
Teen Suicide Spiked After Debut Of Netflix's '13 Reasons Why,' Study Says - tosh
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=718529255
======
sbilstein
Just an anecdote but at the depths of a bout of depression I had several years
ago I decided to watch “the bridge”, a documentary profiling people have
committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.

Suicidal ideation absolutely increased for me and I even drove up to a bridge
in Spokane just to “think about it.” I thought about jumping for about 10
minutes before I got in my car, drove home, and set up some time to talk to a
therapist. I absolutely can see how a movie can push someone over the edge. I
was lucky to get home and see my roommate had invited a few friends
over...took me out of my thoughts long enough to recognize just how close I
had gotten.

~~~
gwbas1c
Gosh, I found that movie so depressing I just had to turn it off. I very
rarely stop watching a movie halfway through.

~~~
toomanyrichies
While the film's subject matter is certainly intense, I had a positive take-
away from it as well, which is that a large percentage of people who
experience a failed suicide attempt are glad they failed. This was the logic
used to justify constructing suicide prevention barriers on bridges. If you
take away the immediate opportunity for people to take their own lives, a few
determined people may find another way, but many more will give up their
attempt.

~~~
Smithalicious
Isn't this just (literal) survivorship bias? I'd think that people that want
to kill themselves very much would try again until they succeed, leaving only
people who did not desire to die as strongly to report on how they felt about
their failed attempt.

~~~
intertextuality
This would be true except that a large percentage of suicides are snap
decisions in the moment, not planned out. For example, switching to natural
gas from coal gas in the UK ended up dropping suicide rates in general.[0]

I also read another study that looked at two similar bridges about a mile or
so away from each other: 1 bridge was popular for suicides, and as such had
guards put up. You'd think that those people would have just gone to the other
bridge, but suicide rates declined in general. I can't find the source at the
moment.

[0]: [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-
matter/saves...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-
lives/)

------
pillowkusis
I'm pretty skeptical of this study.

The breakdowns by age and gender make me suspicious of p-hacking. It seems
this journal does not require pre-registration of studies so it's hard to know
if the study was pre-registered. It very likely was not.

Note that the only statistically significant finding was for boys, ages 10-17.
No other category had a significant increase. That sounds like a negative
result across most dimensions of analysis to me.

>There was a 28.9% increase in suicide among Americans ages 10-17

>The study found that boys were far more likely than girls to kill themselves
after the show debuted. Suicide rates for females did increase, but it was not
statistically significant

This is an enormous effect size. What exactly is the supposed method of action
here? So only boys, who watch netflix, only ages 10-17, who decided to watch a
show about a girl committing suicide (teen boys do not usually watch female-
led dark serial dramas), account for the majority of the 30% increase in
suicide across their entire age group?

>The spokesperson noted that the study conflicts with research published last
week out of the University of Pennsylvania. That study found that young
adults, ages 18-29, who watched the entire second season of the show "reported
declines in suicide ideation

Now we have two seemingly "significant" studies with opposite conclusions. It
beggars belief (if either of them are even representative of a real life
causative factor at all).

Girls, older teens, and adults are completely immune from this effect. What
possible method of action would affect such a specific demographic so
disproportionately, with absolutely no spillover to any other demographic? How
can it be that teenage girls, who watch more dramas and presumably empathize
with a female lead more, show absolutely no effect? Or could it be that the
researchers had an expected result, broke down the data until they found a
dimension that had a large enough increase by chance, and submitted it to a
journal full of peer reviewers who would find the result plausible and
prestigious to their field?

~~~
crazygringo
The paper's own discussion section explicitly acknowledges potential
weaknesses:

 _This study has several important limitations. First, the quasi-experimental
design of our study limits our ability to draw any causal conclusions between
the release of 13 Reasons Why and increased suicide rates in young people in
the U.S. Nevertheless, the time series and forecasting approaches employed in
this study allow us to make credible inferences about this association. The
initial increase in youth suicide rates in the month immediately following the
series release is concordant with a prior report showing a spike in Internet
searches about suicide in the month following release,46 and a small single-
hospital study showing an increase in suicide attempt admissions after the
series’ premiere. Second, we were unable to assess whether the observed
increase in youth suicide rates was attributable to the portrayal of suicide
in the series, a lack of adherence to media guidelines (e.g., failure to
provide national suicide prevention resources until later months), or other
factors. The observation that the series was first released on March 31, 2017
and suicide rates increased that month also raises questions about effects of
pre-release media promotion of the series premiere. Third, we did not examine
the impact of 13 Reasons Why on specific methods of suicide (e.g., suicide by
cutting) due to small cell sizes, which would result in unstable estimates.
Fourth, there may have been other events or unmeasured factors that occurred
during the study period that might be associated with increased suicide rates.
Fifth, our study may have lacked sufficient statistical power to detect a
significant association in 10- to 17-year-old girls. Finally, as with most
studies looking at possible contagion, we have little understanding of “dose”
or context, including who specifically watched the series, when they watched,
whether they binge-watched, if it was further discussed in peer-groups, how
secondary discussions may have influenced vulnerable individuals, and whether
the subsequent focus on suicide prevention may have actually mitigated some of
the pronounced contagion effects._

~~~
tssva
"credible inferences" means assumptions which fit the narrative we want to
tell.

