[Victoribus Spolia]

Suicide rate goes down slightly with increasing GDP per capita

Is this measuring merely by individual cases or regarding national origin in general? I am arguing for the latter; whereas, the former was not my point.

I am not arguing that being more financially well off increases your individual chance of suicide, I was arguing that if you are from a more developed nation you are more likely to commit suicide (which is a separate point altogether). [Thus highlighting that the issue is not individual wealth per se, but in being a member of a certain kind of socio-economic and cultural condition that obtains in certain nations, namely developed ones.]

And if you're going to use India as a "developed nation", then you may as well call the whole world "developed" - India is 122nd out of 187 in the IMF list, 113th out of 175 in the World Bank list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

I suspect "However, these nations, as far as development, only represent around 30% of all nations in the world" was just wrong. What did you use to decide which ones to put in bold?

I did not call India and Thailand "Developed Nations" but specifically referred to them as "Advanced-Developing" Nations, which is true. They are on the rapid uptick. I made this distinction quite explicit in my last post.

As far as what I considered developed nations, I picked european nations and the "big economies" of east Asia by default, and confirmed this via Wikipedia's article on developed nations from which the map in my last post originated.

Furthermore, the 30% of all nations being developed is not wrong, if anything its even less than that which would only make my point stronger (the hard figure is somewhere between 26 and 28%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

I went by this article's definitions and list of 51 nations; however other institutions only consider 35 nations to be developed. There are a total of, depending on how we count, 195 nations in the world. thus I went with the gracious (to my opponents) number of 30% of the whole. I say this is gracious because pretty ANY list included the ones I included already, so a lower % of such nations only benefits the case made as I stated in the OP (as the disproportionate rate will increase in disparity given such input data)

The map used is based on that data and the nations i put in bold correspond to the dark and medium blue sections which (as stated) correspond to the list of developed nations.

I am actually quite interested in the source data for your graph and what metrics they used to come to those conclusions because it seems to contradict the plain fact that developed nations are grossly over-represented in the top suicide rate nations. A group of nations constituting 26% of all the nations in the world should only (in proportion to the whole) represent 26% of the top 50 nations for suicide rates (that would be a proportional representation) , and if suicide rates dropped in terms of being in a developed state (as you and your graph seem toclaim), then this statistic should be even lower than 26% (which would be under-representation); however, this is not the case.

Rather, a group consisting of only 26% of nations on earth, represents 68% of the top 50 nations as far as highest suicide rates. This is a gross over-representation.

Hence, my point stands as stated in the OP.

If you are from a developed nation, you are statistically more likely to die from suicide than if you had originated from a poor third-world nation.

This is true.

Why does this correlation obtain? That was my question, but the stats are what they are.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why is Bolivia considered a developed country?

[Victoribus Spolia]

That was my mistake actually, corrected. Thanks.

Numbers did not change much overall though and does not detract from my main point.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why are the previously Second World countries listed as developed countries?

[Victoribus Spolia]

To what are you referring?

[Pants-of-dog]

To what are you referring?

Organisations such as the IMF and OECD do not consider many of the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries to be developed.

Belarus, for example, is considered a developing country by the IMF.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Is this measuring merely by individual cases or regarding national origin in general? I am arguing for the latter; whereas, the former was not my point.

It's for the latter; countries' GDP "per capita", as I said. So yes, it does disprove your claim.

I did not call India and Thailand "Developed Nations" but specifically referred to them as "Advanced-Developing" Nations, which is true. They are on the rapid uptick. I made this distinction quite explicit in my last post.

I will put the "developed nations" in bold

As far as what I considered developed nations, I picked european nations and the "big economies" of east Asia by default

"By default"? This seems a meaningless phrase. Anyway, this shows you have confused large countries with developed ones. An objective measure, such as the one I gave, is much better.

Furthermore, the 30% of all nations being developed is not wrong

But you already admitted you weren't only counting developed nations, so it is the wrong figure to use.

I am actually quite interested in the source data for your graph

World Bank, 2015 GDP (PPP rates) per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY ... start=1990
WHO, age-standardized suicide rates, 2015: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main. ... DR?lang=en

Note my graph is 'age-standardized'; children rarely commit suicide, and suicide rates can vary widely by age, depending on culture (for instance, the decrease in suicide in the UK in the last 35 years has come almost entirely from fewer suicides among the elderly). The WHO looks at rates among age groups, and then standarizes them as if each country had the same age profile. This is one thing that will make your use of the crude suicide rate show developed countries having worse rates - they have older populations.

and what metrics they used to come to those conclusions because it seems to contradict the plain fact that developed nations are grossly over-represented in the top suicide rate nations.

It's not a 'plain fact', though, is it? You added some large Asian countries because you felt like it. You're using numbers that don't actually describe what you put in bold.

