I was sort of including this in the "unmanly" consideration.

But as an aside you sort of make it sound like this a bad thing that society is compassionate to women. Ideally we should strive to have this same standard for men seeing as its obviously saving lives if you are correct about it being the determinant of suicide success.

Yes, I understand I must have left that impression. I even considered including a disclaimer in one of my posts but didn't bother in the end.

Basically, no, I don't mean to even claim that it's a bad thing that there's a double standard, let alone a difference (nor do I mean to claim that it's a good thing). But it appears to me that people are very frequently to some extent in denial about the real reasons behind these mechanics. That's what I have a problem with. The truth might be ugly but I don't like it when people hide from it. It seems you are not too guilty of that though, so peace.

I hate the social stigma that is placed on suicide. "You know, it's only the coward's way out." **** you. I sure as hell don't know anyone that would willingly go into that great unknown, and I wouldn't call them cowardly for facing it.

That aside, I still don't understand how we as atheists can call anything "wrong." I suppose I am just a nihilist. Things are what they are. Suicide sucks in general, but it provides certain individuals the only relief they see available to them.

We're not that far off other than the specifics of the explanations, from what I can see...

I meant it in the same way as 2+2=5 is wrong (using base 10, for fear of nits), or a poorly thought out argument is wrong. Wasn't trying to suggest a moral correctness.

Possibly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

Or maybe it is just a simple shunning/rejection technique that is built in to us as social animals. That would make the interesting part that this generally useful heuristic fails in this instance. We do tend to get annoyed when our heuristics don't work.

Or maybe it is just a mild form of acting like a murder of crows when a flock member acts sick.

Or my possibility that it works to discourage the pretenders to some extent from using an annoying strategy.

It is hard to tell, but I think none is inconsistent with the data, and maybe it is a combination. Seems consistent with your take.

Again, this is possible. I think it might be more the case that some people are rigidly moralistic and/or (I think these go together) incapable of overcoming attribution biases*** (these are the same people who think that being fat is a morally inexcusable state, and can't understand that some people might be fat because they are hungrier*) They probably don't need to feel any dissonance, as they aren't capable of much in the way of thought.

For those who have had the experience of being around a serial-suicide-attempter, it is possibly just simple frustration of attempting what usually works ("there, there, it'll all be ok") and finding that it doesn't work for some people.

Anorexia isn't a personality disorder.

There are differences between cultures in the expression of personality-gone-wrong, but I think that there are some commonalities. It would be nice if we didn't require the use of euphemisms (we do require them for the sake of treatment and to keep the crazy rigid morality people at bay) to describe exteme personalities. Treating "small paranoid aggressive-display man disorder" or "complete ******* disorder" or "overly-emotional manipulative woman disorder" would be difficult...

A problem is that people (especially emotionally distraught people) aren't capable of making such fine judgements. I'd bet that quite a few hanging deaths were preceded by the thought "someone will find me before I die."

Men have other ways of doing the same sort of behavior in more aggressive ways. It generally looks like a temper tantrum though. Punching a wall, tearing out of a driveway while drunk, picking a fight with the largest man at the bar.

Hard to tell. I'm going to guess that I was trying to say something like this:

Just saying that you are considering suicide is enough of a cry for help. Actually following through with it is unnecessary, which makes the whole matter quite complex.

I'm rather curious as to what I was saying as well. Just to attempt continuity, men are taken seriously because we are generally assumed to be incapable of complex ulterior motives in social situations.

Figured.

"Involves"

The difference between those who attempt an unreasonable suicide (whether successful or not) in both women and men always involves a lack of foresight, problem solving and (given the cry for help scenario) acceptable social skills.

A possible take is that women are more capable of complex social strategy. Sometimes this works out well, sometimes it doesn't.

Kind of like a very clever young boy that realized that there was nothing that the adults could actually do to make him do his homework. He is clearly smarter than the average child, but it doesn't work out well as a life strategy.

I think this is possibly correct. As a man, it is difficult to extend the correlaries to women. A woman punching a hole through a wall** would not meet the standards of being ladylike, despite being perfectly acceptable for a man for some reason.

Standards are difficult to deal with intellectually. I'd say (maybe, subject to change) that what you mean by "standards" are just rules.

*or worse, are fat (or have some other imperfection) and excuse that easily, while hating on slim polyamorous folk. Or are slim and polyamorous and hating on fat monogamous folk. Or fat and polyamorous and hating on monogamous. Etc. Etc. Etc.

**temper tantrum for the win?!?

***Attribution bias is pretty much what you are talking about when you are discussing "misunderstanding" I think. I put this at the end, because I want you to generally beat up my ideas.

We can't call anything "Wrong" but we can call things "wrong." You can have nonsensical or incorrect ideas, which is what "wrong" means.