That disclaimer is basically a long-winded way of saying our study provides no
evidence of anything.

~~~
robocat
However there is good reason to suspect a series about suicide would cause
suicides.

"The average increase in motor vehicle fatalities is 9.12 percent in the week
after a suicide story" (I love the extra 0.12 points!):
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/867044/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/867044/)

So the implication isn't so much about copycats, but about contagion.

------
hodder
While the Werther-effect[1][2] appears to be fairly well documented, it is
very hard to point to causation in statistics like these.

However, in spite of the questionable stats, many media outlets such as the
CBC err on the conservative side and have adopted practices to avoid detailed
reporting on suicides to prevent the Werther effect.[3]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide)

[2] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-
medici...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-
medicine/article/werther-effect-after-television-films-new-evidence-for-an-
old-hypothesis/56B52C2C2B22B78DF56892191A2D518B)

[3] [http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-
canadians/act...](http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-
canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/crime-and-police-
reporting/)

~~~
vivekd
yeah my first thought is: Is the work of art causing people to commit suicide
or are people who are already suicidal drawn to art about suicide and prone to
romanticizing and copying the art

~~~
tk75x
In either case, reducing the amount of art about suicide or making it more
difficult to access would prevent at least some people from going through with
suicide.

------
anthony_romeo
[Without writing on the ethical issues of producing such a show or the
validity of the studies]

The Netflix spokesperson's response is utter nonsense:

 _" The spokesperson noted that the study conflicts with research published
last week out of the University of Pennsylvania. That study found that young
adults, ages 18-29, who watched the entire second season of the show 'reported
declines in suicide ideation and self-harm relative to those who did not watch
the show at all.'"_

There isn't any conflict at all. The original study being discussed is data on
the release of Season 1. Data on the effect of Season 2 is irrelevant (not to
mention the article's note that the second study is still problematic
regarding those who did not watch the entire season).

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
If you kill yourself you can't watch Season 2. It's really idiotic for Netflix
to even try to trot that out as an excuse.

~~~
inetknght
Idiotic? That's marketing departments literally everywhere.

------
balabaster
I watched this show after I listened to all the hype about this and while the
study seems like it may be credible, I don't really get it.

They spent the entire first season delving into the mindset of a girl who had
committed suicide and _everything_ that led to her making that decision. From
bitchy and macho high school popularity, to bullying to rape and then the
trivialization of her experience leading up to that decision. It was a show
about all of life's very real events that contribute to the thought processes
that go on inside the head of someone in this state. I understand the
repercussions it may have caused a spike in teen suicide and while I hate to
minimize that, it served a far greater purpose which was helping everyone that
doesn't suffer from suicidal thoughts understand just what someone with
depression battles silently every day.

As someone who _does_ battle depression every day, I can assure you, this
topic needs to be brought to the forefront of people's understanding. It's
still a common mentality that depression isn't a thing, that it's just people
whining about not being able to deal with life. People need to know how to
read the signs that are routinely missed, misunderstood, trivialized and
invalidated in the most mentally devastating manner that lead to suicidal
thoughts.

I'm sad that there seemed to be a teen suicide spike, I'm sad that people
chose to look at this show as an ideation of teen suicide, but it was a very
real treatise on what it is to go through depression and suicidal thoughts and
it's a topic that needs to be discussed openly instead of being swept under
the carpet and ignored, belittled and stigmatized.

I applaud the show for the ground they broke. It needed to be.

~~~
adelie
most of the criticism i've heard about 13 reasons why is less that it portrays
a 'taboo subject,' but rather that it does so in a way that glamorizes
suicide.

from some perspectives, hannah got everything she wanted by killing herself.
she got attention to her case and revenge on the people who mistreated her -
and the show portrays that she wouldn't be able to achieve that if she hadn't
committed suicide.

not everyone sees the series that way, of course. but for a certain subset of
people - often young people who are bullied and neglected, who feel victimized
by the world but helpless about it - it's very easy to interpret the series
into 'suicide is how i win.'

~~~
balabaster
I see it as less about how I win than here's how I get people to realize the
effect their behaviour had on me to a point that I considered that suicide was
the only viable to way to end a suffering I can't see any other way out of.

~~~
kkarakk
these kindsa shows glamorizing the effects are ignoring one crucial fact -
when the person affected dies, it becomes 10 times easier for everyone to
ignore/avoid the issues that led to her death. sure some people may
reform/chase the issues but those are statistical outliers.

there is also the "they were mentally unstable and any testimony they provided
posthumously is suspect" which lawyers can and will use

~~~
balabaster
The other issue is that the kind of people that bully someone to the point
that suicide is the only way out often lack the empathy and self-reflection to
understand that they were the cause of the problem.

The way they called this out in the show could be interpreted as vengeful, but
is there any other way they could have addressed this angle?

The jock football captain raped her and then showed such little remorse, not
only brushing it off as nothing, but that because of who he was, she obviously
was "gagging for him" (to coin a British phrase.) He thought of it as having
done her a favour by gracing her with his attention. Is there any other way to
demonstrate what effect that had on her mental state to someone with such
narcissistic tendencies than to choose a tactic like this to make him hear her
and understand the effect he had on her? He clearly lacked empathy and had
little if any ability, or want to self reflect. If she'd still been alive, he
probably never would have listened to the tape. He'd have scoffed at her and
belittled her and would never have given his behaviour a second thought. He
only listened to the tapes because he was backed into a corner where he needed
to know what was said so he could get in front of it and keep himself out of
trouble. He needed to keep himself in everyone else's good graces because the
image he needed to uphold to maintain his place in society was more important
to him than his integrity.