If you are from a developed nation, you are statistically more likely to die from suicide than if you had originated from a poor third-world nation.

This is true.

Why does this correlation obtain? That was my question, but the stats are what they are.

No, it appears, from the international data, to be wrong. The closest you can get to it is "if you're middle-aged or old, you are statistically more likely to die from suicide than if you're young. And if you come from a poor third-world nation, you are more likely to be young."

[Victoribus Spolia]

It's for the latter; countries' GDP "per capita", as I said. So yes, it does disprove your claim.

No it doesn't because your data doesn't line up with the disproportionate representation of developed nations in top countries with the highest rates of suicide.

*quoting me in vain attempt to show a contradiction* I did not call India and Thailand "Developed Nations" but specifically referred to them as "Advanced-Developing" Nations, which is true. They are on the rapid uptick. I made this distinction quite explicit in my last post.

I will put the "developed nations" in bold

I made my qualifications, if you can't read past the first couple of lines in a post perhaps you shouldn't be debating politics.

See Here (please note in bold)

This means that over 61.43% of the top 70 nations for highest suicide are developed or advanced-developing nations.

However, these nations, as far as development, only represent around 30% of all nations in the world.

Thus, developed or advanced-developing nations are GROSSLY OVER-REPRESENTED in suicide deaths.

Thus, countries that represent only 30% of the whole account for 64% of the top suicide nations.

[Note: If we were to analyze the TOP 50 instead of the top 70, this statistic would be the same.]

Hence, your likely-hood of being suicidal is exponentially higher if you are from a developed or advanced-developing state (Thailand/India/etc) than from a rural third-world state (2-3X higher if I got my math right).

"By default"? This seems a meaningless phrase. Anyway, this shows you have confused large countries with developed ones. An objective measure, such as the one I gave, is much better.

Yes, I counted european nations, the U.S., Canada, Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Which are developed nations and a handful of others and only two which I qualified as being separate as far as category (Thailand and India).

This was my "default," and neither the common-sense of most people, nor the lists under discussion, disagreed with these "Default selections."

But you already admitted you weren't only counting developed nations, so it is the wrong figure to use.

Don't be silly, all of the nations that I put in bold corresponded to either the dark blue or medium blue states in the world map in correlation to the article's list of 51 nations, with pretty well all of my selected states being on that list. That list being based on GDP and HDI.

World Bank, 2015 GDP (PPP rates) per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY ... start=1990
WHO, age-standardized suicide rates, 2015: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main. ... DR?lang=en

Note my graph is 'age-standardized'; children rarely commit suicide, and suicide rates can vary widely by age, depending on culture (for instance, the decrease in suicide in the UK in the last 35 years has come almost entirely from fewer suicides among the elderly). The WHO looks at rates among age groups, and then standarizes them as if each country had the same age profile. This is one thing that will make your use of the crude suicide rate show developed countries having worse rates - they have older populations.

Well that is basically an admission of an extremely flawed model.

Standardization of age is FOOLISH in this analysis as I am attempting to diagnose why developed countries have a disproportionate rate of suicide (which you just basically conceded).

I listed a low birth rate as part of the correlative data that could be likewise symptomatic of the problem (and hence higher average age overall).

That is extremely relevant data in the discussion of socio-economic and cultural conditions and their relevance to suicide, so controlling for those factors by standardizing age is absolutely unacceptable and inadmissible.

I am surprised you would do that knowing the point of the OP.

It seems at the face, to have been quite duplicitous and underhanded to posit that sort of graph given the substance of the OP being about cultural conditions.

It's not a 'plain fact', though, is it? You added some large Asian countries because you felt like it. You're using numbers that don't actually describe what you put in bold.

False, as I just demonstrated.

China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore are developed nations with large economies. I never argued individual wealth specifically as the main criteria or matter of concern, and both GDP and HDI criterions still support my overrall lists and the map directly correlates to all of the nations I highlighted in bold which likewise correspond to the grossly over-represented developed (or advanced-developing) nations in the world's top suicide list.

No, it appears, from the international data, to be wrong. The closest you can get to it is "if you're middle-aged or old, you are statistically more likely to die from suicide than if you're young. And if you come from a poor third-world nation, you are more likely to be young."

That is fair, but that is entirely relevant, and you were being intellectually dishonest to control those factors and then claim that more developed nations have decreasing rates of suicide, that is bull-shit.

If you do not control for age, it is a FACT that more developed nations have higher rates of suicide at an over-represented rate.

(you basically conceded this in this post). That being said, you are welcome to bring up the relation to aging populations and suicide. THAT WOULD BE GREAT, as that is exactly the sort of topic my OP was trying to foster.

Why do aging populations (mostly in the developed world) have higher rates of suicide?

