Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by new299 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

new299

The best numbers I could find for the US were these:

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide

Which looks like 5 per 100000 for 10 to 14 year olds?

The Japanese population in this age range is ~5M:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan

So at the US rate we’d except ~250 suicides in Japan if the rate was the same as the US.

Over the 12 to 15 range in Japan the article states there were 103 suicides.

The rates seem roughly comparable therefore?

It terrible that this is increasing, but it would be interesting to understand if this is unique to Japan or not.

View on HN

> It terrible that this is increasing, but it would be interesting to understand if this is unique to Japan or not.

Unfortunately not. The suicide capital of the world (including teenagers) is currently South Korea:

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20190501000216

which has the highest suicide rate among countries with a population of more than 5mln:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...

Maybe a total coincidence that I read this morbid news on South Korea while I've started watching Squid Game, but watching a show that's effectively an allegory of capitalist decline in South Korea makes this news not surprising.

>capitalist decline in South Korea makes this news not surprising.

South Korea is on a capitalist upswing, not decline. People forget that South Korea was worse off than most of Africa after the Korean War. Capitalism and democracy is what saved them.

Look at their brother to the North if you want to see a real decline.

things can be good and bad for different reasons at the same time

Perhaps, though you would be wrong about the state of things - Korea had a fairly big manufacturing base when taken over by Japan, so in a way they had more infrastructure already built that just needed to be repaired or upgraded.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work, where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption - and indeed Korea has massive megacorps owned by just a few families that are de facto governments in themselves.

>Perhaps, though you would be wrong about the state of things - Korea had a fairly big manufacturing base when taken over by Japan,

Ugh... I see you overlooked the small fact that the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula happened before the Korean War...

"After all, the South was by all standards a failed state after the Korean war (1950-53). GDP per capita in South Korea in early 1960’s was below $100. Lower than Haiti, Ethiopia or Yemen, making South Korea one of the poorest countries in the world. Infrastructure built during the Japanese occupation (1910-1945) was destroyed during the war. All of Korea’s natural resources remained in the North, as well as its industrial facilities. The first years of independence, under the presidency of Rhee Syng-man, brought no economic development and kept South Korea afloat only due to foreign aid." [0]

>“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work

There may be something strong and special about Koreans, but one half went capitalist, the other half went Communist/Socialist. The proof is in the pudding.

>where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption

Being capitalist is immaterial to being corrupt.

[0] https://www.forbeswoman.ge/en/post/southkorea

> There may be something strong and special about Koreans, but one half went capitalist, the other half went Communist/Socialist

I guess explain China vs Taiwan, which are both doing well, although that is certainly glossing over some horrible decades with the cultural revolution.

Taiwan is still doing better in practically every metric. Even then, China has hilariously bought into capitalism, big time: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/07/08/chin...

There are a few other differences between those two polities. I'd say it would be difficult to find a single factor which could convincingly explain their differences.

There is a big cultural meme in Korea about how life is extremely competitive & hard compared to what it should be. I definitely saw what was being referred to about Korea in squid game.

I know, I'm Korean. It's an insanely hyper-competitve place in all arenas. That's besides the fact that it's capitalist though.

> South Korea is on a capitalist upswing, not decline.

Yes, that's exactly what PP posits as the cause of these suicides.

Elite Overproduction is in full swing in South Korea. The costs of entering the upper class are increasing and the consequences of failing to enter it are getting worse. People are having almost no children because the costs are so high and the experience of being a child is so brutal (16+ hours of schooling a day is common).

I believe it was Malcom Kyeyune who joked that if North Korea nuked Seoul, it would be the best thing to ever happen to young people in South Korea.

The birth rate in South Korea is like 1/4th the birth rate of North Korea.

Isn't that issue mostly raising inequality rather then elite overproduction?

No. Upper class in Korea is more in reach than many other countries in the world. The elites control a lot of money, but it's not as bad as other countries either, and there are more of them.

People are having less children because there is constant downwards pressure to have less children, by society, by politics, by wealth/industry.