Sure, she was mentally unstable... but why was she mentally unstable? The
eloquence demonstrated on the tapes were evidence that the torment of her life
was the cause of this instability. Any sufficiently skilled lawyer would've
been able to argue that point from the tapes alone.

~~~
kkarakk
I wouldn't take ranting on cassette tapes and then offing yourself as a sign
of mental stability(and i would be more likely to be selected for a jury as a
result). The average judge wouldn't even bother listening to the tapes and
would ask for a transcript and MAYBE listen to one or two tapes for emotional
context(good luck if those were the most incoherent tapes).

Also you are SEVERELY over-estimating how much empathy the average society has
for dead people. sure it's shocking but the human mind bounces back REALLY
quickly. if it didn't then every school shooting would paralyze the
state/country it happened in for years(and clearly it doesn't). it took the
world only a decade to forget the atrocities of the world war. 9/11 is a joke
to most people now and mostly written off as a one-off.

You don't effect change by taking your ball and going home

------
rahuldottech
> many are strongly opposed to the confusing messages in the show (justice in
> life is not possible, but kill yourself and you might just get revenge).
> Many experts insist that the show glamorizes suicide and may even set off or
> increase suicidal ideation in vulnerable teens. From [0], April 2017

[0]: [https://www.weareteachers.com/problem-with-13-reasons-
why/](https://www.weareteachers.com/problem-with-13-reasons-why/)

------
berbec
For those having trouble, remember there are reasons to keep going. You can
reach the National Suicide Prevention Hotline 24/7/365 at:

1-800-273-8255

~~~
mieseratte
Strange question, but what does the hotline actually do? Supposing you call
them with serious suicidal ideation, do they dispatch police? Direct you to a
shrink? Just talk?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Under the understanding that suicide is an act of spontaneity and not always
highly determined, a hotline gives the amount of time necessary for an acute
urge to pass. Depending on the source, it also informs people where and how to
get help.

Of course, much of the effects relies on the skill of the folk on the other
line. But it is always extremely important to have something, anything,
interrupt what is often a compulsion that passes.

------
dcole2929
The producers, directors, and show runners for this were pure garbage people.
They consulted with psychologist before the shows release and were advised
about specific things they should not show or do and they ignored them all.
Chief among the advice given was that they not explicitly show the suicide.
This show is like a wet dream for anyone with suicidal ideation. The main
character kills herself and gets to leave behind videos for all the people who
were mean to her and they all feel bad regret their actions. It was insane to
believe that an incredibly popular show romanticizing suicide wouldn't lead to
a spike in teen suicides.

~~~
judge2020
The second season doesn't do it any justice. She _starts re-appearing_ to the
main character (Clay) and is able to talk and interact with him. It's supposed
to be him imagining her, but it's really sickening how they present it as 'you
don't really go away'.

------
ocdtrekkie
I recall family members being concerned about this. And based on my
rudimentary understanding of the plot, I'm not really surprised.

This stands under my general concern that tech companies are neither cognizant
of nor culpable for the impact they have on society.

~~~
malvosenior
This seems more like a media company thing than a tech company thing. Surely
there have been other depictions of suicide in the media? Did they have the
same corresponding uptick in suicide rates? That would have been a good
addition to the article.

That being said, I really don't think we should dumb down or "tame" our art
for the sake of safety. It's important to allow artists (the show creators in
this case) the ability to tell any story that speaks to them, especially when
that deals with sensitive issues like suicide.

The warning before the show seems like a good idea though.

~~~
bauruine
>Surely there have been other depictions of suicide in the media? Did they
have the same corresponding uptick in suicide rates?

Yes.[0] Newspapers try not to cover suicide whenever possible and when they do
they always also write about emergency suicide prevention hotlines. At least
in switzerland.

[0] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-suicide-
media/suic...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-suicide-
media/suicide-details-reported-by-the-media-may-lead-others-to-copy-
idUSKBN1KK1ZU)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I understand there are also certain other guidelines about how to report such
stories as well.

~~~
DanBC
Here's one from the UK National Union of Journalists.

[https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/mental-health-and-suicide-
report...](https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/mental-health-and-suicide-reporting-
guidelines/)

I use this one because they're journalists and so understand the balance of
freedom of speech with not causing harm.

They're quite old.

The BBC also has guidance here:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-
an...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-and-
offence/suicide)

They've unhelpfully put them in a section titled "harm and offence", so if I
ever contact the BBC about poor reporting I have to say that I'm not bothered
about offence, I'm letting them know about something that may cause harm.

------
camelNotation
Suicide is a perfect example of an anti-social behavior that must be
stigmatized because the stigma itself serves as a major barrier to its
proliferation. Removing the stigma might make it easier on survivors and
family, but it will actually increase the suicide rate by legitimizing suicide
as an option for people that otherwise wouldn't do it. It's one of those
situations where life must be accepted as something of a living hell and we
can't make it better anytime soon.

~~~
sad-throwaway
Why should suicide be seen as anti-social? You are trying to force those who
just want their unbearable pain to be over to continue to live. I never
understood it being seen as selfish for a similar reason. I disagree stigma
will reduce the suicide rate - when I do feel very suicidal, I can tell you I
don't care what anyone thinks. Pretty much the only reason I am alive is I
haven't figured out a way to actually end it that's somewhat guaranteed,
painless, and irreversible - I know if I were to fail an attempt and end up in
the hospital, people like you would force me to stay alive, weather it be
throwing me in a padded white room or giving me drugs. Oh perhaps if I'm in
enough physical pain, my pain will be legitimized and I'll be allowed
euthanasia.

And yet, somehow I am the anti-social one.

[this is a throwaway account so that I can talk openly about being depressed
and suicidal]

~~~
instantwhat
One of the most important things to understand about depression and suicide is
that those who are in the middle of it are in an altered state of mind. They
are locked into thought patterns that are self-reinforcing and prevent
rational understanding. A person who is depressed and suicidal is literally
unfit for making such decisions about their life. When the suicidal thoughts
and depressed state abate, it's as if the person is suddenly a different
person, of a different mind. Problems that once seemed insurmountable are no
longer so. Positive things that seemed irrelevant or invisible before are
suddenly there again and meaningful. It doesn't mean that all of one's
problems go away or don't matter; it means that life seems livable again--and
the only thing that has changed is one's thought patterns.

It's almost like the mind is drunk on despair. And just like a drunk person is
unfit to drive a car, a person who is "drunk on despair"\--depressed and
suicidal--is unfit to "drive" their own life.

If you recognize that you are in a state of mind like this, you must use
whatever rational part of your mind that remains to reject all of the thoughts
and impulses of the despairing part. Don't give the drunk the keys to the car;
he will kill not only himself, but likely harm many others as well. And don't
ignore him, because he'll probably get drunk again tomorrow and want the keys
again. Go, take him to get help, now, while you can.

There are people whose entire life's work is to help people in need like this.
Let them help you.

~~~
ionised
The problem is that for some people, that 'drunk' state is chronic, never-
ending and for all intents and purposes, permanent.

Depression isn't just the low feeling after a bad breakup, or a job loss or
some other life hurdle. Sometimes it's a chronic condition that may not ever
end because it doesn't have any of those typical 'triggers', it's clinical and
relentless.

When you understand that, you'll see why that in telling someone their planned
suicide is merely 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem' they look at
you with nothing more than contempt.

Because you don't understand what its like. You never will.

~~~
instantwhat
Your comment may be an example of what I'm talking about: it's not a rational
response to what I said, so you may be inhibited from understanding my comment
rationally. Let's look at each part:

> The problem is that for some people, that 'drunk' state is chronic, never-
> ending and for all intents and purposes, permanent.

There is undoubtedly an element of "talking past each other" here. There are
degrees of despair, of depression. There are permanent circumstances and
temporary ones. But you have generalized to one extreme while ignoring the
other, which isn't right or fair.

There are many people who want to commit suicide and even attempt it due to
truly temporary circumstances. It is absolutely true that in such cases, the
real problem was the state of mind and not the circumstances. So it's
absolutely right to remind such people that they are contemplating "a
permanent solution to a temporary problem."

And it's absolutely wrong for you to lump such cases into others, as if they
were right to consider or actually commit suicide.

Beyond that, there are many people who live fulfilling, meaningful lives
despite debilitating, permanent circumstances. What is the difference between
their difficult yet livable lives and those who choose suicide? The difference
is state of mind. This does not belittle their suffering--it honors those who
carry on despite suffering. Their example edifies us all--if we are willing to
see it.

> Depression isn't just the low feeling after a bad breakup, or a job loss or
> some other life hurdle. Sometimes it's a chronic condition that may not ever
> end because it doesn't have any of those typical 'triggers', it's clinical
> and relentless.

> When you understand that, you'll see why that in telling someone their
> planned suicide is merely 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem' they
> look at you with nothing more than contempt.

> Because you don't understand what its like. You never will.

That is definitely an irrational response to my comment. You have no idea who
I am and what my experiences are. You have created an image of me in your mind
and are misdirecting your anger toward it.

I have no idea who you are or what your experiences are; I don't know if you
are seeking escape from your own problems, or whether you feel guilt about
others' poor choices that you weren't able to prevent.

But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your
current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding
rationally.

This is not necessarily something to be ashamed of; it's part of the human
condition. We all suffer this at times in our lives.

The question now is whether you will remain angry and in denial, or whether
you are willing to recognize the problem and seek help to grow. Maybe you are
going through the stages of grief, in which case you should recognize that and
give yourself time; recognize that what has happened, has happened, and what
remains now is to adjust your state of mind and move on.

In any case, what is clear from your comment is that your current state of
mind is unfit for interpreting and judging rationally. You absolutely can see
circumstances and past events differently in the future, if you will allow
yourself.

There are people who make it their life's work to help people in need like
this, to solve serious problems, to adapt, to grieve, to grow. This does not
promise solutions to all problems, nor permanent ones. But life remains
livable and worth living. Let those people help you find a way forward.

~~~
ionised
I'm trying to interpret your post in the most charitable way possible but the
common theme I'm seeing (and I apologise if I'm wrong) in all those paragraphs
is

 _" You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are
broken. Live is awesome, accept it."_

You are never going to reach anyone suffering from a mental illness with that
attitude. You simply will not.

Let's first address the fact that you seem to be addressing me as if I'm the
one currently struggling with suicide (I'm not). You're telling me that my
opinions on the subject are invalid and dismissable simply for that reason.
Not only does that break HN's guidelines, but it's a complete non-sequitur and
a poison pill to the debate.

This is why people who actually need help won't listen to you and others like
you, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions, because you are not
actually interested in listening to them which is what they need most. You
want them to stay alive, but beyond that people don't really give the
depressive much thought.

I have to wonder how much they just want to stop something they find deeply
uncomfortable, not for the sake of the depressed person, but for themselves.

> And it's absolutely wrong for you to lump such cases into others, as if they
> were right to consider or actually commit suicide.

Nowhere did I say they should definitely commit suicide so I'd appreciate it
if you didn't heavily imply that. I simply said that you telling them that
their problem is temporary is not going to help as much as you think. Simply
pointing out the obvious to these people isn't the profound insight you think
it is. They've heard it a million times before and it doesn't help.

And then there are the people for whom the problem is simply not temporary,
but chronic.

> But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your
> current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding
> rationally.

Again. Awesome way to completely dismiss what I'm saying. Address what I'm
saying, not the reasons you have invented in your head for why you think I
might be saying them.

And be charitable with your interpretations of what I'm saying. It's an HN
guideline.

> That is definitely an irrational response to my comment. You have no idea
> who I am and what my experiences are. You have created an image of me in
> your mind and are misdirecting your anger toward it.

When I said 'you' here I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant you as
in people who try to reason with depressives in this way by telling them their
problems are temporary. Even if that was true (which you acknowledge in some
cases it simply isn't) I'm, just telling you that it is a seriously unhelpful
and often condescending manner to take with such a person.

> But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your
> current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding
> rationally.

You keep attacking me rather than the points I am making. You are really not
coming across positively by doing this. It is completely toxic to a debate. It
may also come as a surprise to you but people with depression or anxiety or
whetever else are still capable of critical thinking and reasoning. They are
not psychotic.

In fact the next four paragraphs are more the same dismissive crap without
subtance. You've broken at least two of the site guidelines regarding
charitable interpretations of another user's posts and addressing the point of
their posts instead of shallow dismissals in the form of ad-hominem attacks on
their character.

You are only interested in being listened to, not in listening. That there, is
the crux of my argument. You suck at reasoning with depressives, and
apparently people who disagree with you.

And in spite of me knowing nothing about you or your life, I'm comfortable
making the assertion that you know nothing about this subject and have had
very little exposure to people who do. You are no more than an armchair
psychologist.

That much is clear to me simply because you clearly have not the first idea of
how to actually talk to someone with these kinds of issues.