IT basically comes to the exact point I was making. More developed nations have lower birth rates, are more irreligious, are older, and generally wealthier, but commit more suicide.

Congrats, you have advanced nothing in way of critique against the point of my OP.

If anything, you came around to my exact propositions.

[One Degree]

Most countries statistics are given ‘per thousand’. They have to quote these as 100 times that to come up with numbers that may upset you. It is a problem, it is not a problem to be hysterical about. We already throw lots of money at it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

it is not a problem to be hysterical about. We already throw lots of money at it.

Aren't you old and in a developed nation @One Degree?

Technically, you should be the most worried.

[One Degree]

:lol:

Aren't you old and in a developed nation @One Degree?

Technically, you should be the most worried.

I want very lenient assisted suicide laws. No requirement except psychiatric evaluation and short waiting period with counseling. The only problem I see with suicide is our refusal to accept it and remove the suddenness and messiness that is so painful for others.

Edit: I also believe this is the best way to reduce suicides. Currently suicidal people can only go to those they know will try to talk them out of it.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Why do aging populations have higher rates of suicide?

Because children are optimistic, and have not lived through enough life to get to the point of considering suicide, on the whole. Plus they have less access to suicide methods. But we can't do anything to stop children aging into adults.

Suicide rates vary greatly by culture. In some, it's an accepted way of getting out of real pain. In some, it's looked on as an unpardonable sin against their god. In some, large efforts are made to persuade people there are alternatives or to ease the pain, in others they're left to fend for themselves.

I don't think you understand much about suicide, or healthcare, if you're just going to dismiss the way that health experts measure suicide rates as "intellectually dishonest" and "extremely flawed". Really, your whole thread is pointless. You didn't look at what is known about the rates, you use hyperbole like "suicide rate out of control", and then you call anyone who injects some facts "stupid". While you insert India into your list of developed countries, despite it being only the 3rd, "medium" category in that map you set so much store by. That Human Development Index has India at 131 out of 188, by the way.

(By the way, you said 'this was my "default," and neither the common-sense of most people, nor the lists under discussion, disagreed with these "Default selections."' I really don't think you know what "default" means. You seem to be using it to mean "personal preference". I have no idea how you think "the common-sense of most people" has been tested as agreeing or disagreeing with you. As your map shows, "the lists under discussion" do disagree with you)

You have a good way of persuading people to ignore you.

[Albert]

I believe that Global Warming is the answer to a tormented humanity's prayers, Albert. It will solve the Dutch Problem in the only way it was meant to be solved....

But do you think this great flood of Netherlands will commence because simple meaningless happenings of nature or part of greater truth that we can not fathom yet as humanity? For in days of old it was seen, that such calamity was brought on people who somehow erred terribly in light and judgment of the almighty.

[Potemkin]

But do you think this great flood of Netherlands will commence because simple meaningless happenings of nature or part of greater truth that we can not fathom yet as humanity? For in days of old it was seen, that such calamity was brought on people who somehow erred terribly in light and judgment of the almighty.

Indeed Albert, indeed. I think we can detect the mysterious workings of divine Providence in the current Global Warming phenomenon. Godless atheist scientists and liberals and the like claim it is due to human industrial pollution; but I, through the insight of my righteous faith, believe I know the real truth. It is God's punishment on a sinful people, Albert. God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform....

[Victoribus Spolia]

You have a good way of persuading people to ignore you.

I am truly tortured by the thought of your inattention. Whatever will I do?

[Albert]

Indeed Albert, indeed. I think we can detect the mysterious workings of divine Providence in the current Global Warming phenomenon. Godless atheist scientists and liberals and the like claim it is due to human industrial pollution; but I, through the insight of my righteous faith, believe I know the real truth. It is God's punishment on a sinful people, Albert. God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform....

Yes, we see so much in common. It is indeed human greed of profit and power that has created industries that pollute the very air and environment that we live in, to the point that drive the oceans to overtake us now. So much is interrelated in this world that is a mystery to us. It is also a mystery why this understanding is not revealed to all.

Perhaps providence blinds the ones who reject it.

[Potemkin]

Yes, we see so much in common. It is indeed human greed of profit and power that has created industries that pollute the very air and environment that we live in, to the point that drive the oceans to overtake us now. So much is interrelated in this world that is a mystery to us. It is also a mystery why this understanding is not revealed to all.

Perhaps providence blinds the ones who reject it.

Quite so, Albert, quite so. Those who have eyes, let them see.

[Saeko]

Quite so, Albert, quite so. Those who have eyes, let them see.

We need to line our brains with eyes to better understand the Great Ones.

[Potemkin]

We need to line our brains with eyes to better understand the Great Ones.

Hush, Saeko! Albert thinks I'm talking about the Christian god....

[Saeko]

Hush, Saeko! Albert thinks I'm talking about the Christian god....

So am I.