Having a kid doesn't cost a lot in South Korea. In fact it's usually beneficial. The problem is that having a kid basically means your main source of income is vulnerable and your situation will more than likely be negatively affected.

> Upper class in Korea is more in reach than many other countries in the world

This is how elite overproduction tends to happen. I suggest you read some of the writing on the causes and effects of EO. The Good Ol Boyz podcast has some episodes on EO in Korea that are pretty good.

If you can get into a relatively high status position by doing better than your peers in a school test, and you’re out of luck otherwise, of course many people are going to spend 16 hours a day studying for those tests.

> People are having less children because there is constant downwards pressure to have less children

Where would you say this pressure comes from and is communicated?

> Having a kid… it's usually beneficial… your situation will more than likely be negatively affected.

This seems contradictory.

Oh yeah. There is an overproduction of elites in Korea. If what you mean by "they all want to be upper professions of society" etc.

Being a labourer is often highly regarded in lots of low population or first world countries. Not in Korea. Not even without significant immigration. They are just all sardines trying to squeeze into the upper jobs. No one wants to be left out and certainly doesn't consider it a career path.

>Where would you say this pressure comes from and is communicated?

Their workforce and/or lack off work stability, almost entirely.

>This seems contradictory.

If you take it out of context..... yes. But I just said that it'd be financially beneficial to have a kid. But then also introduces instability that might pull the rug underneath when your financially beneficial decision removes your larger chunk of income.

i.e. babies are very affordable, and you get benefits that aren't bad. But also this coincides with losing your job due to having a baby. It's not contradictory as they're both alternate directions. Your job is stable whilst having a baby AND you have a baby? You're benefiting. You have a baby and it ruins your income stream? Those extra savings from having a baby are cancelled out.

Last time I looked into it, Japan’s suicide numbers were not as high as I’d been primed to expect. Japans suicide rate is less than America’s (14.5 vs 12.2 per 100k), and roughly equivalent to Sweden 12.4) and Norway (11.8). Still relatively elevated for OECD countries, but Japan’s reputation as an extremely high suicide rate country appears to be unearned. Countries like South Korea (21.2), Russia (21.6), Lithuania (20.2), and Ukraine (17.7) should generally get more attention on this matter than Japan does.

This could be the difference between suicidality and completion of suicide. Firearms are linked to an increase of completed suicides but not attempts, which could explain the US's higher rate.

Also, Japan has a much larger aging population, so their cultural threshold for what's an "acceptable" suicide rate among the young could be much lower.

Access to firearms has certainly been shown to affect suicide rates, especially among men, given how surprisingly impulsive suicides are. But it's not sufficient, given that there are other countries with higher suicide rates and fewer firearms.

Also, while America has a lot of guns, there's also a lot of variance. The stats are a bit hard to compute, but there appear to be some states in the US that have fewer firearms per capita than some other countries, notably Switzerland, Canada, and Finland.

It's also worth pointing out that suicide by firearm is largely a male thing. In the United States women attempt suicide at 3x the rate that men do, but they tend to die because of that at a much lower rate (22.4 for men, 6.8 for women). The rate of completed female suicides is currently rising faster for women than men, worryingly.

It's complicated, basically.

And as always discussing suicide creates a contagion risk. If you're experiencing suicidal thoughts, please know that help is available at the national suicide prevention hotline, 800-273-8255.

> Access to firearms has certainly been shown to affect suicide rates, especially among men, given how surprisingly impulsive suicides are. But it's not sufficient, given that there are other countries with higher suicide rates and fewer firearms.

For reference, nine of the top ten nations for suicide of banned civilian gun ownership. All of the top 40 nations make it difficult. USA is usually around #50 or so.

It is complicated, and even statements like ”access to firearms has been shown to affect suicide rates” are could be misleading because you could be putting the cart before the horse, if someone has chosen to kill themselves, it reasons they will chose a fast/painless, and effective tool.

Less painful in my opinion would be a helium tank from a childrens party store and a gas mask from a hardware store. Syncope -> Mortality. Probably closer to Kevorkian's assisted method but more involved.

They no longer put pure helium in those tanks for this reason.