~~~
instantwhat
The common theme in your writing is projection and hypocrisy.

> "You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are
> broken. Live is awesome, accept it."

People are broken. Life is not always awesome. We live, we suffer, we die.
Along the way, we cause suffering for others and ourselves. Do you deny this?

Yet, that is not the totality of human existence. We have the capacity for
good as well as evil.

What you should accept is that circumstances can be interpreted and handled in
many ways; some are productive, some destructive. The choice is yours.

> You are never going to reach anyone suffering from a mental illness with
> that attitude. You simply will not.

I hate to sound petty, but must I direct you to the post from "sad-throwaway"
in which he indicated that I did? Perhaps your beliefs do not encompass the
entirety of human experience. [1]

> Let's first address the fact that you seem to be addressing me as if I'm the
> one currently struggling with suicide (I'm not).

I'm glad you're not suicidal.

I did not say that you were. Unlike you, I did not make such unfounded
assumptions. I said that it was a possibility, which, not knowing you, it was.

> You're telling me that my opinions on the subject are invalid and
> dismissable simply for that reason.

No, I said that your reaction to my comment was objectively irrational, which
it was.

> Not only does that break HN's guidelines, but it's a complete non-sequitur
> and a poison pill to the debate.

Had I taken all the poison pills you have deposited here, I'd be dead many
times over.

> This is why people who actually need help won't listen to you and others
> like you, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions

See #1.

> because you are not actually interested in listening to them which is what
> they need most

As I said, you have conjured an image of me in your mind. That is irrational.
I am not the other people you have dealt with in your life. Stop treating me
as if I am. [2]

> You want them to stay alive, but

"Yeah, you want to save their lives, but you don't actually _care_ about
them!"

> beyond that people don't really give the depressive much thought. I have to
> wonder how much they just want to stop something they find deeply
> uncomfortable, not for the sake of the depressed person, but for themselves.

See #2.

> Nowhere did I say they should definitely commit suicide so I'd appreciate it
> if you didn't heavily imply that.

I need not imply that; your other comments in these threads have shown that
you don't actually object to suicide when you think it's justified. Why you
think you're qualified to make such decisions is unknown; regardless, you are
not.

> you telling them that their problem is temporary is not going to help as
> much as you think. Simply pointing out the obvious to these people isn't the
> profound insight you think it is. They've heard it a million times before
> and it doesn't help.

See #1.

There are many truths in any circumstance. Depending on one's state of mind,
some are more acceptable than others.

So what is your argument? Should there be a decision tree, used to decide
which truths to present to which people, depending on their state of mind? Who
will make it? You?

Or is your argument that, if I present one of those truths in a case in which
you, personally, don't think it will be effective, that it is proof that I
don't care about other people and their suffering? Such an argument would be
plainly illogical, yet it seems to be what you're getting at.

I suggest you stop wasting time--write your dissertations and journal articles
and books, and get yourself on the DSM committee, so your profound insight can
start benefiting the mental health community. Or you can keep pontificating on
the Internet.

> And then there are the people for whom the problem is simply not temporary,
> but chronic.

Such profound insight. I have never experienced nor thought of such a thing.
Thank you for sharing!

> Again. Awesome way to completely dismiss what I'm saying.

It is awesome, because your reponse to my comment is objectively irrational.
It's amazing, actually, because rather than deal with that problem, you
double-down on it, accusing me in your next sentence of your own irrational
behavior:

> Address what I'm saying, not the reasons you have invented in your head for
> why you think I might be saying them.

See #2.

> And be charitable with your interpretations of what I'm saying. It's an HN
> guideline.

Practice your own admonitions.

> When I said 'you' here I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant you
> as in people who try to reason with depressives in this way by telling them
> their problems are temporary.

Stop saying "you" when you don't mean me. Stop attacking me for what other
people do. See #2.

If you want to address "people" who do something you don't like, go write a
blog. Don't respond to me personally complaining about other people's actions.

> Even if that was true (which you acknowledge in some cases it simply isn't)
> I'm, just telling you that it is a seriously unhelpful and often
> condescending manner to take with such a person.

More profound insights from you! Thank you so much!

Meanwhile, see #1.

Also, lose the weasel words. "Often condescending" means that it's _not_
always condescending, which means that it _can_ be helpful. See #1.

What is condescending is your attempting to assume a position of authority,
presuming to instruct others as to what is and is not universally helpful--in
direct contravention of the evidence staring you in the face. See #1.

Open your mind to the possibility that your experiences are not universal, and
things that you haven't found helpful may in fact be helpful to others.

> > But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your
> current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding
> rationally.

> You keep attacking me rather than the points I am making.

No, I attacked your response, which was irrational. I then drew a conclusion
about your state of mind based on your making an irrational response. Your
words and yourself are not the same thing.

> You are really not coming across positively by doing this.

Do you mean that you don't like me? Or that I won't get as many upvotes as you
unless I talk like you? Thank you for telling me! I'll be sure to adjust my
performance for our audience.

> It is completely toxic to a debate.

