|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:16 pm
Why does it seem that most teens go through a phase of suicidal thoughts or actions, and, if we're a species made to survive, why do some want to die?
Many of my friends are either depressed or suicidal and I'm curious as to what everyone's thoughts on the subject are.
Thank you.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:19 pm
Massive, sweeping hormonal upheavals. You will note, however, that most of them do not actually commit suicide, so this phase isn't quite as bad as it seems from an evolutionary perspective.
It may also be that you hang out with people who aren't typical, and who are thus more prone to be depressive due to alienation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:29 pm
WingedWolfPsion Massive, sweeping hormonal upheavals. You will note, however, that most of them do not actually commit suicide, so this phase isn't quite as bad as it seems from an evolutionary perspective. It may also be that you hang out with people who aren't typical, and who are thus more prone to be depressive due to alienation. my best friend is the coolest person in his school was a step away from suicide with a fist full of pills. I had to talk him out of it. I do know that the people who brag about being suicidal are going for attention and for those people I normally say "cut up and down, not across" so that they will stop trying to cry wolf for no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:12 pm
It's the age. I'm pretty sure everyone goes through it at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 11:20 pm
As a survivor of a suicide attempt, I'm still trying to figure it out. I know why I went through that "phase", and that's because my body's chemicals are messed up, yadda yadda. But, I know that can't be true with everyone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:10 am
Sociologist Emile Durkheim attributed suicide to the amount of social cohesion a person experienced. He theorised that the less social connections a person has, the more likely they will be to committ suicide. He then did a study which seemed to correlate with this theory, finding that the suicide rate in Italy, which is filled with close-knit families and small religious communities, had a small suicide rate. He then looked at Denmark, which had by comparison fairly open communities, and the suicide rate was indeed higher.
So if we're going to use Durkheim for this, teenage feelings of suicide could be linked to the serious feelings of loneliness many teenagers go through. The feelings that there are no social connections and it's going to stay that way makes the future too bleak to handle.
But of course, this is just one explanation for suicide. Also, talking about human behaviour on a "species" term should only be done when we have explained all social action that doesn't involve biology. Which we have yet to do at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:13 am
WingedWolfPsion Massive, sweeping hormonal upheavals. You will note, however, that most of them do not actually commit suicide, so this phase isn't quite as bad as it seems from an evolutionary perspective.It may also be that you hang out with people who aren't typical, and who are thus more prone to be depressive due to alienation. Evolutionary explanations don't have any way at all to explain suicide. If indeed these hormonal incidents are a product of biology, why can we not view them in other primates, who also go through adolescence? Because it's not a product of just hormones alone. There is something social that makes humans kill themselves. And we need to find out what that is before we start blaming hormones, brain sizes and the structure of the nervous system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:56 am
Quite plainly, other primates simply are not able to extrapolate that killing themselves will be a means of escape. They do suffer from depression, and may stop eating and engage in other neurotic behaviors as a result. Active suicide requires a level of understanding that primates just aren't quite capable of.
Of course, humans are particularly prone to making their own depression worse, as evidenced by the effectiveness of CBT in treating depression. Thoughts can trigger and worsen depression. Still, for the majority, bouts of depression in the teen years don't set up a lifetime pattern of chronic depression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:21 am
Blind Guardian the 2nd Sociologist Emile Durkheim attributed suicide to the amount of social cohesion a person experienced. He theorised that the less social connections a person has, the more likely they will be to committ suicide. He then did a study which seemed to correlate with this theory, finding that the suicide rate in Italy, which is filled with close-knit families and small religious communities, had a small suicide rate. He then looked at Denmark, which had by comparison fairly open communities, and the suicide rate was indeed higher. So if we're going to use Durkheim for this, teenage feelings of suicide could be linked to the serious feelings of loneliness many teenagers go through. The feelings that there are no social connections and it's going to stay that way makes the future too bleak to handle. But of course, this is just one explanation for suicide. Also, talking about human behaviour on a "species" term should only be done when we have explained all social action that doesn't involve biology. Which we have yet to do at all. Woot! You brought in Durkheim! You totally win! I also agree with you completely that biology can't be the only factor in suicide. Humans develop both intense social ties and do something that other species don't - they use symbols. Why the act of using symbols may seem small, symbolization helped pave the way for religion and other concepts that we as humans thrive on (more or less). When these symbols are taken away or screwed up, they effect human life dramatically. That can lead to suicide in some cases. The social factor that Durkheim brought up is also another factor to be considered with suicide. There are several others that have been brought in which makes suicide more of a social rather than biological concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:07 am
iolitefire Woot! You brought in Durkheim! You totally win! I also agree with you completely that biology can't be the only factor in suicide. Humans develop both intense social ties and do something that other species don't - they use symbols. Why the act of using symbols may seem small, symbolization helped pave the way for religion and other concepts that we as humans thrive on (more or less). When these symbols are taken away or screwed up, they effect human life dramatically. That can lead to suicide in some cases. The social factor that Durkheim brought up is also another factor to be considered with suicide. There are several others that have been brought in which makes suicide more of a social rather than biological concept. Of course I brought in Durkheim. I'm a social science student. ninja Well, it's not just symbols, of course. Semiotics is an important part of culture but it is of course impossible to come without language, which was believed to be developed first in the Upper Paleolithic period, which is also when the first arts and crafts started to surface. Written language, however, didn't come until much later, which is when semiotics and widespread religion really came into its own. Semiotics can generally be broken down into the basic theory of Saussure, who stated that there are two parts of symbolism. The signifier (the sign, the object, the action, or the words) and the signified (the concept). So, for instance, if the concept is angels, a pair of white feathered wings is the signifier. So that also means if someone doesn't receive signifiers of adequate social contact (such as compliments, physical contact with other humans in a caring way and so on) then things can go awry. But, of course: why is the concept of being social so damn important to people, and so unimportant to others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:08 pm
Suicide... is very complicated, to say the least... sweatdrop
Some people who contemplate suicide are more prone to depression in the first place due to like, chemical imbalances in their brains or something... and then there's being depressed because you're going through a hard time or you always look on the bad side of things... And when you're depressed, suicide can look like a way out to some people... So depression is a part of it.
