and thoughts.
There is a problem in that when you keep it abstract enough to avoid causing more suicides, you reduce the pressure for change.
Though generally anything bad enough to drive people to suicide has other problems too.
It seems to be an intersectionality between right-to-life, right to not-life, right to choose for myself and right to choose for you too. You are responsible for your actions and I am responsible for mine and nobody is responsible for Adam’s actions except Adam. That’s Mormonism.
It seems too easy to talk someone INTO suicide yet nearly impossible to talk someone OUT of it. Why is that? Because it’s not your decision to make.
It’s an important topic, but difficult (for me) to discuss here because I don’t know what the boundaries of abstraction should be. I’m also not sure that talking abstractly is really helpful, although it may perhaps be less likely to hurt. I’m going to research ideas for how to communicate about this safely, and for that, I thank you, OP.
Second, how do you feel about anecdotal evidence? Post hoc ergo prompter hoc arguments?
I feel like anecdotal evidence may be logically flawed, may be insufficient for proving a point, but may be very important for the pathos of an argument to motivate and inspire people to action. Therefore, it’s impossible to say out side of any context whether anecdotal evidence is good or bad. It is sometimes good, and sometimes abominable.
What should people do?
People should do their best to be connected, and to make sure those around them are connected socially and with adequate support structure.
There still has to be room for people to advocate for change. How that can be done without spreading the contagion? It’s hard to say, but worth thinking about.
What do you mean by weaponizing. Are we talking about relating high suicide rates in Utah to church policy? It would be good to have statistical proof, but if that is not collected, do you just do nothing? If the Church dropped homophobia and suicide dropped there would probably be another explanation too, by those who do not want there to be..
Is the use of the term weaponizing a way of shutting down discussion?
Most of the world looks at US rates of gun ownership and mass shootings, and sees a relationship, but if it continues to be denied the problem remains.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-teenager-killed-himself-six-more-followed-11555061402
Worth reading
Stephen – thank you for posting on this topic. Difficult but necessary.
I have held off commenting as I felt unsure how to respectfully respond. I hope I do OK.
Weaponising suicide for political or other means is horrible and only adds to the trauma.
And I get your passion on this topic. I have responded to many such incidents and also coordinated community responses to contagion situations. I have also wrote guidelines for police officers speaking to the media about mental health and suicide issues.
I would have liked to see more balance in your post, however. There is much good work we can do. There is not weaponising or nothing. Reporting suicides appropriately in the media, providing education, personal stories, being open and honest in our personal conversations and acknowledging cultural and organisational harm in its role on our mental health are all things we can do to be positive in this space.
I grant that the line between being honest and the potential for politicising something like suicide can be blurry.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness provided a nice article on why reporting guidelines on suicide matter. What it doesn’t say is not to talk about it. https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/June-2018/Why-Suicide-Reporting-Guidelines-Matter
I have also seen Kevin Hines speak several times. The power of personal experience is, to me, the singular most powerful tool in combating this most difficult part of our human experience.
“And I get your passion on this topic. I have responded to many such incidents and also coordinated community responses to contagion situations. I have also wrote guidelines for police officers speaking to the media about mental health and suicide issues.
I would have liked to see more balance in your post, however. There is much good work we can do. There is not weaponising or nothing. Reporting suicides appropriately in the media, providing education, personal stories, being open and honest in our personal conversations and acknowledging cultural and organisational harm in its role on our mental health are all things we can do to be positive….”
Very well said. I was too terse in my essay.
Thank you for the additional comments.
I think perhaps I need to beg Brad Kramer for a follow-up essay
GEOFF -AUS asserts “US rates of gun ownership and mass shootings, and sees a relationship, but if it continues to be denied the problem remains.”
Exactly right, but I suspect you have the wrong problem in mind. Tools are never “the problem”. Sheep and lemmings help explain mass suicides, but not why the first went over the cliff. This quest for “the problem” seems a bit misguided. Your problem is not probably my problem.