So we're having a debate? Well then, what is actually toxic to a debate are
these things you have done:

1\. Ascribing to me thoughts, beliefs, and motivations which I have not
exhibited. 2\. Attacking me for other people's actions. 3\. Doubling-down on
those mistakes rather than admitting and correcting them. 4\. Refusing to
account for evidence which contradicts your assertions.

> In fact the next four paragraphs are more the same dismissive crap without
> subtance. You've broken at least two of the site guidelines regarding
> charitable interpretations of another user's posts and addressing the point
> of their posts instead of shallow dismissals in the form of ad-hominem
> attacks on their character.

I could also cite you for multiple violations of The Guidelines. I'll settle
for admonishing you for the general "charitable interpretation" one, which
should cover things like attacking your made-up image of me and blaming me for
others' actions. If you stop breaking your rules, then you can complain.

> You are only interested in being listened to, not in listening. That there,
> is the crux of my argument. You suck at reasoning with depressives, and
> apparently people who disagree with you.

So you finally admit it: according to you, the _crux of your argument_ is
based entirely on your _mind-reading me through the Internet._ And you think
you are an authority on reasoning with people! I rest my case.

By the way, telling me that I suck is definitely against The Guidelines. It's
also an ad hominem. I'm only telling you because, apparently, you aren't
aware, otherwise you wouldn't have said that, right?

> And in spite of me knowing nothing about you or your life, I'm comfortable
> making the assertion that you know nothing about this subject and have had
> very little exposure to people who do.

If this were a debate, why would I need to argue after your saying this? Of
what value is an admitted argument from ignorance?

And why would I bother, since it shows that you are not arguing with me, but
with your preconceived notions.

By the way, it's not merely an assertion, it's an assumption. See #2.

> That much is clear to me simply because you clearly have not the first idea
> of how to actually talk to someone with these kinds of issues.

"I favor a different approach, therefore you know nothing and have no
experience." Solid argument. Definitely a winning line in this "debate."

If there's any rational part of your intellect available for talking to, that
doesn't have a preformulated response ready, please pass this along: Notice a
key distinction between us: I have never assumed your experiences or lack
thereof. In fact, I have explicitly admitted my ignorance of them. In
contrast, I have lost count of the number of times you have accused me of
ignorance and assumed my experiences or lack thereof. You are not being
rational, nor logical, nor (to the extent relevant) scientific You are simply
regurgitating attacks against people who are not myself.

Quite frankly, it's a waste of our time. Either step up to the plate, or go
back to the dugout. Standing outside the batter's box, saying, "The pitcher
made a face at me," swinging the bat, and circling the bases, doesn't count as
a home run.

------
Strilanc
I can't access the study. How did they distinguish correlation with this event
from the fifty billion other things that happened during March 2017? E.g. did
they check if the people who committed suicide tended to have a netflix
account with this show in their history? Is it really _just_ the date that
they're using to correlate?

~~~
zzzcpan
They kind of acknowledge in the study that it is essentially a garbage study.
Didn't prevent them from publishing it though.

By the way, Russia pushed internet censorship to the population under this
exact idea of saving children from suicide by censoring suicide ideas on the
internet. And you can see from the comments here that people are easily
convinced on such emotional issues, even if no actual facts are given.

~~~
SkyBelow
This is generally how politics works when it involves the social sciences.
Rarely at the studies anywhere near as strong as the reporting on them implies
it or as politicians treat it, but as long as it serves as good propaganda it
is used. People will generally call out the cases they disagree with while not
investigating the findings they agree with. This can lead to polarized
individuals who both feel that science backs their side.

~~~
goodfight
Confirmation bias is a terrible thing. I hope humanity can figure out a way to
find more common ground in the future.

------
cletus
This is a tough one. I watched the first season of this show last month and
I'm still traumatized. Like not in a "Netflix is bad for producing this" but
because it's utterly heartbreaking. If you're of sound mind, I'd encourage you
to watch it.

What I find interesting about the show is how polarizing opinions are. I've
seen some online comments about how this show is an unrealistic tale of
miscommunication, which may well be the most reductive unempathetic thing I've
ever read online.

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that those who don't relate to the issues
raised have never experienced this loss of social connection (as well as the
far darker things that happen as a result in this show).

As for this increasing the likelihood of suicide for those vulnerable to such
thoughts, it wouldn't surprise me if that's true. But does that mean it
shouldn't be shown? That's a problematic precedent. We have alcoholics. We
still sell alcohol. We have gambling addicts but we still have gambling. Which
of these is OK and which isn't?

Perhaps we'd be better off if we tackled the issues that create a permissive
culture for bullying and ostracism (eg "kids will be kids") that makes life
hell for so many kids in the first place?

------
scott_s
Oddly, the current URL does not link to the story for me. This URL works for
me: [https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718529255/teen-suicide-
spiked...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718529255/teen-suicide-spiked-after-
debut-of-netflixs-13-reasons-why-report-says)

~~~
kazinator
Very weird! Goes to a 2004 story entitled "The Not So Random Coin Toss".

------
diminoten
> The spokesperson noted that the study conflicts with research published last
> week out of the University of Pennsylvania. That study found that young
> adults, ages 18-29, who watched the entire second season of the show
> "reported declines in suicide ideation and self-harm relative to those who
> did not watch the show at all."

Troubling that the spokesperson didn't realize the two studies are of
different age groups -- the one with the rise being the one matching the age
group of the teen in the show...

~~~
moate
The article even points out that the study they cite isn't even as conclusive
as they want it to be since they also saw a spike in suicide among people who
only watched part of the show.

------
intertextuality
The show's premise is disgusting and unrealistic. It's complete garbage that
netflix should pull, but won't, since so many people indulge in it.