Killing oneself because the sky is a particular shade of blue would be wrong.

Yep. The problem is one of helping them see what actually is available to them so they don't make an incorrect choice based on limited but readily available information.

For some reason, we generally feel motivation to do so.

Wrong according to who? Is what I'm trying to say basically.

Wrong according to the person that said it?

You are correct to point out that wrong/right exists only in people's minds, and is not an intrinsic property of anything. People indeed confuse these painfully often. However, as long as you recognise that it is only in people's minds that things can be right or wrong, they can still be right or wrong. Things are what they are, and I am such that I consider this or that right or wrong. Sometimes a lot of people simultaneously consider the same thing right or wrong, so it is not meaningless to share each others' thoughts.

Furthermore, sometimes a person can consider something right or wrong only due to lack of awareness or some bias, and therefore you can change his mind about it. Speaking from personal experience, lots of things that I have considered right or wrong, people have gotten me to change my mind about it by sharing with me a thought process or drawing my attention toward some fact. Therefore discussion is not meaningless. Although of course the efficiency is usually extremely low.

BrianTheMick, I loved the exchange If only reasoning at such an intellectual level was economically and socially viable...

Yes.

In my experience, this is the mechanism that breaks down. This and perspective. Problems are seen as both huge and unsolvable.

99.999% of the time they are neither.

I got that. The issue is of factual correctness and reasonableness. Not going sailing because you believe you will fall off the end of the earth isn't wrong, but believing that you will fall off the end of the earth if you do is provably wrong. It is raining today, so it rains every day is provably wrong. Morality has nothing to do with it.*

I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that there aren't perfectly good reasons for some people to off themselves.** We were discussing those who do so based on bad information, poor logic, and ephemeral emotional states along with some potential reasons why someone might make a suicide attempt without really wanting to die and the complexities this makes for dealing with their obvious pain while trying to discourage such things...

*Or, at least, fails to be convincing.

**Being dumped, for example, doesn't qualify.

In my experience, this is of course an important mechanic, but not always the most important one. Even if your perspective is unaffected and you understand perfectly that you are suffering from temporary emotional turmoil and that it will pass and you will be fine again, that doesn't necessarly prevent you from commiting suicide. Such situations might indeed be a small minority for all I know though.

Yea but we're dealing with an extremely subjective topic here. I doubt you can factually "prove" one reason's more wrong than another. And besides, we're talking in terms of morally right or wrong, not factually. Being dumped (for certain individuals with bad coping skills), for someone can lead to an emotional state that's truly unbearable. For them, it makes sense. For me, it doesn't make any sense to say one reason's okay and another is not. I mean obviously, killing yourself over something small like not getting an iphone for Christmas is dumb, but people deal with things differently and what's stupid to 1 person can be truly life shattering to another. I felt more suicidal being dumped by my high school girlfriend than from the sudden death of my dad, for instance. Some people just have 0 coping skills.

I guess what I'm trying to say who are we to say it's "wrong?" I lean towards yes, but am aware that's my viewpoint and I'm in no position to judge or condemn anyone who takes this route. I just think it causes unnecessary pain to loved ones, but IME, a lot of times, the family/friends ignore the problem for far too long or don't take it seriously enough.

I'd take it a bit further and say that it is purely subjective rather than just extremely subjective.

I'd agree. Except for when a person makes a statement about their future.

"I will never be happy again" is just as assumptive as me saying "You will be fine in a bit" and I think that an outside view of a person's future based on the experience of others is informative.

I can demonstrate that a break up of a relationship doesn't effect future well-being. Not proof, but much more informative...

/
But, if they wait for a bit, it will be bearable. It is a conundrum. I tend to avoid appeals to morality in general because I find that they are only preaching to the choir. I'd never fault someone for killing themselves for any reason other than bad logic.

I've known several people who had a bad stomach flu that wished for death.

It would just be an avoidance of pain either way, right? (sorry about your dad. Doesn't deserve only parenthetical mention.)

I wouldn't slam someone for avoiding such pain. Making moral judgements seems more than rude.

If they are making factually incorrect assessments (gf dumped me, therefore I will never be happy), then they deserve my efforts to tell them they are factually incorrect.

but somehow when their cloice isn't incorrect 'we' also still feel motivated to stop them.

and then 'we' justify this by claiming its never the correct choice.

When in fact suicide is often a reasonable choice.

Yes. Obviously. No point in it without motivation.

Some unreasonable people make the claim that it is never correct. The rest of us think of a reasonable argument against the specific choice given the specific circumstances or say nothing.

Yes. It is rarely considered when it should be, and often considered when it shouldn't be.

If I could design my ideal life within realistic parameters then it would end with suicide.

I'm not sure I can empathise with anybody who would prefer to die some other way.