A Buddhist monk confronts Japan’s suicide culture (2013) | Hacker News Reader

A Buddhist monk confronts Japan’s suicide culture (2013)

newyorker.com

354 pointsahris176 comments

    He had spent seven years sacrificing himself, driving himself to the
    point of breakdown, nearly to death, trying to help these people,
    and they didn’t care about him at all. What was the point? He knew
    that if you were suicidal it was difficult to understand other
    people’s problems, but still—he had been talking to some of these
    people for years, and now here he was dying and nobody cared.

When I volunteered on a suicide hotline, the frequent callers were by far the most disheartening aspect of the job. I believe some of them had borderline personality disorder... at any rate they were highly manipulative, and a large part of the training for the job was about how to avoid being taken in / drained by them. There were one or two people who had figured out the duty roster for the call center, and you would be guaranteed a call from them if you were on duty... multiple hours-long calls, if you let them.

The hotline didn't ban them unless they became sexually aggressive towards female volunteers, I think because they helped keep the call numbers up, which was important for funding.

If they had BPD (borderline personality disorder), in all likelihood they were not acting manipulative at all, and were just very often in distress and experiencing very strong, dysregulated feelings and emotions. BPD people being "manipulative" is a negative and inaccurate stigma, based on misunderstanding. It is also highly harmful, as people are told to always hold in their emotions, always be wary of trying to be "manipulative", or reveal their true feelings to anyone. Since Borderline people likely went through significant trauma in childhood, contributing to the disorder, they are being made to suffer a second round of emotional abuse and/or neglect due to ignorance and people not getting their facts straight.

People with NPD (narcissistic personality disorder), or ASPD (antisocial personality disorder) might exaggerate feelings to get attention or something else from you. Though if you were on a suicide hotline, ASPD people would have no reason for calling if not genuinely in distress, and i doubt you were encountering that many NPD people.

Is it that hard to believe that some people might actually be commonly dealing with very strong emotions and impulses they can't control? It's really unfair of you to label others emotions as fake and attention-seeking, when you really have very little data to go on as to whether that's the case or not.

And above all "Borderline people are not manipulative!" I wish i could shout that from the mountaintops, but i can't and most people don't care to listen anyways. You're inaccurately and likely prematurely applying the wrong label, and should give even regulars and even people you think you know well the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for this comment, I don't know why but I decided to do a google search on dysregulated and the first link was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_dysregulation

Hours of browsing similar wikipedia articles to find out something but nothing describing exactly the issue only to come across an unrelated comment on hacker news unexpectedly that helps a ton.

The correct way to handle behavior that you think might be manipulative? Have boundaries and rules. Limit call times to a reasonable limit, or if the person seems to be done talking about anything substantial, move towards concluding the conversation. If somebody is just going around in circles with stories or thoughts, cut through that mess with a directed question. Try to get to the heart of any issues that might be at play. Don't let yourself be played (by upholding boundaries and limits), but don't label or dismiss people out of hand either.

>The constant screaming and the running, along with chronic exhaustion, produce in him a state of low-level panic, which is also a state of acute focus. It is as if his thinking mind, his doubting and critical and interpreting mind, had shut down and been replaced by a simpler mechanism that serves the body.

This is extreme, however, it strikes me as a mild version of operating a steam locomotive. While undertaking this activity, my brain is occupied with 3 things: How's the water? How's the fire? Are there any hazards ahead? Repeat ad nauseum.

The water level is very critical. Too much, and you'll be piping water through the steam plumbing, which has the potential to be very destructive to the locomotive. Too little, and the structural integrity of the boiler could be compromised.

The fire is the life of the locomotive. Too much coal can snuff out the fire. Too little coal and you may run out of fuel. Too much fire wastes fuel and water; too little, and there will not be enough power to move the train. With the small models I operate, there is always a hand pump to put water into the boiler, but on a full size locomotive, it's possible to be in a situation where you don't have enough steam power to put more water into the boiler, and as I mentioned before, if the water level gets too low, the structural integrity of the boiler could be compromised.

A brain busy with the above tasks may fail to notice a train stalled on the tracks ahead, which could cause a collision.

I often think of operating a model steam locomotive as a state of nirvana. This is an exaggerated notion, but who could be troubled when the fire's too hot, the water's running low, see anything of concern up ahead? And by the way, how's that water level?

My point is that I think the monks might be on to something.

Also known as Flow - the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

Also known as rapture†[0] or ecstasy[1]. See the related altered states of consciousness[2]. Rands and Joel Spolsky call it "the Zone".

† which is incidentally the title of my endlessly upcoming blog (no relation to christianity nor Bioshock)

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture_(Buddhism)

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(emotion)

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness

Sounds like a moderately fun video game?

While lacking the romantic appeal of a steam locomotive, Pax Reactor [1] is basically a 1375 MW boiler. Pretty fun until everything hits the fan.

[1] http://henrik.zsolt-frei.net/Fun/Software/pax.html

Thanks for that, it's an awesome sim.

Yep - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Awv8xjqMjQ

Train Simulator is, in practice, mostly about micromanaging your steam levels.

Surprisingly, Steam is also mostly about micromanaging your Train Simulator levels.

I used to live near the Tojimbo cliffs and have been thinking about the place (and what happens there) on and off since my first visit. I also really liked this NYT article, about a retired cop who made it his mission to stop suicide attempts at the cliffs. 222 lives had been saved as of late 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/world/asia/18japan.html?_r...

"Mr. Shige says his approach to stopping suicides is quite simple: when he finds a likely person, he walks up and gently begins a conversation. The person, usually a man, quickly breaks down in tears, happy to find someone to listen to his problems."

Genuine empathy can be both powerful and shocking.

unexpected empathy is always particularly moving, especially for the hopeless. It's a STRONG pattern interrupt to a negative view of the world around you, and really makes people question themselves.

Agreed, http://www.smh.com.au/national/an-angel-walking-among-us-at-...

Another extraordinary story about a Suicide Catcher, this time in China.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201005/suicide-ca...

"Mr. Chen would charge them like a dangerous man himself, wrestling, punching, kicking, doing whatever was necessary. 'I'm very confident in my physical strength,' he said. 'Since I have no psychological training, my job is to get that person off the bridge as quickly as possible.'"

A similar story from Sydney ...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/death-of-the-angel-of-the-gap-the-...

I was suicidal for an extended period of time many years ago. Doctors weren't sure what was wrong. The hospital emergency ward gave me clonazepam and ativan, but that was only a band-aid, and didn't help long term.

Although I wanted to die, my fear of death and an eternity in the Lake of Fire was a far greater fear (Revelation 21:8). I'm not asking you to believe what I do. I'm just relaying what I went through, and the mindset I had at the time. As terrible as it was, that fear I had kept me alive.

Finally found a doctor who was able to diagnose what I had. Got treatment, suicidal thoughts went away, and am doing much better now.

I don't like to think back on that ordeal, but when I do meet people who are contemplating suicide, I absolutely can relate and empathize with the anguish they are experiencing.

It's funny that we tell our children not to do things that will certainly have bad consequences for them, like putting their hand in fire. But still, there's mockery around after-life scenarios like we'd know something for certain. There's so much mystery around our existence, consciousness, suffering, that mocking precautions about after-life is incredibly foolish.

There are at least two religions for which belief in one constitutes damnation in the other. At least one of them has to be wrong.

Of course, to any person, his religion can't be wrong. (If it can, then it is at least in some sense not "his religion.") So to every strong believer, someone else's afterlife precautions are either superfluous or futile.

Of course, that doesn't mean the question should be taken lightly, but it seems that as long as there are different religions, people have to believe that other people's afterlife precautions are not correct.

When you think about it, once you accept that an afterlife is something worth worrying about, you're left with hundreds if not thousands of unfalsifiable, contradictory (and even antagonistic) folk tales and the task of choosing one and hoping you're right -- although for most people, this question is answered for them by the circumstances of their birth, and it seems normal, even obvious.

So really, simply choosing to live the life you want to live is only marginally less risky than living in fear of the wrath of the god or gods which happen to coincide with the cultural norms in existence at the time. Either way it seems a bit like Russian Roulette.

Pascal's wager[0]: God† may or may not exist, therefore I might as well believe since I have everything to gain if I was correct and nothing to lose if I wasn't. (argument involves finite vs infinite gains/losses, see Wikipedia)

My personal wager: God† may or may not exist, but if he doesn't I'd sure as hell better make the best out of this life because there won't be another one, otherwise I might as well not exist.

† or whatever

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Yeah, but how many folk tales do you know of have our calendar measured after the life of one man? 2014 AD or more fully "Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi".

How many of those tales give you a single point of failure, that if you can explain away one point then internally the whole belief system collapses? (http://bit.ly/1uNpRwT with a modern explanation at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus)

Seems to me there might be more to the story than just a random dart throw at a wall of choices.

That's one of the main problems with your whole argument. "How many folk tales do you know...". Just because you only know one, doesn't mean there is only one. You believe the one you are told, as do the other people else where in the world and in time.

The Gregorian calendar does attempt to count the number of years since Jesus.

The Bahá'í calendar counts since Báb had his first religious experience [0]

The Bengali calendar counts (possibly) since the reign of King of Gour, Shashanka [1]

The Buddhist calendar counts since Buddha attained parinibbāna [2]

The Hindu calendar Kali Yuga counts since Krishna left Earth to return to his abode [3]

I'm sure there are more, I only looked at a few. Look how many calendars there are that are in use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars

Also, I don't think explaining anything can make a belief system collapse.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_timeline [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_calendar [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_calendar [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

Systematic theology tries very hard to lay out a self coherent view of Christian theology. As much as I think that some of the conclusions it comes to are abhorrent, it is possible to do. American Christianity has a less strong relationship with rationality.

I don't want to pile on, but you're failing to see the implicit cultural bias in your argument. Primarily, that calendar was created and implemented by the Church, at a time when that Church dominated political and cultural life in the Western world. Of course they decided to divide the calendar there, they accepted Christianity as a first principle.

>How many of those tales give you a single point of failure, that if you can explain away one point then internally the whole belief system collapses?

All of them, if you don't believe in the existence of the supernatural. But this argument, in itself, reveals another fallacy, as it assumes the narrative consistency or cultural relevance of a religion has any bearing on its actual truth. Reality doesn't have to be logically consistent nor does it have to follow a narrative path - one only has to look at scientific progress over the last century to see that. And the argument that Christianity must be true because so many people believe in it is undermined by the fact that more people have consistently believed otherwise over time.

>Seems to me there might be more to the story than just a random dart throw at a wall of choices.

Thing is, that's what they all say.

If I had believed what you are saying, I'd be dead. Would not have been worth pushing through what I went through. Just sayin'.

Fair enough, religion has had a use for you - many religions clearly have a use for many people. But that doesn't make what you believe in objectively real.

Agreed, which is why it is referred to as faith. I have examined the evidence surrounding the Christian claim that Jesus Christ was and is God and that He rose from the dead, but that does not constitute proof. It is, however, evidence and something that each person will need to weight and decided for themselves.

I respect a person's right to believe whatever they want, all I ask is they respect my right to believe whatever I want as well. Seems like you and I are doing that, and I really do appreciate what you are saying, and especially in the way you are saying it. Cheers :)

You are entitled to believe whatever you believe. But you cannot assert that your belief system is unique because of proof that depends on that same belief.

The answer to each of those questions is rather a lot. The lack of knowledge of other belief systems here is utterly stunning. Did you really just put all your faith in the very first religion that you randomly happened to be exposed to, and not consider any others at all?

Heh. No :) Remember that my main point here was simply an experience I had facing suicidal. I came to faith in Christ back in my early 20's after thrashing and lashing out severely at many different faiths. My illness came to bear back in my 30's, and it is my belief that what happened in my 20's saved my life in my 30's.

Now I'm in my 40's. I have a phrase that I use a lot. I respect a person's right to believe whatever they want, all I ask is they respect my right to believe whatever I want.

Just addressing this sole point.

>to any person, his religion can't be wrong //

I disagree with this quite strongly, at least as far as "religion" is a placeholder word suitable for "Christian faith".

There is an oft repeated aphorism in Christian circles that says if certain proof of God's works existed then faith wouldn't be needed to put one's trust in Jesus, as the way back to God and on in life. Doesn't the idea of faith require that one considers such a thing could be wrong?

When I became a Christian I spent some time trying to explain what I'd experienced in a way that was consistent with my former world view. My view then was perhaps best described as Pyrhonic Popperism [I think that's not a common description!] - nothing is certain but everything falsified should be held untrue so long as this forms a consistent view. That's pretty much as I am now. I'd say there is a tiny element of post-modernism in there but the majority of my thought has held to the position that there is a single discoverable truth about the nature of the universe; since my formative years however I've held that science creates a largely consistent view that is not necessarily true (that's built in to scientific method) but is mostly useful for describing our interactions with the true universe.

That said, my point is that there's probably not a day goes past when I don't consider my faith could be misplaced (in one aspect or other). There is a common thread of doubt that forms a central part of most Christian's lives AFAICT too. Saint Thomas's doubt is not a reason for chastisement but a simple reflection of his humanity.

It's the same in physical and spiritual worlds - I doubt the existence of m-branes or axions (and CDM in general) and that causes me to reflect on their true nature and enquire as to their being.

Humans have many beliefs. Facts are not beliefs. Beliefs are not facts. The nature of life after death, if there is one, is a fact. Our multitude of beliefs about it do not change there being or not life our death, just as our very existence is not a matter of belief. We are or we're not. Just because we have epistemic limitations, that doesn't mean that the ontology of life, before and after death, is influenced by that, or is an illusion.

I hope you'd agree with me when I say that love is more natural to human beings than fear. That peace is more desirable than troubling. I believe that no matter what religion or belief system one's in at the time, for whatever reasons, seeking love and peace and cultivating them among people around, will set them on the right path. Anything else is like me, a simple worker, saying to another one that he'll be fired because he done whatever. It's not my decision, although I can have that belief. Or delusion.

> I hope you'd agree with me when I say that love is more natural to human beings than fear.

I wouldn't agree with that. Fear is one of the most basic instincts. A core emotion to most species along with joy, sadness, anxiety and anger.

Love, while most are certainly capable of it, isn't among those core emotions.

Living in fear is a wretched state though, yet many many religious doctrines are based in fear, condemnation, hate, for anyone outside of their church or religion.

If you believe that victims of suicide are consigned to hellfire for all eternity, you might as well go to their funerals and preach to all of the friends and family who loved them that their loved one will suffer eternally from now on. Victims of rape, violence, neglect, abuse, poverty, other types of trauma, people with serious mental disorders, or anyone who wasn't lucky enough to survive their first suicide attempts (i've survived at least 4 myself), don't get any more chances and deserve to suffer, because God is always just and fair.

To many of us that have decided to reject religion, such a seemingly at-odds message (God is just and fair, but life is unfair, and some people just don't get second chances) is despicable and insane. It's people trying to assuage their own fear of the unknown, and guilt for their wrongdoings, by subscribing to a cosmology that of course they will be forgiven for their crimes and attain everlasting happiness and utopia, but everyone else is damned. A number of religions, and sects within religions, maintain exclusivity for their beliefs about who gets into heaven and who doesn't, yet adherents always believe there can be no doubt that they themselves are correct and everybody else is wrong.

I choose to believe that if God exists, He/She/They are at least as just and fair, compassionate and loving and forgiving, as the best human has ever been. If we devote ourselves to good deeds and works, not judging and condemning our fellow man, nor resting on our laurels and often arbitrary convictions, then we are more likely to find favor from any judge weighing the value of our lives and deeds, and the trajectory of our hearts.

>> It's people trying to assuage their own fear of the unknown, and guilt for their wrongdoings, by subscribing to a cosmology that of course they will be forgiven for their crimes and attain everlasting happiness and utopia, but everyone else is damned.

This is such an extreme and ignorant simplification. You speak as if religious doctrines have been developed by shoe shop owners feeling guilty for selling expensive stuff to poor women.

The world is full of mockers and fools. I know, because that was me for the first 20 years of my life. Now that I'm 45, I hope I am less foolish, and that I mock less.

-----

"Well I'm not sure I'm wiser but some things are clearer And it's getting clear that I'm not here for long. So what am I to do with my few minutes here in this place?" - Steven Curtis Chapman https://soundcloud.com/stevencurtischapman/a-little-more-tim...

> The world is full of mockers and fools.

And 84% of the population on this planet is religious...

Quips aside, I regret nearly every thing I did that derived from the fanatical faith I held for my first quarter century, apart from finding my wife. I missed out on so much of life because of my devotion, and if I'm a mocker or a fool now, it's only because I have so few minutes in this place and regret having wasted so much of it on religion.

>And 84% of the population on this planet is religious...

This doesn't mean they are fools. In fact, historically speaking religion served to form the basis of civilization. From arts to legal practices, most of our culture has its origin on religious practices and roots, and has evolved from there on (there is tons of anthropological research about it).

Religion is not just about believing in some guy in the sky and his literal actions. Nor do all religions (and religious people) take such things literaly, the way some North Americans that believe in tele-evangelists and such do.

It has been mainly used as a way to codify and pass on social ideas, thoughts about the meaning of life, about how we should treat each other, what is valuable etc.

Sure there are fanatics and violence and all kind of bad things associated with religion. But there are such things associated with everything we do anyway: democracy, revolution, justice everything has been abused and turned to it's opposite at some point or another. Heck, even "humanitarian action" is often used as an excuse to exploit people.

Sounds like you and I have had different faith experiences. I didn't grow up with it as a kid, so all of what I know I've had to discover as an adult.

As far as mockers and fools, you only have to look as far as the comment section of YouTube to find a whole plethora of them. If the Internet had been around when I was growing up, I would have been right there among them.

I grew up with it as a child but I went back and forth with it when I decided to stop caring too much over it and accept it as something that is good, in itself.

The problems with people are always going to be more fundamental than what religion they attach themselves to. This has always been my experience, and it seems consistent all the time.

I've mostly observed that in technical circles (ie: Vim vs Emacs vs flavour of the month). I don't think it's a religion thing. I think it's a people thing.

So is mockers and fools two separate categories?

Yeah, I think you can be a fool who doesn't mock others, or someone who mocks and isn't necessarily foolish. I'm just saying that I was both, and to some degree still am. Depends on who I'm being measured against.

There's so much mystery around our existence, consciousness, suffering, that after we die what must happen is either we achieve eternal paradise, or eternal suffering and agony; also by the way i know for sure i'm going to paradise, and you're going to hell unless you believe the same things i do.

Such a reasonable philosophy. /s

No. What is incredibly foolish is to contort your life because of that kind of elaborate lies.

Don't want to double-reply, but i really feel a reply i made to a post stemming from this one also applies here quite strongly.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120459

You can be afraid of the unknown and an uncertain fate without being sure of your damnation. Being sure of your own salvation is almost just as bad, especially when it's to the exclusion of anyone elses, when your good works and virtue might pale in comparison to others supposedly going to hell. It's also very arrogant, prideful and foolhardy, and a wellspring of hatred, condemnation, violence, war throughout history.

Revelations 21:8 (King James Version)> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It mentions sorcerers, other versions of the bible mention practitioners of magic. So basically most people who read HN are condemned to the Lake of Fire.

Uh... yeah. Jesus Christ has been mischaracterized as someone who talks exclusively about peace and love, yet the most terrifying words (I think) ever written are in the seventh chapter of the Book of Matthew.

Here's a snippet: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A13-...

There is a difference between not wanting to live and wanting to kill yourself.

I wanted to kill myself, and I didn't want to live, so having lived both sides of that coin, I can categorically say it doesn't really matter what the difference is. It's not a place anyone ought to be.

My advice: get help. If that fails, get help from someone else, and keep searching until you find it. Avoid things that only exacerbate the problem. If you find it hard to go on, focus on getting through just today. When it's really bad, focus on getting though the next hour.

There is really, really good help out there. You just need to find it.

It is simply a matter of degree rather than a fundamental difference however.

The only thing I can't get over is how work focused all of the letters are. Sure, they all have family struggles, but they're less concerned about the particular struggles and more concerned about how that impacts their work.

This article is phrased as if the entire Japanese culture is based on a disproportionate work-life balance to the extreme.

I agree with the other replier that expressed doubt as to whether things are really any different anywhere else. Your life might involve other elements, but for the vast vast majority of humanity, work/career/income is a very significant, necessary foundation for anything else to be possible. Without work you are left to wither and die, with either no or very very limited resources provided to you.

This is quite evident in how we treat the disabled when they are judged unable to work; serious disability in the US with no work history? Try living on the maximum $674 per month SSI payment(1), with no guaranteed section 8 housing (wait list is closed in many states for years at a time), and let's see how good of a life you can live, with no family support, trust funds, or anything like that.

That's not even taking into account the countless perennial homeless people that we let languish on the streets, because we'd never pay to have them accurately diagnosed, or directly allocate any funds so that they aren't living a life of abject poverty, filth, and neglect.

But of course suicide is still illegal for everyone, disability or not, abject poverty or not, likelihood of improved quality of life or not. We pay lip service to being a moral, caring society, saying you shouldn't ever kill yourself because there are other options, but then again we'd never break out our checkbook or trouble ourselves to ensure those options actually exist. Such societal realities would look despicable if they weren't so peachy by comparison to much much worse atrocities humans have committed throughout history.

There are a few standouts in Western Europe and elsewhere, where it seems people actually take issue with poverty, neglect, and misery, but that is far from common worldwide, where indifference and schadenfreude are the norm.

Sorry for the rant.

Edit: forgot the citation

(1) http://www.disabilitybenefitscenter.org/disability_benefits....

So it would seem. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi

That kind of environment can spin out cases like hikikomori. You can see similar trends in the U.S. with respect to startups and overworking, to a smaller scale, usually in the form of "going off the grid."

Are things any different anywhere else?

Our hunting-gathering days are over. We used to chop down wood for the fire; now, we go to work, and push a button on the wall to stay warm.

To work is to live in modern society.

I'm living in Japan at the moment (language student) and it is certainly different here compared to the west. For example in Silicon Valley it is acceptable to pretty much give up a college education for a startup. In East-Asia, that is shunned upon except perhaps in Taiwan. For Japan particularly, there is a "set path" of being normal/average and deviating from that path causes people to look negatively on you. For example people that only do "part time" work in Japan are considered freeters (free-timers) and not necessarily contributing to society.

Another significant things about east-asian work ethics especially Japanese, is that the rank system is still in place when it comes to corporate structures. For the typical Japanese, that means in order to be a "good" employee, you need to show up to work before your boss arrives and leave after he leaves, even if you have nothing to work on. Furthermore, after-work drinking parties with the boss are considered slightly below mandatory, you can decline the invitation but your boss will get the impression that if you do, you aren't a "good employee".

Finally death from overwork here is real. The general strategy here is if you're failing, you aren't working long enough hours. That's different from the west because if you combine that with the notion that you are more of a servant than a creator or contributor, then you suddenly end up with zombies instead of employees doing meaningful, creative work. More work general works if feedback and criticism is accepted on all levels, here that isn't the case.

The nail in the coffin is this is pretty much accepted by everyone thus if you don't accept it, you are seen as the "weird" one. Individuality is often not a good thing here. That means your Japanese wife tending to the children at home will become incredibly disappointed with you if you don't "succeed" in this system. There is an expectation that you'll more or less be the cash cow for the family otherwise you're useless.

That is certainly the norm but it is not universal. There are certainly individuals that do not follow this pattern but, unfortunately, you are unlikely to ever meet them if you have a more conventional existence.

For example, I am a computer programmer, mid 30s, I have a wife and child and I work 20 hours a week, 25 absolute max. I've been working reduced hours for almost three years. I also work remotely so we spend most of our time in places like Thailand and Malaysia (warm, good food, low cost of living) although we will shortly be heading over to spend a few months in Europe.

And we are not the only ones. Most of our social circle is composed of similar people. If you go places like Chiang Mai in Thailand it is crawling with westerners carving out an existence that involves a high quality of life and personal control over how much and when they perform income generating activities.

Unfortunately if you are in the 9-5 routine yourself you will never meet any of us.

>Our hunting-gathering days are over. We used to chop down wood for the fire; now, we go to work, and push a button on the wall to stay warm.

Well, billions of people still chop down wood for the fire. Including tons of people in the west -- in villages in eastern europe for example.

> people in the west -- in villages in eastern europe

Um...

There's an "east coast" in the USA. Maybe that's not "west" enough for you too?

Yes, things are different elsewhere.

I didn't like some of what was wrote. Suffering shouldn't be praised, and suicide shouldn't be look as being weak. Some people just can't cope with the harshness that is life. Some people can't cope with the harshness of their mental illnesses. Some people just can't cope with the pain that is caused by terminal illnesses. To say that suffering is good, is to trivialize these people's plight.

Buddhism doesn't praise suffering. Asceticism is practiced as a way to reach nirvana, the ultimate state of mind that is devoid of suffering.

Some cool reads: http://viewonbuddhism.org/4_noble_truths.html#2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism#Buddhism

Any of us would commit suicide under the right circumstances. It looks weak and selfish when you have never had to walk in that person's shoes, but if you ever get there yourself, to lose all joy and humor, to be in seemingly constant pain and misery, to have all of your hope and faith dwindle to nothing, with no help in sight, only then can you really fully understand what it's like seeing no other way out.

If you want to help prevent suicide, rather than limiting methods and consigning many people to continued torment and suffering, how about advocate for improving some of the societal problems that contribute to people losing all hope?

Poverty is a huge driver, along with inadequate physical and mental healthcare. Homelessness, or being faced with it, is demoralizing and inspires hopelessness. Some of the hardest-to-remedy but most hard-hitting issues are always going to be domestic physical, sexual and emotional abuse and bullying.

How about we try to improve other peoples lives and quality-of-life rather than sealing off the exits and trapping them in it? If we are ever going to have a truly compassionate society we need legalized assisted euthanasia, available to everyone after a waiting period, confidential counseling and a finite period of treatment. We all need to be honest with ourselves, stop the judgements, and provide the same options that we would want available if we were in somebody else's shoes.

The Hikikomori has become a standard anime trope. Starting in 2009 in Anohana, the main character is a recovering Hikikomori (who went through quite a depressing story that caused him to withdraw from society).

This last spring, there were at least three major animes revolving around the concept. "Nanana's burried treasure", "No Game No Life", and "Mekakucity actors" all have title characters who are Hikikomoris.

Hikikomori (shut-ins / NEETs) seem to be a real problem... real enough that they've entered Japanese Anime culture as a new character archetype.

I don't have much Japanese exposure outside of anime, so I'm not going to draw conclusions based on this alone. But I thought I'd give my perspective. Everything seems to tie together: an economic downturn that prevents many young people from getting a job, the uptick in shut-in culture, and finally an uptick in the suicide rate... (which seem to only cause more Hikikomoris as their loved ones disappear and make life more difficult for those left behind...)

So let us make a few distinctions. NEET =/= Hikikomori. Hikikomori tend to be a subset of NEET, as long as they are not employed. However, most NEET (not in education, employment, or training) would certainly not be Hikikomori. Hikikomori are the edge case, so only those who have no hopes of moving towards employment AND no desire for external interactions with society will likely be Hikikomori.

The preoccupation with Hikikomori began in the 90s, when someone made the now infamous claim that there were roughly a million Hikikomori in Japan, setting off an alarm. That seems to have been a gross overestimate, but it put the term in the popular lexicon. More recent studies offer more conservative and more realistic estimates.

It just so happens that the popular view of Hikikomori is that they tend to be very focused on specific subcultures, so in particular they are commonly characterized as Otaku (although there would be Hikikomori who are not Otaku and most Otaku are not Hikikomoris, etc.). These characterizations (hikikomori as someone obsessed with a particular pasttime/lifestyl, and hikikomori as extreme NEET) have generally formed the basis for the Hikimori as it is sometimes portrayed in anime.

This trope definitely didn't begin in 2009, as "the hikikomori anime", NHKにようこそ, was written in 2002 and adapted to anime in 2006. Maybe it's been more popular recently, but most anime are adaptations of some other format that have already been successful over the course of years. Something to keep in mind is that anime/manga satisfies a niche market and the hikikomori are actually a demographic for sales; making content that appeals to your demographics is good for business.

Just to contrast your experience, I had a very interesting two month working near Tokyo. The whole time I was there I didn't see any anime, or hikkimori and the whole thing didn't resemble anime at all (though.. granted, I'm not an expert in the genre). The only places you saw anything anime related was at gambling establishments and certain districts of Tokyo. I think on the whole, that subculture is looked down upon - just like in the US.

Most people just live boring normal middle class lives. I'm not denying that there is a problem, but I think it's not necessarily a statement about Japanese society as a whole. It's like if goth kids started slashing their wrists in large numbers. It might be a reflection of US society as a whole, or it might be a toxic subculture.

You shouldn't expect to run into hikkimori as their very nature is to shut themselves in

While that is true, one must always rate experiences correctly. My experience 'with' Japan basically boils down into "Watches some fiction that some subset of Japanese also watches".

His experience is actually visiting Tokyo, including newspaper and media coverage of the mainstream in ways that I don't have.

I found that when I went to Yakushima I saw a lot more of the things you see in anime (even just stuff like the shapes of the buses) compared to Tokyo. I suspect that just like with novels or movies, a lot of the time creators set things in the world they grew up in as kids, so the world you see through media is the world as it was 20 years ago rather than now. Tokyo changes rapidly, whereas the countryside is similar to how it was.

Is the anime-fan subculture really looked down on in the US? Here in Europe it seems to be growing a lot, part of a general status upgrade for "nerdy" interests.

We have to keep in mind that much of Anime targets specific demographics and specific subcultures. It is not usually intended to portray society in a realistic or general manner, with some exceptions.

>The only places you saw anything anime related was at gambling establishments and certain districts of Tokyo.

How about airplanes? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Jet

I wonder if the Japanese groan when they have to get into one of those...

> Hikikomori (shut-ins / NEETs) seem to be a real problem... real enough that they've entered Japanese Anime culture as a new character archetype.

Character archetypes don't have to be real... they have to be interesting. It's vastly more likely that a character in a new show who draws on a different character in an older show does so because that original character was popular than that it does so because society as a whole has moved closer to that character in personality.

It's a fairly common anime trope.

42 examples on: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Hikikomori

Common yes, but not as common as it has been in recent years.

Three title-character Hikikomoris in a single anime season? Especially sine most of the examples before 2009 are not title characters. IE: You get stuff like a specific client for one episode of xxxHolic in older animes... or Haruhi who insulted normal people by calling them Hikikomoris.

But in contrast to say, Spring 2014 animes, there are three title character Hikikomoris that play major roles in the anime.

The concept has always been in anime, but very rarely has it been used so often for main characters.

When a candidate presents himself for training, he must prostrate himself and declare that he is willing to do anything that needs to be done to solve the great matter of life and death. By tradition, he is scowled at by the head monk, who orders him to leave. He persists, he continues to prostrate himself, and after two or three days he is taken in.

Apprentice monks are treated like slaves on a brutal plantation. They must follow orders and never say no. They sleep very little. They rise at four. Most of the time they eat only a small amount of rice and, occasionally, pickles (fresh vegetables and meat are forbidden). There is no heat, even though it can be very cold on the mountain, and the monks wear sandals and cotton robes.

I often wondered where Chuck Palahniuk got some of his ideas for Fight Club

This kind of stuff in Fight Club is probably done very much on purpose. One big point of the book is that people (and perhaps men in particular) tend to be wired for struggle and a search for (a) meaning and (b) a reinforced identity in a social context. There's a number of ways that can be found, but the training of a monastery, the grind of boot camp, the initiation into a fraternity... that's part of what they do.

As an exercise, the astute reader may wish to translate the paragraph beginning with "Apprentice monks" above into corresponding aspects of Valley/Startup culture.

Maybe he just made it up. Maybe the monks got the idea from him.

> Maybe the monks got the idea from him.

Not really possible since these are centuries-old traditions in many monasteries.

I often wonder why so many people like Fight Club so much (seriously). I mean, a bunch of my friends think it's the greatest thing, and repeat some of the cra..., I mean, some of the lines all the time (not really, but anything annoying that gets repeated starts to look like it's all of the time). All that fascist streak doesn't even get noticed, and I get confused looks when I mention it. Weird.

Because it's a Good Movie. Seriously. I disagree with it on almost every level from the superficial to profound (not quite all, but even what agreement I have is mostly the identification of problems where I think the solutions are wrong, and yes, I realize the film is not necessarily directly advocating for everything it presents), but it's a hell of a good ride, the twist is well done, and it has an energy that keeps it moving even as it dives deeply into absurdity.

Yeah, I liked it too. It was a good movie. But notice I was complaining that my friends liked it way too much. To me it was a good movie, and the twist was good too, but, for example, two people I know got fight club tattoos on them.

i used to struggle a lot with suicidal thoughts. i kept wanting to get out from the loneliness and general sense of "well what's the point? nothing i do really matters". i felt like the world was broken and alternated between trying to enjoy myself as much as i could, and wishing i could make things better.

what helped me finally move past this was repeatedly trying and failing to kill myself. always someone would come by, or i'd change my mind, at the last minute. i internalized the idea that it's not possible for a person to experience their own death. i see it in terms of the multiverse; if someone dies in my timeline, their world track has diverged so far from mine that we cannot meaningfully exchange information. i see things like war and the holocaust as being more akin to network partitions than destroyed hardware. the big bang was the network splitting for the first time, and portions of it have been trying to reconnect ever since.

i have no idea whether this is true or not, but it's .. being free from those thoughts immediately forces me to think "well if i'm stuck here, i have to make things work better for myself, since leaving apparently isn't an option."

sometimes i think i DID successfully kill myself - years ago, on my first attempt in 2006 - and i'm in a purgatory now.

i see stories of "life extension technology" being developed, and i think it's entirely plausible according to "mainstream science" that people my age will be able to live indefinitely. everyone else tells themselves "well its because of this new technology" and in the back of my mind, i keep thinking that i won't have a choice - i'll be alive forever because you can only die once.

i'm sure this all sounds ridiculous to anyone hearing it, but honestly being able to put aside suicidal thoughts, and focus on improving my life, has been really, extremely helpful. it sounds like this guy has found another way (i.e. not involving believing immortality is the default state, or that you are already dead) to make it happen.

You might be interested in reading about quantum immortality.

wow, thanks for that. i had no idea anyone else thought this way.

interestingly enough, the first suicide attempt was in 2005. my favorite band at the time - because it was both optimistic and depressed at the same time - was 'the eels', fronted by the son of Hugh Everett, the physicist who developed the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

music and mathematics, poetry and prose. it comes whence it is headed, where it's going - no one knows.

You're not alone. I happen to subscribe to the same fanciful notion myself, even though it is in no way rational.

I've had about 3 or 4 serious suicide attempts before, and a number of smaller ones. Even in the more serious attempts, the ones that landed me in critical care, necessitated blood transfusions, etc., in the end i'd always wake up. I'd black out, and then always wake up in the hospital, someone having found me in time by chance and such.

Based on sparse personal evidence, probably a bit of narcissism, possibly mild psychosis, and survivorship bias, i have concluded i am possibly immortal, at least to myself, and that life-ending attempts might be pointless, or at the very least i should be very careful in the future to limit injury in the case of my surviving.

Not sure where aging would fit into that cosmology, at least that which i have experienced for myself, or what would happen if i do become frail from old age. Old age and death for others could be explained by timelines diverging, but for myself i have no idea. I'm open to suggestions though! ;-) I still think everyone is real, just that you and everyone else exist in your own realities and timelines that converge and diverge from my own based on positive and negative personal affinities and orbits.

I don't know if you have experienced this for yourself, but my conclusions on personal realities, timelines, and affinities were partly based on qualitative experiences of convergence and divergence in my own universe. People already seemingly closely aligned to me enter my personal life and sphere by chance, and often only become more and more closely aligned the longer they stay, while they influence me as well. Divergent individuals exit just as randomly yet commonly, or stay at the periphery.

Synchronicity seems to be a strong signal of some kind, one which ebbs and flows, surrounding strong events and turning points like a force field.

Full voluntary disclosure necessitates me telling you i've been deemed ill and delusional in a clinical environment quite a few times, even though to me it was merely for making obvious connections and inferences establishment types seemed to deliberately neglect making, to preserve their own seeming sanity, sense of self, and sense of place.

I'm more measured and careful about how much i let ride on any non-grounded inferences and notions i have, and you might want to do the same (if you don't already!) It's important to validate common notions of reality in public or during interactions, and only deviate in ways that won't put you at odds with other people you wish to keep in your life, and also don't threaten your own safety, any standing you wish to preserve, legality, etc.

Psychologists often call this "double bookkeeping", but for those of us who still happen to believe judged-delusional personal notions still have a good chance of being true, it's simply a compromise and a necessary one to be able to navigate safely in the world.

A cautionary tale on the dangers of lack of "insight", as perceived from this timeline:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/30/god-knows-where...

And the always entertaining, Was Jesus Bipolar?:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2013/05/was-jesus-bipola...

Diverging from expectations doesn't mean you don't have good ideas, or maybe know some deeper truths, though you should always be aware of how others do / are going to perceive you.

Short Vice documentary on the forest mentioned in the article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDSdg09df8

> by tradition, a mother who killed herself but not her children was thought to be truly wicked.

Not sure if cultural relativism here should take precedence and just say "ok it is their culture, who am I to judge it". On the other hand, it is kind of dreadful that this was so common, it got to be a cultural tradition.

There is something dreadful about it. You know "you bow before the elders", "take your shoes before you enter someone's home", "slaughter your children before you kill yourself".

I guess, like the article says, suicide is one of those "unknown knowns" that is ingrained in the social subconsciousness. They mention samurai and sepuku and how certain people were "praised" in a way for committing an honorable suicide.

I'm not sure anyone's advocating for a value-free and uncritical judgment of every last cultural practice, and personally I don't think any practice is above critical review.

At the same time, though, I think it's important to try and bring a holistic approach and an awareness that every culture probably has some such flaws. By "holistic approach" I mean remembering that "slaughter your children before you kill yourself" probably isn't a dangling horrifying imperative, it's probably an intersection of the problematic side of some values that have positive sides as well (for example, you could get it from "good mothers do not neglect the future of their children" + group identity over individual identity + a heavy personal accountability/status culture, all of which have some upsides as well as down). And of course, just like your favorite band, your favorite culture probably has something equally horrifying you accept (millions of abortions, automobile deaths as fact of life, elder neglect/abuse, money as status, whatever...).

God damn. Sometimes I forget how powerful The New Yorker's writing can feel. Superb.

The New Yorker has a pretty strong history of publishing often fascinating, thought-provoking stories.

A journalist from Slate did a piece recently pointing out some of the standouts, since The New Yorker and it's archives are temporarily free until October i think.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/07/22/new_yorker_on...

This is a beautiful article. Thank you for sharing.

Amazing. Japanese culture is the only one I know of where suicide is encourage and respected—is there any reason for that?

I'd been raised in a semi-Japanese home environment but wouldn't call myself an expert.

Many people would point to the Bushido culture when it comes to the aura of honor surrounding suicide. However, I think it may go even deeper.

From what I understand, Japan has never been a fully self-sufficient economy. The peasantry were always under some feudal rule and a lack of resources had been the norm. Tragic practises like carrying the elderly into the woods to be abandoned and die were not uncommon. The elderly knew when they had become more of a liability than an asset to the family and graciously accepted their fate.

Referring to ubasute[0].Seems more to be an aspect of folklore and popular culture than an actual practice, although it has made for the premise of a good film [1].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubasute

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Narayama_(1958_fi...

This may help

http://www.pbs.org/mosthonorableson/shame.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan#Cultural_attit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge

This might help your understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido#Seven_virtues_of_Bushid...

As I understand it, the Samurai live by the 7 virtues: - Rectitude - Courage - Benevolence - Respect - Honesty - Honour - Loyalty

I wouldn't be surprised if these virtues continue to play a huge role in today's society. That said, I'm also not sure how serious people live by these virtues.

Read your link in more detail. The 7-virtue noble warrior-poets aren't actually how samurai behaved. That was a turn-of-last-century propaganda movement.

Hungarian culture also looks more positively on suicide than others. I learned this from Freakanomics, which did a very interesting episode on suicide: http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/31/new-freakonomics-radio-po...

Samurai?

It reminds me of a beautiful Brazilian film I've watched recently in NY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5hTIOCuwy4

For anyone who hasn't seen this, this is both beautiful and heartbreaking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDSdg09df8

[Suicide rates] go down in wartime and go up again afterward.

Why would that be?

Suicidal people by definition have a low regard for their own lives, and are often in search of purpose or meaning. Enlisting to fight a war might be a solution to both. (I'm not an expert though, and the only evidence I have for this theory is knowing two fairly depressed people that enlisted during the recent Iraq war.)

They found purpose in enlisting for/during the Iraq war? Well, whatever works for them, I guess.

Well yeah, makes sense doesn't it? From unemployed and sitting alone at home all day to someone part of a greater thing with both friends / camerades, a strict social structure, strict day-to-day routine, physical exertion, etcetera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-JFPePh6yM#t=15m05s

Like I said; if he thinks it's part of some greater thing, who cares!

I'm not a psychologist, so I won't comment on the _why_, but veterans have an extremely high suicide rate. http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2427 (the PDF link has the data)

    > Of the 147,763 suicides reported in 21 states, 27,062 (18.3%)
    > were identified as having history of U.S. military service
    > on death certificates

This article has some discussion on how this data is hard to collect: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/us/22-veteran-suicides-a-day/

From that article:

    > A recent analysis by News21, an investigative multimedia
    > program for journalism students, found that the annual
    > suicide rate among veterans is about 30 for every 100,000 
    > of the population, compared with the civilian rate of 14 per
    > 100,000.

I'd expect that after a war, you have a new population of people in this particular high-risk group...

Many sources of depression stem from feeling trapped with no way out, or to be controlled in such a way that's counter to their sense of self (they feel out of control and unable to influence their own destiny, leaving an unfillable void at the center of their emotions) -- suicide often becomes a way for the individual to assert their self and grant themselves agency in these circumstances.

I've had combat explained to me like this. Imagine you're out in the world one day, grocery shopping, and a guy starts threatening you in the parking lot. In the normal world, you call the police or defend yourself if you need to, or get in your car and drive away. But your options are significantly limited. This problem or situation has other possible outcomes, but society has put artificial constraints the eliminates several effective resolutions.

A soldier in war has far fewer constraints. If some guy is bothering them, they can simply kill that person and resolve the issue. Or they can run them over in their armored vehicle, or bayonet them, or beat them with their rifle until they stop moving. An entire world of options opens up that allows you to simply resolve conflicts -- even if these resolutions are frowned upon in the normal society. Society sets up all these lines you can't cross, except in war you can cross all over them.

There's thousands of these kinds of issues in warfare, where normally impossible issues suddenly become trivial. Need to get from point A to point B? Steal a car. Need to get information from a guy? Beat him till he talks. Building in the way? Blow it up.

When a solider returns home, suddenly these societal restraints are locked back on them. You're suddenly told that you can't cross these lines anymore. But as anybody who's engaged in any kind of social line crossing can talk about, it's hard to roll that back once you've done it. As a result they feel trapped and disempowered. Having previously had literal power over life and death, you're suddenly trying to figure out how to fight with a soccer mom and her kids over a parking spot at the mall -- and you're trying to keep yourself blocked in by lines you now know aren't really there.

In combat you could just declare the minivan a threat and open up the 30 cal. Here you might have to go find another spot.

I'm dubious. A soldier in a war zone spends 98% or more of his time exclusively in the company of his fellow soldiers, whom he most certainly cannot kill or assault without facing extremely dire punishment. Even when he is in combat, he is only there under very strict orders and does not have very much freedom to do anything other than follow them.

That's interesting, but what's puzzling me the most is how less people commit suicide during a war.

If the first step to suicide were ideation, which is usually the result of prolonged psychological isolation, then wartime simply can't provide the proper enviroment for it.

During a war everyone huddles together trying to survive, and social and familial ties could become strong enough that even the thought of suicide would seem offensive, as if one were abandoning friends and family to their own luck. And when you have people running around shouting orders, bullets flying and bombs falling there's simply not enough time to think about anything else.

What people seem to dread being is left to themselves, not their conditions. Which is why only reason why war has ever had any defenders, aside from bureaucrats: it gives "purpose" to men.

Recently enough, Ars ran an article on a study (10.1126/science.1250830), which I'm not sure how appropriate is to the discussion of suicide, but sums up this point quite well:

In 11 studies, we found that participants typically did not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoyed doing mundane external activities much more, and that many preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative.

> That's interesting, but what's puzzling me the most is how less people commit suicide during a war.

Just speculating, but, I can immediately see two obvious potential contributing factors to lower suicide statistics (one of which isn't actually about reduced incidence of suicide, per se): during a war, there's a lot more opportunity for suicide-that-doesn't-get-categorized-as-suicide, and there is also a additional opportunity (compared to peacetime) for things that provide short-term, immediate purpose even if they don't deal with the underlying problems.

Total guess, but:

Depression and anger are linked, and when I've been depressed it's often manifested as anger at myself. Sometimes, finding an outside focal point for anger can offer relief from depression. It is easier to find a focal point for anger that other people share, and war can be a common enemy for a large population.

The other thing that got me very curious is how did a monk develop heart disease. I mean he must have been very very active and probably eating healthy.

From the article it appears that he was hardly sleeping in order to keep up with responding to people. It also makes it clear that other people's anxiety was passing on to him. Chronic exhaustion and stress might be OK for a young man if it's part of an effort to break his mind/enlighten him. But long term it's not surprising that it would seriously affect someone's health.

As the article mentions, Buddhist monks in East Asia these days mostly don't follow the ascetic lifestyle of days past. They smoke, drink, eat meat. Some of them may even marry.

The other thing that got me very curious is how did a monk develop heart disease.

Age and genetics. One will suffice, if not both.

Plenty of people develop heart problems who eat well and keep active. Healthy living improves your odds considerably, but doesn't put you at zero risk.

The concluding paragraph was interesting to read. Not sure the legitimacy of the story but it is something to think about.

Reminds me of "The Rabbi's Dance"

"The people of this town were all excited about the Rabbi’s visit for they knew that it was something rare and they looked forward to the holy man’s wisdom which they hoped would ease their suffering and their hard lives. So for weeks before he arrived, individuals reflected on what they would like to speak with him about, the questions they would like to pose and so on. They could hardly wait for the Rabbi to answer their urgent queries." Continued...http://basicindia.typepad.com/basicindia/2005/06/the_rabbis_...

This is one of the most beautiful and hopeful things I've ever read.

OT but what's up with the font? It's very hard to highlight.

Does anyone else here finds that there is disproportionnate amount of articles related to death, depression and mental illness that reaches the frontpage of HN ? I'm not saying it's necesseraly a bad thing, but it makes me wonder about the effects working in IT might have on mental health.

I think you are just noticing them. I feel like I see more of the "I work 5 minutes a day and I'm more productive than you", "unlimited vacation is awesome", or "I don't want money, I just want to surf more"

One might also think that such articles are underrepresented everywhere else. In fact, seeing them getting voted up is some evidence that people actually want to read them.

It might be that software guys see depression and think - Ah, a software problem in the head, how can we fix that? Unlike most of the rest of the world.

No, but perhaps you taking notice of them is a reflection of your sensitivity to the topic. The ones I see way to many of are about how amazing cities are and how crappy cars/suburbia is.

I've noticed the same trend. IT/tech workers are not known for their balanced work lives (eating healthy, exercise, not working too much).

Stunning.

By tradition, suicide can absolve guilt and cancel debt, can restore honor and prove loyalty.

In this respect I feel Japan's culture is superior to ours in the USA. For example, I felt Mark Madoff's suicide was entirely appropriate, a final act that put the rest of his life in a more dignified context. Yet every article one reads about it treats the suicide as an additional disgrace, yet another horrible thing we can blame on Mark and his father.

My wife is Japanese (born and raised there) and she does not look at it that way. She says people who commit suicide are losers can't apologize properly and work hard to make up for their mistake, or people who don't have the guts to weather through the hard times. Also, the whole samurai/bushido thing essentially doesn't exist for anyone under fifty over there. I went to Japan with my family in January, and I had a wonderful time, by the way. Eat at Joyfull, so cheap, so good! ( http://www.joyfull.co.jp/ -- see breakfast menu: http://www.joyfull.co.jp/menu/morning.html )

No offense, but making trip to Japan and eating at Joyful is like going to the Bay area and eating at Denny's.