~~~
Circuits
Not having seen the show I can't agree that's it is garbage but personally, I
am of the opinion, that if there was even a tinge of doubt in anyone's mind
about the possibility of the show inspiring people to end their lives then it
should never have been put on tv.

------
alexpotato
Given that putting aspirin pills in blister packs vs bottles has a measurable
impact on suicides [0], it does not surprise me at all that show about suicide
would raise the rate amongst teens.

The bad takeway from this is that there are producers etc who will exploit
this kind of thing.

The good takeway is that even small "nudges" in the right direction can
accumulate and lead to larger changes.

I think of the latter everytime I'm faced with a large cultural or
organizational change that seems daunting.

[0] [https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/a-simple-
wa...](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/a-simple-way-to-
reduce-suicides/)

~~~
EleanorZ
Fascinating, thankyou

------
camjohnson26
“In the month following the show's debut in March 2017, there was a 28.9%
increase in suicide among Americans ages 10-17, said the study, published
Monday in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. The number of suicides was greater than that seen in any single
month over the five-year period researchers examined”

That seems damning.

------
js2
"Are you okay? Is something wrong? Can I help you? Those are the words I
desperately wanted to hear right before I catapulted myself over the rail." —
Kevin Hines, survived jumping from the GGB almost twenty years ago.

[http://suicidetherippleeffect.com/](http://suicidetherippleeffect.com/)

------
dpflan
_Arm-Chair Social Science (NB)_ : I think that binge-watchable media when
binge-watched does affect the viewer, you become part of the cast of
characters as a social group - or perhaps your mind thinks so. I think that
then makes the viewer susceptible to ideas in the show, like drinking when
watching _Mad Men_.

~~~
ip26
I remember after binge-watching Firefly, for the next 24 hours or so I
unintentionally walked & drawled like Fillion.

~~~
zxcvbn4038
I know exactly what you mean - every time I watch Big Trouble In Little China
I'll walk around for days carrying a six daemon bag. Really annoys my wife,
every time I walk in the door I get the lecture - "Your too damn old to be
walking around with wind, fire, all that kind of thing..."

~~~
mcguire
I had this friend who was really into The Sopranos. Conversations on the day
after the shows were...interesting.

...and people still don't get it when I grab my coffee and say, "Can see
things no one else can see! Can do things no one else can do!"

------
turc1656
I find this data peculiar. It's not like we see spikes of murders after horror
movies get released or anything like that. All forms of violent crime have
been on the decline for decades virtually without exception. And even shows
that one might think "glorify crime" like Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, The
Sopranos, etc. don't elicit this kind of copycat activity.

I wonder what it is about suicidal content that affects people so uniquely.

~~~
frosted-flakes
There are probably always a significant number of people suffering with
depression who are already close to committing suicide and it's easy to nudge
them over the edge (unfortunate choice of words, but I can't think of another
way to phrase it), and I don't think the same is true about people who plan on
committing murder. There's usually a specific reason why people commit murder,
whereas depression usually happens over time and can't be blamed on a single
happening.

------
DanBC
This was entirely predictable, and many people did predict it, and Netflix
ignored them and showed it anyway.

------
bayareanative
It's called the Werther Effect. That's why some countries outright censor
stories and talk of suicide because it sparks a rash of them.

------
yters
I've seen numerous highly questionable shows promoted on Netflix.

Tinfoil hat thought: if they optimize for programming that reinforces
negative, antisocial emotions and behaviors, then they'll motivate their
audience to be ever more antisocial and ever more Netflix binging.

~~~
alexpotato
They probably view it as:

"Let's A/B test everything to see what leads to higher rates of binge
watching"

rather than a specific set of OTHER behaviors.

Plus, given how a show can become a hit just based on "Hey, did you see this
totally awesome new show??" style recommendations I would imagine there is a
sweetspot of Netflix wanting you to watch the show but then talk to your
friends about it. In other words, you need to have friends to be able to hype
their show.

~~~
yters
They pull you in with the awesome shows and keep you with the antisocializing
shows.

I'm trying to guess at the economic motivation to promote these negative
shows.

~~~
alexpotato
I wonder if it's not necessarily related to the viewer themselves.

e.g. I could see the following taking place:

1\. Biggest action is a user deciding to signup

2\. More viewers means more money

3\. More money => access to bigger producers/directors etc (e.g. Shonda
Rhimes)

4\. Because of #3, more users sign up

and the cycle repeats while "leveling up" the stars in step #3.

The negative shows may also be a part of #3 in the sense that
directors/producers get more freedom to make what they want

and/or

Negative antisocial shows may generate more buzz which also helps with #1 and
the rest of the cycle.

~~~
yters
Yes, they've shown the negative tweets and Facebook posts generate a high
level of engagement. I think the same reasoning applies to Netflix.

It's like the tech industry is run by frat boys trying to 'neg' the general
population, like a dysfunctional relationship where the boyfriend tells the
girlfriend she's ugly and fat so she won't leave him.

------
Asooka
Plaintext version for people in EU:
[https://text.npr.org/s.php?story.php?sId=718529255](https://text.npr.org/s.php?story.php?sId=718529255)

------
ARandomerDude
Anecdote: my wife and I got rid of our TV 2.5 years ago. One of the best
decisions we ever made. We're happier and vastly more productive. Our kids
were sad the day we sold the TV, but they've seen the value in it and have
thanked us.

Edit: We haven't substituted TV for smaller versions (phone, tablet). We use
electronics for work and school but not entertainment. It's been amazing.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
The biggest part of overcoming addictions is replacing them and the time they
take with something else. If you don't mind sharing, what are you and your
family doing instead?

~~~
ARandomerDude
We weren't intentional about replacing TV with something specific, so there
are several things that cumulatively fill the void. We play, read, volunteer
at the Salvation Army, I'm taking a couple classes at a local university, etc.

I don't bring it up to brag or say "hey be like me." Rather, as you pointed
out, it seems like TV is an addiction for most folks. As the article
highlights, it often has a negative impact on mood, thoughts etc. One day we
just realized we were, in a sense, slaves to the box and dumped it. Never
looked back.

------
basetop
The article states "Researchers warn that their study could not prove
causation.".

What about Romeo and Juliet? What about the Bible ( Jesus )? What about
Socrates? Our cultural icons committed suicide. And if this show was funded
Disney or NBC rather than Netflix, would we even have this study?

The 10-19 population in the US is about 42 million. And there was suicide
increase of 195. Even if the study was true and all 195 committed suicide
because of the show, should we stop the 42 million who didn't commit suicide
from watching it?

I'm so disappointed at the comments here. Every single time, it seems like
it's the "won't you think of the children" nanny state crowd supporting
censorship. It's strange that art is being attacked and free expression.

Which is odd since the same people denouncing this show here are the same ones
who attacked the study linking shows with transgender themes and increase in
transgender association ( especially amongst young girls ).

So we do simply block everything anyone can say is bad for a small segment of
the population?

Even more, do we stop the news from talking about it because doesn't the media
coverage of suicide also increase suicides? Should media be banned from
coverage suicide of celebrities? How much of the increase in suicide was a
result of media coverage over the show?

Once again, is it because the demographics skews so old here? I just can't
understand the shortsighted support for censorship here. How can someone be on
"hacker" news and have a "nanny state" mindset.

~~~
DanBC
You keep using the word "banned", but people who work in suicide prevention
aren't calling for bans on all coverage of suicide. They're calling for
responsible coverage.

~~~
whenchamenia
That sounds like sematics.

------
seoguru
Why The "Cutesification" of Mental Illness Needs to Stop:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfy4KWtsiiA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfy4KWtsiiA)

------
FlowNote
Suicide is contagious. DoD proved this in their 2009 study of memetic warfare.

------
yters
If a company intentionally creates a show that triggers effects known to cause
death in viewers, are they legally responsible for murdering their customers?

~~~
whenchamenia
If I paint a painting that does the same, am I?

This demonization of art is frankly terrifying to me.

~~~
yters
Yes, I'd say if there were clear connections to triggering very harmful
behavior in people, you created the painting with full knowledge of its
implications, and there is no other compelling reason to create the painting
besides the triggering effect, then you should be held responsible.

What makes pictures special that absolutely everything should be allowed?
Clearly some material has very harmful effects on people, and should be
handled appropriately.

------
sisu2019
Question for the pro-censorship crowd:

If the results of this study hold up, does this justify censoring media like
"13 Reasons why"? Why / Why not?

------
cracauer
For starters, I want absolute numbers, which aren't in the web summary, but I
can't download the PDF of the study.

------
foobar_
Teens below 15 years are parent's responsibility. You can't blame internet for
being an ugly and pathetic parent.

------
milin
Why is it this in netflix?

------
winningcontinue
correllation not causation

~~~
blang
> Researchers warn that their study could not prove causation. Some unknown
> third factor might have been responsible for the increase, they said. Still,
> citing the strong correlation, they cautioned against exposing children and
> adolescents to the series.

~~~
zzzcpan
So, what's the point of the study if they choose to attack the show and ignore
everything else?

If anything, a third factor like mass media talking about suicide among
teenagers at the time of the release probably had much bigger effect on
teenagers in the US than the show, giving them ideas and all.

~~~
Dylan16807
Talking about it because of the show? That's still causation, but more
complicated.

(If unrelated, why that particular month?)

------
cheesymuffin
Any truly well-meaning parent would just not let their kids watch any
elaborate mind-control programming anyway.

~~~
Dylan16807
Come on, you can't say that without explaining which sources of video are
mind-control programming and which aren't.

------
iambateman
Is there liability in this situation? It seems to me that a group of parents
whose children (1) watched the show and (2) then attempted suicide have a
case.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you ought not be allowed to
yell: "suicide is a legitimate way to get revenge" to a group of at-risk
children.

People should go to jail.

~~~
mrfredward
Mentally healthy people in good situations don't suddenly commit suicide
because of a TV show. Hormonal imbalances, school bullies, unsympathetic
parents, pessimism on the news and other media, unrealistic expectations for
yourself (because of the aforementioned people and media), and an endless list
of other factors can drive a person to the edge. The show shouldn't shoulder
all the liability for breaking a taboo and talking about it.

------
_carl_jung
I personally don't think it's likely that any show can be solely responsible
for suicides. What seems much more realistic is that the show speaks to a real
depression in youth and unfortunately this may have led to "premature" suicide
in some (by premature here, I mean that the show may have resulted in a more
timely suicide by those who were already suicidal).

It's unfortunate that the show itself is being attacked, rather than this
being an opportunity to investigate the root cause.

Do you really think a perfectly healthy and happy individual could watch _any_
show and want to kill themselves thereafter? Of course not.

~~~
DanBC
There's a difference between someone who has suicidal ideation and someone who
takes suicidal action, and all the research we have tells us that shows like
13 reasons tip can tip people from the first group into the second group, and
that they would not have attempted suicide without the programme.

This is not a controversial viewpoint in suicide research.

~~~
_carl_jung
Ah, point taken. Perhaps this can be offset by aiming a lot of the profits
towards mental health charities.

------
mruts
And Camus' The Stranger led to an increase in shooting Arabs on the beach
because of a sunny day.

If we judge media by what perceived affect it will have on society, we are in
dire straights indeed.

~~~
qntty
> And Camus' The Stranger led to an increase in shooting Arabs on the beach
> because of a sunny day.

Except that it didn't?

~~~
vivekd
I think that was the parents point. I think he was being sarcastic

~~~
qntty
But in this case 13 Reasons Why actually did have the stated effect. I don't
understand the point.