Ah yes, it appears that has fallen in favor of nitrogen. [1] I never would have imagined nitrogen would do the same thing. Apparently there are a variety of inert gasses that have the same effect. [2]

[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29684846/

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation#Suicide

The autonomic system responds not to lack of oxygen, but to a rise in carbon dioxide levels. (More specifically I think it has something to do with pH, which decreases as carbon dioxide increases.) So as long as you can expire carbon dioxide, you'll pass out without any sensation of asphyxiation or struggle. You still need to inhale to exhale, though, and the inhaled air needs to have a sufficiently low partial pressure of carbon dioxide.

One of my friends borrowed nitrogen and a mask from work to pull it off. It's the most ideal way to go out from what I understand.

On the shittiest days I see the lines of nitrogen tanks we use at work for Gas Detector calibration and remember my old buddy.

> It is complicated, and even statements like ”access to firearms has been shown to affect suicide rates” are could be misleading because you could be putting the cart before the horse, if someone has chosen to kill themselves, it reasons they will chose a fast/painless, and effective tool.

But choice of method does affect rate of death, so it's correct to say that increased access to any method that's commonly used affects the rate of death. Decreasing access to that method is valid if its one of the measures taken to reduce suicide rates.

The unique thing about guns is that they're generally more effective at suicide than the other chosen methods. It's less about the speed of access people are mentioning, but more that when someone uses a gun to commit suicide it's more likely to work than other methods.

So it's less that guns increase the rate of suicide, and more that they increase the suicide rate to suicide attempt ratio due to their efficacy. Which, similar to the point you're making, means America probably has less suicide attempts to begin with than its suicide rate would indicate relative to other countries.

> given how surprisingly impulsive suicides are

Do you have a reason to imply most suicides are impulsive? I don’t think the media implies that (and my experience in New Zealand is they are not impulsive - usually following a long period of depression and maybe stated intent or attempts).

A long history of depression and some level of intent doesn't mean an attempt wasn't impulsive. That's why the question of whether someone has a specific plan is used to assess risk: there's a huge difference between passive suicidal thoughts and active suicide plans. This page contains a few studies on how long people think about it before making an attempt - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/durat...

OK, I did a quick Google (uggh, I wonder what adverts I will targeted by now!)

There is scientific disagreement over impulsivity, and the distinction between impulsive and planning is so blurry as to be not that useful to a non-specialist. Also my quick skim of the topic was somewhat confusing because there is a different topic about whether impulsive personalities are more likely to suicide (probably not). And my case personally I am middle aged, and my peer group appears more likely to plan, which affects my anecdotal experience.

I think my problem is that the word “impulsive” is odd. Someone who has been thinking of committing suicide for months, and then one day “suddenly” decides to go through with it, seems to be considered by the literature to have made an impulsive decision. That definition doesn’t fit my usual meaning of the word impulsive (e.g. I don’t think it makes sense to say: I have been looking at cars to buy for two months and then I impulsively bought one).

It might make more sense to you to compare it to midlife crisis actions? E.g that guy has been looking at that car for years and today he impulsively bought it.

Sure but it doesn't explain South Korea

Like everything, including the supposed "virginity crisis," it's primed by the media that reaches western eyes that somehow people here think Japan is all an edgy anime.

Japan has been framed as weird and backwards since the 80s and 90s when the US took issue with their rising economy and encroachment on western industries

> The rates seem roughly comparable therefore?

Is this asking a question?

Edit: Today I learned the best course for a non native speaker is to not ask questions.

It’s an open offer for someone who understands better to clarify or confirm incase OP has missed something from their calculations.

It's confusing when people end what appears to be a declarative statement with a question mark, not sure why I'd get in trouble for asking.

It can also be an artifact of a foreign language. The french interrogatory form can be the same as the declarative. It seems likely in this case, their use of "therefore" is equivalent to the fench "alors" which is often employed to "interrogate a declaration"

It's the written equivalent of uptalk[0], I wouldn't say it is uncommon at all. It would only really be confusing the first time you come across it -- like most things.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal

Not without an ellipsis it's not.

You're not in trouble?

Generally speaking, this situation does not seem confusing for many native speakers. The question mark indicates uncertainty about the statement instead of asking “<Statement>. Can anyone refute this or provide insight to the original significance?”. In this case, the author drew a conclusion about other data which seems to make the original article seem less important or less significant, but instead of declaring it as a fact outright, the author is choosing to mark it with uncertainty instead which will invite a discussion if they are wrong on some aspect of it.

> this situation does not seem confusing for many native speakers

English was not my first language, and this peculiar phrasing confused me. Asking for clarity seems like a natural thing to do in this situation.

It is, but it came of as criticism to me, because using the question mark this way is quite common here on HN and elsewhere.

I apologize heartily for offending you, that is not my intent.

You did not offend me(with the first post) and I did not downvote you. I just explained, why you received negative feedback - basically missunderstanding. But talking about missunderstanding: I understand your last comment as snarky, unwarranted sarcasm. This I would downvote.

FWIW, does not read sarcastic from the sidelines.

And as mentioned elsewhere, the entire thread seems like a good natured discussion: perhaps it felt different without the original "edit".

It seems to be a rather recent phenomenon here on HN (broadly speaking) and for me it falls pretty much in the same category as other overly familiar and rude language patterns such as 'AF' (short for 'as fuck') or 'tho', 'cuz', or 'w/' instead of 'though', 'because', or 'with'.

There is a rudeness in making it one of these faux-questions filled with implications instead of clearly stating what it is you want to say.

This practice (adding a ? to a declarative sentence) is very informal, and so you wouldn't see it used in published English language media, so I'm not surprised that you may never have encountered it. It's used as a shorthand method of inviting clarification when the author is unsure of the veracity of the claim.

This sub-thread reminds me that there are many informal rules in languages that are rarely taught, and which can trip up non-native speakers. Informal shorthands, idioms, slang, etc.

It's like a written form of Uptalk.

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

Everything about this exchange seems fine to me. You asked a clarifying question about an “advanced” usage of the question mark, and you were answered with a neutral description of what’s going on.

I'm a native English speaker and this trend confuses me pretty often. It's not always clear whether the person:

1. is sincerely asking a question

2. accidentally hit they question mark key instead of the period

3. is mimicking the valley girl inflection

It's not that much of a problem here, but it's much more pronounced in places where people rarely use complete sentences to begin with. Such as chat rooms, etc.

> is mimicking the valley girl inflection

:-) I was thinking this but couldn't find the right phrase.

It could also be expressing uncertainty. You want to make an assertion but not 100% sure you are right. A question mark at the end expresses some self doubt and leaves it open to correction. I use '?' that way quite often.

>not sure why I'd get in trouble for asking.

Both of your comments can be construed as linguistic pedantry. Particularly, saying "it's confusing" rather than e.g. "I find it confusing" is pretty prescriptive - and it just sounds like you're doubling down on your first comment.

If you want to ask a question about a feature of language, it helps to add the context that you're unfamiliar with the language itself. Otherwise, most readers will assume that you're attempting to correct the user you're replying to. Commenting on people's use of language is considered quite rude in most internet communities - not least because of the number of ESL users.

I used this process, and came up with the numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close in my opinion, though I'm not 100% sure. What do you think?

shortened, becomes:

I used this process, and came up with these numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close?

Why you got in trouble: people thought you were criticizing the original comment for hiding a statement to look like a question. (A common underhanded tactic to do and a common criticism - "was that a question?".)

Putting a question mark at the end like this imitates the change of intonation when speaking with uncertainty.

Eg:

I think I left the phone in my car.

I think I left the phone in my car?

While technically incorrect in written English, this is very common in casual speaking and has found its way into casual writing.

In spoken English, this would be expressed by ending the sentence with an exaggerated pitch change for the question and a pause; it’s a way to indicate uncertainty and give someone else an opportunity to affirm or provide a contrary opinion without conflict.

Rendering it in written English is not correct per formal rules, you’d probably never see this in an English textbook, but it’s a semi-common colloquialism in forums like these.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com