Also, society is kinda weird... at least where I'm at quite a few people seem kinda like they don't really want anything to do with you, you know? Like, you look at someone across a room and they give you this 'Who are you and what the ******** are you looking at me for, you freak?' kinda look... people just don't seem too friendly half the time. If you so much as look at someone you're automatically up to something or something >.>
I've thought about suicide before... still do sometimes, though I'll never do it... but I kinda go through times when I'm majorly depressed and crap and think about it... but fortunately don't act on it... and some of the reasons that I get all depressed/reclusive/whatever are also why I ran away from home at one point, but... Yeah, feeling unwanted/unaccepted and/or being depressed along with a whole lot of other things... sometimes a person doesn't see any other way out but to kill themself. (but no, religious/fanatic/whatever else reasons, like suicide bombers, not included >.< They're a whole 'nother story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:27 am
Then too, modern human society puts more stress on individual people than a more natural societal structure would. We are quite frankly overcrowded. It isn't natural for humans to be around hundreds of other humans every day. We as a species evolved to live in relatively small close-knit tribes, probably of 30 to 100 individuals, at most. Not vast collections of thousands of people all in one small space.
Our culture makes it literally impossible for anyone to get to know everyone around them. As a defense mechanism, we form small tribes within the larger society--close-knit circles of friends and relations, and we instinctively shun those who are not part of our group when we first meet them.
Understanding this doesn't necessarily make it easier for someone on the outside, but at least it may help keep them from blaming others for ignoring them.
If you try to pay personal attention to every single person, you would go insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am
WingedWolfPsion Then too, modern human society puts more stress on individual people than a more natural societal structure would. We are quite frankly overcrowded. It isn't natural for humans to be around hundreds of other humans every day. We as a species evolved to live in relatively small close-knit tribes, probably of 30 to 100 individuals, at most. Not vast collections of thousands of people all in one small space. Our culture makes it literally impossible for anyone to get to know everyone around them. As a defense mechanism, we form small tribes within the larger society--close-knit circles of friends and relations, and we instinctively shun those who are not part of our group when we first meet them. Understanding this doesn't necessarily make it easier for someone on the outside, but at least it may help keep them from blaming others for ignoring them. If you try to pay personal attention to every single person, you would go insane. A "more natural social structure"? And what IS that, exactly? Feudal European? Ancient Greek? Nomadic hunter-gatherer? To argue that there is a more "natural" or "organic" society is not only rediculous, but the size of a society has nothing to do with how "natural" it is. Older societies (or as you would call it, "more natural societies") were smaller because they could not support as many people. Hunter-gatherers relied on the success of the hunt and on the type of weather, and then so did farmers for thousands of years. Recent advances in technology have allowed for more people, not changes in society, and throughout history, changes in technology have caused the changes of society, not the other way 'round. I'm pretty damn sure that hunter-gatherer societies could support huge numbers of people if you just gave them modern technology, but I'm also willing to bet that if you give them modern technology they're not even going to want to remain in the hunter-gatherer way of life. We evolved to be social. There is no evidence for the number of social contacts that we are "designed for", only evidence of the numbers of people around during our ancient history. So we form subcultures out of defense? Oh, please. To reduce the vastness of human social action to a simple matter of defense is rediculous. Many teen subcultures have nothing to do with defense, as a teen's defense comes from their parents. Also, I do not shun anyone who I don't know for "not being part of my social group". If this is what happens, how does anyone make friends outside of family groups? How did I make friends when I came to University? Tell me, did you get a book on Evolutionary Psychology and believe everything you read, one of those people who assumes biology controls people far more than culture ever could without even going through the investigative process, or just an Otherkin who will link any human behaviour they can to animals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:19 am
WingedWolfPsion Then too, modern human society puts more stress on individual people than a more natural societal structure would. We are quite frankly overcrowded. It isn't natural for humans to be around hundreds of other humans every day. We as a species evolved to live in relatively small close-knit tribes, probably of 30 to 100 individuals, at most. Not vast collections of thousands of people all in one small space. Our culture makes it literally impossible for anyone to get to know everyone around them. As a defense mechanism, we form small tribes within the larger society--close-knit circles of friends and relations, and we instinctively shun those who are not part of our group when we first meet them. Understanding this doesn't necessarily make it easier for someone on the outside, but at least it may help keep them from blaming others for ignoring them. If you try to pay personal attention to every single person, you would go insane.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure we as a species didn't evolve to drive cars either. As far as transport goes, though, I'm pretty sure it outraces any "natural" transport system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:38 am
Mitsh
As an aside, I'm pretty sure we as a species didn't evolve to drive cars either. As far as transport goes, though, I'm pretty sure it outraces any "natural" transport system.Evidently we did evolve to drive cars. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to. pirate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