Well, that's not the only place I went to eat. There's this little sushi bar just a short walking distance from their house where I ate raw frozen thin-sliced whale meat. (Tastes like a blend of beef and tuna. Unexpectedly salty. My son didn't like it. I ate the nine pieces in front of me.

Oh, also went to the shabushabu place in the Fukuoka train station mall on the 10th floor. Awesome. Best shabushabu in my life (not too pricy). Great view from the roof.

Yeah, and Miso soup and rice and other stuff for breakfast.

On the flip side, Denny's in Japan is freaking amazing.

Also, if you know of a Joyfull in the Bay area let me know.

Back around 96 I went to Nagoya and ate at Denny's. My hosts wanted some Western food that day, I guess.

I eat at Tsui Wah late at night when I go to Hong Kong, which is pretty much a HK denny's.

>Also, the whole samurai/bushido thing essentially doesn't exist for anyone under fifty over there.

I've been led to believe, (though I may be wrong, probably am) that it didn't really exist for the samurai either. In real life, they were elitist thugs and enforcers, and the mythology of bushido was added by old and bored samurai after Japanese society had more or less outlawed their violent ways.

It's as if the culture, history, and thought of Japan is as complex, multifaceted, and contradictory as that of any other place. Anyway, expats are often opinionated with respect to controversial aspects of their home countries.

I heard it described like someone a hundred years from now found a high school handbook and decided that all high school students must be orderly, not chew gum, speak politely, respect their teachers, etc...

She says people who commit suicide are losers can't apologize properly and work hard to make up for their mistake, or people who don't have the guts to weather through the hard times.

Charming attitude.

I doubt that many suicidal people have anything much to atone for, more likely they had some horrible things done to them or are just wired in a way that makes them deeply unhappy.

I don't see suicide as brave or cowardly. Depending on the situation, suicide can be in an individual's best interest -- a terminally ill patient in extreme pain who chooses to undergo a painless physician-assisted suicide would be a good example.

Even beyond terminal illness, I imagine that there are some people who have either been through such massive trauma, or are wired so badly, that suicide is a better option than living in misery. Granted, depressed individuals may not be capable of making decisions in their long-term self-interest, but I still wouldn't condemn every suicide as a "bad" decision, let alone "cowardly", "shameful", or any of the other pejoratives that come up around this topic.

Teenagers bullied into suicide must have a whole lot of serious stuff to apologize for, to kill themselves so early on! /s

>>She says people who commit suicide are losers can't apologize properly and work hard to make up for their mistake, or people who don't have the guts to weather through the hard times.

My understanding is that at least some of the people who commit suicide have done things beyond apology.

I mean, let's say a bridge collapses and kills tens of people, and it turns out this was due to the architect's gross negligence and/or incompetence. Are you saying he can simply apologize and work hard to make up for his mistake?

Wouldn't it be a better use of his life to work to make sure that sort of accident never happens again? Maybe he changes the culture that led to his incompetence. Maybe he tutors young architects and teaches them to learn from his mistake. I think someone that makes such a huge mistake is actually in a very powerful position to salvage something from it.

You're probably right, but personally if I was in that situation I don't think I'd be able to go through the mental hoops required to forgive myself.

Every morning, I'd wake up and remember what I'd done. The pain would be unimaginable.

Anyway, once it's done, anything good you do later is a net positive.

It's not like one can change the past.

This is how I like to think that people who design software for weapons systems live.

Really?

I've written guidance code. A missile that doesn't go where you point it is a deadweight loss; while it might be best if they weren't fired at all, it's better they hit their intended targets than random (probably civilian) victims.

Absolutely, but If no one could reliably aim their bombs, would they fire them?

Probably. The V2s couldn't hit a smaller target than "London", so that's where they fired them.

I think it makes more sense to set aside for now the 0.1% of cases that fall into that category, and work on ways to avoid the other 99.9% of suicides that don't.

I don't think all (probably not even most) suicides have anything to do with having made a mistake that needs apologising in the first place.

Are you implying he can make up for his mistake by killing himself?

No. enraged_camel is clearly asking if sometimes there is no proper apology, and no amount of work that one can do to make up for one's mistake.

It depends on your worldview. As an evangelical Christian, I would say no one can make up for ANY of their sins, small or large. Only God can forgive sins. But thank God He is in the business of graciously doing that.

Gross negligence resulting in the deaths of others is usually a crime, punished by incarceration. Yes, those people aren't coming back, but it's not like nothing happens if this sort of thing happens.

You and your wife sound nieve? Short, back/white answers benefit no one! Tell you wife, "Walk mile in man's shoes, then spout off ideology?" Or, just keep quiet and keep marital bliss? Wow-

You try staying married to a Japanese woman for 15 years without learning to accept that another culture and point of view is as valid as yours.

It's naive, by the way.

This is a dark, dark statement that paints a desperate individual killing himself out of fear as a good thing. It's not. Justifying suicide like that only makes it look like a good option for people who could get better.

From what I've just read it seems that Mark Madoff wasn't involved in his father's fraud, so I fail to see how his suicide was entirely appropriate.

Also from a pragmatic point of view, the victims of the fraud didn't get their money back, so his death was basically pointless except for the revenge factor.

From wikipedia: "Mark deposited $745,482 and withdrew $18.1 million."

As a compliance officer at one point.

The man did not do anything wrong, left a wife and two children, there was nothing there that helped 'put his life in a more dignified context' because he may have profited from his fathers fraud indirectly but there is no evidence that he knew about it.

I think you may be confusing the son with the father.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/10/25/mark-mad...

You are getting down voted but honorable suicide was a practice in more than ancient Japan.

Socrates died by his own hand for instance.

https://suite.io/arash-farzaneh/4sa32c7

I'm not saying suicide is good thing but there is a cultural perspective that is different from our own in the modern West.

Socrates was sentenced to death and chose to accept the judgment of the law and drink the poison himself rather than escape (or, I guess, force an executioner to become more directly involved). That hardly counts as suicide.

He could have left. But he decided to take the "honorable" path instead.

Because someone suggests you kill yourself doesn't make it any less killing yourself. This applies to ancient Japan as well. That was my point. The custom of "honorable suicide" wasn't confined to ancient Japan.

A death sentence isn't exactly a "suggestion", and by "he could have left" you mean "he could have escaped but chose not to". (I believe this is the premise of Crito).

Not to beat a dead horse... but he drank the poison. He wasn't killed, he took his own life. There was an alternative in which he lived, but which he refused.

But all this is getting off the point. Honorable suicide was a custom in more than ancient Japan.

So where? Because Socrates was sentenced to death; his death was not a suicide.

If you read the accounts escape would have been quite easy. His followers urge Socrates to leave and agree to help him (he had no small amount of supporters). But he says no.

When you kill yourself, even if the government has told you that you have to, it's suicide.

The same argument you are making that it is not a suicide could apply to ancient Japan as well.

Holy shit.

I think it ties into the differences between a guilt culture vs. a shame culture, as those terms relate to the anthropological research. In the western mind, you live suffering with guilt for your actions. In the east you have more irredeemable shame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com