- 12 Jun 2018 14:33
#14923791
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.]
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.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: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.]
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: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.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry