noise dept.
No title available
★
Kiana Khansmith
Jules of Nature
todays bird
Claire Keane
Misplaced Lens Cap
occasionally subtle
Peter Solarz
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
hello vonnie
⁂
art blog(derogatory)
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
No title available
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
RMH
wallacepolsom
roma★
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Luxembourg
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Uruguay
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Indonesia
@slide3blog
This chart shows which political party various major Canadian newspapers endorsed in federal elections going back to 2006. Next time you hear someone whining about the ‘liberal media’, know that they’re full of shit
–
Submitted by @fueltransitsleep.
“We know what we are, but know not what we may be.”
— William Shakespeare
How long do you think it takes to get a really solid foundation of background information in your (somewhat specific) field of scientific study? I’m just starting in my genetics lab and even though my lab’s area of study is quite young (~55 years old, with the more important discoveries within the last 20 years) there’s so much more to it than I first realized! I don’t have a specific project yet so I’m just trying to learn about previous work in the area: I’ve started with my lab’s most recent papers but also gone back to the beginning and am trying to link everything together in my brain but there’s so much! I’ve also tried starting a literature review to get everything into a coherent story but without some direction I feel a little buried under the amount of work that’s been done. And I do realize that it’s a forever-on-going thing, but I need a certain amount of base information before I can really understand what my lab is currently exploring and conceptualize what I want to work on. So basically - 1. any tips besides read and read and read and 2. what is an appropriate amount of time to expect to spend reading and reading and reading until I have a good sense of the field (weeks? months?).
@cancerbiophd @almondsofjoy @runhardliveloud @perpetuallykelsey @ecologybarbie @itsraegun @surface–detail
“a really solid foundation” depends on the application of the knowledge. “A solid foundation” differs in depth and breadth between say, teaching a grad level course on that subject vs making a lab meeting powerpoint.
I think a good way to measure this foundation for your purposes as a grad student would be: would you be able to write a grant proposal on your project? This would require you to know all the necessary background info on the subject, come up with an innovative question and testable hypothesis, determine the best research methods to test the hypothesis, and be able to interpret the data well. I had to write a grant (in NIH F31 style) for my PhD candidacy (aka qualifying or comprehensive) exam during my 2nd? 3rd? (i don’t even remember now) year, so I think it took me that long to get a good foundation of the knowledge of my specific field. (I’m still learning new things every day, of course, and probably will keep on learning forever.)
So reading about the material is great, but the next step would be to organize and apply the knowledge. A good exercise (aside from writing a full blown grant) would be to write down a) what is known about the subject and b) what is not known about the subject aka potential projects. Another helpful exercise is to make a mind-map (or an outline), where you break down all that new knowledge into neat sub-categories. And always be sure to include citations so you can easily find the paper source later (like when it really comes time to write a real grant).
Hope that helps!
Because treating people fairly often means treating them differently.
This is something that I teach my students during the first week of school and they understand it. Eight year olds can understand this and all it costs is a box of band-aids.
I have each students pretend they got hurt and need a band-aid. Children love band-aids. I ask the first one where they are hurt. If he says his finger, I put the band-aid on his finger. Then I ask the second one where they are hurt. No matter what that child says, I put the band-aid on their finger exactly like the first child. I keep doing that through the whole class. No matter where they say their pretend injury is, I do the same thing I did with the first one.
After they all have band-aids in the same spot, I ask if that actually helped any of them other than the first child. I say, “Well, I helped all of you the same! You all have one band-aid!” And they’ll try to get me to understand that they were hurt somewhere else. I act like I’m just now understanding it. Then I explain, “There might be moments this year where some of you get different things because you need them differently, just like you needed a band-aid in a different spot.”
If at any time any of my students ask why one student has a different assignment, or gets taken out of the class for a subject, or gets another teacher to come in and help them throughout the year, I remind my students of the band-aids they got at the start of the school year and they stop complaining. That’s why eight year olds can understand equity.
The final debate
CLINTON: Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States. TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet. CLINTON: And it’s pretty clear… TRUMP: You’re the puppet! CLINTON: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit… TRUMP: No, you’re the puppet. CLINTON: … that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race. So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 — 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing. WALLACE: Secretary Clinton… CLINTON: And I think it’s time you take a stand… TRUMP: She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else. CLINTON: I am not quoting myself. TRUMP: She has no idea. CLINTON: I am quoting 17… TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea. CLINTON: … 17 intelligence — do you doubt 17 military and civilian… TRUMP: And our country has no idea. CLINTON: … agencies. TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it. CLINTON: Well, he’d rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely… (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.
- October 19th, 2016
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ed8e6397c4f
“That’s why I’m talking to you. You are one of the rare people who can separate your observation from your preconception. You see what is, where most people see what they expect.”
— John Steinbeck (via purplebuddhaquotes)
this is an insult
I once applied and interviewed at a bookstore cafe for a barista position. It was way closer to my home, and I had almost a decade of experience working in a coffee shop at that point.
Got to the interview, and it turned out they didn’t want a barista, they wanted someone to spearhead their new cafe, as the cafe that had been in the store before didn’t want to resign their lease with the bookshop. They wanted to put their own cafe in its place, all new menus etc. They needed someone experienced to train their new staff, to handle window displays, to communicate with the bookstore owners about changes and needs of the cafe, to be able to handle inventory and ordering.
Okay, I had basically done most of that stuff at my previous job. I asked if cafe positions would also be required/trained to work the bookstore. They would. They would be required to run the book sale counter, stock and reshelf books, and help bookshop customers find things. They would also–despite having an outside cleaning company–have to help maintain bathroom cleanliness. They’d have to take out trash, and clean spills, and vacuum. Wow, that’s a lot, I said. Is this a manager’s position, then?
No, I was told, it wasn’t, but there was a chance that after a training period it might become one. And that made me pause, because I’d been working as the front-of-house manager at my cafe, and I knew how much work that entailed, and what kind of money I was making, and it was only the commute that had me looking for a new job. So I asked what the job paid. $8. E I G H T D O L L A R S. Per hour. Barely above minimum. For all of that work. For someone they expected to get an entirely new cafe up and running, and then also do the work of the bookstore and the cleaning company as well. I thanked the woman for the interview, said I’d have to talk to my significant other about the impact a four dollar pay cut would have on our finances, and that I wasn’t sure it was the job for me. She asked me to sleep on it, and she’d call me the next day. This is a job I was way more than qualified for. I had years of experience doing exactly the things they wanted. It was a convenient location, close to my home–I could walk there if I absolutely had to. I did not go home and talk about that four dollar pay cut and what it would do to our finances. I knew as soon as she told me that not only was it not feasible for us, it was downright insulting. That little money? For a frankly ridiculous list of responsibilities and expectations? She called back the next day. I thanked her again, and told her in no uncertain terms that my time was worth way more than what they were offering. And whenever people bitch about Millennials being lazy, not spending money, not buying houses…whatever the complaint of the month is…I think about the very nice lady who conducted this interview, and how confused she was that I didn’t want the job.
The “business casual” part needs to be circled too. Unless you’re lucky enough to find lots of secondhand clothing in your size, just enough clothing to make it through the week is going to eat up your first week’s salary, if not more. “To keep this crappy job, you need to dress like your well-to-do parents buy all your clothing.”
The Definitive Guide to Donald Trump
Best, most cogent and simple (in the sense of elegant simplicity) explanation into the massively destructive negotiating processes of the president by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
Everybody I know should read this accurate and enlightening piece…:
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also © buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn’t another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
Also, there’s no way it’s coincidental that the tarrifs on China ends up benefiting Russia, given Trump’s very public admiration for Putin.
a condensed taxonomy of liberalism
Two notes: First, there is an enormous deal of diversity and difference within each of these periods; these are useful conceptual categories and nothing more. Second, I’m focusing mostly on the history of liberal theory rather than the history of liberalism, because “actually existing liberalism” emerged and evolved in a multiplicity of ways across the globe - but I will make particular notes of significant events in its development, and the relationship between liberal theory and liberal practice is a reciprocal one.
Early or proto-liberalism is the term I prefer for the nascent period of liberalism, when it is not quite a fully developed political theory nor has it reached cultural, economic, or political hegemony yet. In Western Europe, this period roughly corresponds to the late fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, with the eighteenth marking the definitive break towards a new “type” of liberalism. The thinkers of this period are often not “liberals” in any recognizable contemporary sense but they introduce concepts that become formative to later forms of liberalism. Most of these thinkers take an atomized, individualistic, self-interested subject as the universal model of humanity; when these subjects are plopped into the conceptual device dubbed “state of nature”, either their human nature or environmental constraints (or both) result in the necessity and practicality of a centralized government, in the form of a state. But that government can only be legitimized through the consent of the governed (though this consent may be “tacit”). The other key principle of this period of liberal thought is toleration - primarily religious, but basically the idea of “negative liberty,” in which there are many domains in which the state cannot interfere due to “natural right.”
Key Proto-Liberal Thinkers: Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, John Calvin, arguably Renaissance humanists, arguably Martin Luther
Key Proto-Liberal Events: English Civil War, Dutch Revolt, Reformation, Peace of Westphalia, colonization of the Americas prior to the French & Indian War
Classical liberalism is a term I can’t stand because it’s overly broad in temporal scope, so I like to subdivide it in two: early and late.
Early classical liberalism is what most people associate with the revolutionary period, and I would argue is the point where it becomes a fully-realized political theory. Many of the proto-liberal concepts were expanded, edited, and developed. While many of the proto-liberal thinkers were not exactly free-traders, Locke’s “labor theory of property” and account of money and inequality became formative on liberal economic thought during this period. (Worth noting that capitalism and liberalism are historically co-extensive, informing each other in various ways.) Some of these liberals are more radical than others - early feminists operate in a liberal mode of thought, there were a number of radical factions in the French Revolution, and Thomas Paine is noted for his proto-socialism. One of the major struggles in liberal theory was the place of democracy, whether the public could be trusted or had to be guided. Hence, liberalism and democracy are not necessarily wedded, though their spreads have also been co-extensive - it is possible (as Shadi Hamid has noted) to have an illiberal political culture and a democratic system of governance, and vice versa. It’s also worth noting that on the whole, these liberals tend to emphasize particular positive liberties rather than the negative liberties which often characterized proto-liberal thought
Key ECL Thinkers: J.J. Rousseau, Mary Wollstonecraft, Maximilien Robespierre, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, J.B. Say
Key ECL Events: Atlantic Revolutionary wave (American, Haitian, French), First Industrial Revolution, 1848 Revolutionary wave
Late classical liberalism is the period in which liberalism begins to spread in its hegemonic status, during the mid-to-late nineteenth century as well as the beginning of the twentieth. The concept of eternal growth and progress, inherited from Adam Smith, is lionized into gospel and serves as justification for the expansion of industrialization, the world market, and imperial powers - hence the association of the term “classical liberal” with laissez-faire economic policy. It is also marked by an increasing emphasis on positivism, the view that natural science is the highest form of human knowledge and the attempt to apply the scientific method to social and economic relations. Related theories that were seized upon by classical liberals were utilitarianism and Social Darwinism, which were used in the social engineering of the period.
Key LCL Thinkers: Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, Frederic Bastiat, Manchester Liberalism
Key LCL Events: Latin American wars of independence, Opium Wars, American Civil War, Second Industrial Revolution, Scramble for Africa
Revisionist liberalism is a term that I have taken from philosopher Samuel Black to describe the forms of liberalism that emerge in the 20th century, especially after the Depression and World War II. I use this term instead of “left-liberalism” or “social liberalism,” which I think confuse more than clarify. “Revisionist” indicates that there is both continuity and rupture with the previous forms. While revisionist liberals seek to preserve a market economy and the rule of law within the state-form, they tend to pair this with a concern for individual citizen welfare and as such promote a more actively involved state, one that is willing to get involved in economic practice as well as expand and protect social, civil, and political rights. Subsequently, they place a much greater emphasis on pluralism and egalitarianism than earlier liberals. However, they retain many of proto-liberalism and classical liberalism’s premises. It is also often marked by a commitment to political as well as economic internationalism and associated with the rise of the Bretton Woods system.
Key RL Thinkers: Max Weber, John Maynard Keynes, John Rawls, ML King, Ronald Dworkin, Isaiah Berlin, Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum
Key RL Events: New Deal, American South Civil Rights Movement, LBJ’s War on Poverty
Neoliberalism is the big term that makes people upset. In contradistinction to revisionist liberalism, neoliberalism is not interested in egalitarianism though it may be interested in certain kinds of pluralism; its primary aim is to strip away barriers to market expansion. Though this often manifests as “anti-statism,” neoliberals usually support the existence of a strong state that can defend private property rights, guarantee money, and create the conditions for market expansion. There is a sharp opposition to the central planning of 20th-century socialist countries as well as Keynesianism, allegedly out of concern for institutional capture by interest groups or giving way to totalitarianism. Neoliberal policy and philosophy seeks to privatize public goods and services, weaken the power of organized labor, create a “good business climate” through revision of tax codes, and scrap regulations where possible. It is, in many ways, a resurrection of the late classical liberal period in a new guise and under new conditions.
Key NL Thinkers: Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys, Robert Nozick, James Buchanan, Ayn Rand, Arthur Laffer, Karl Popper (yes, Popper is a neoliberal, eat my shorts)
Key NL Events: the past thirty to forty years (China getting Xiaopinged, Pinochet’s Chile regime, Reagan and Thatcher, 1970s recession, Bolivian water wars, structural adjustment programs and austerity measures round the globe)
Some contemporary reading recs that I thought of right now, feel free to add more:
- Liberalism: The Life of an Idea - Edmund Fawcett - Liberalism: A Counter-History - Domenico Losurdo - Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital - Vivek Chibber - A Brief History of Neoliberalism - David Harvey - Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy - Barrington Moore
Authoritarianism can happen here. For some, it already has.
If you can get through this without a rage blackout, you’re in a better place than me. I know it’s tacky to excerpt the final paragraphs of anything, but this is going to haunt me.
But for now, what is happening is the sort of moral enormity that once seemed unthinkable in contemporary America, the kind captured in the Martin Niemöller poem that’s repeated so often it’s become a cliché: “First they came …” There is no reason to believe that undocumented immigrants will be the last group of people deemed beyond the law’s protection.
Senator Merkley told me he asked people working in the detention center if they were concerned about the impact that family separation would have on the children who had been put under their authority. The answer, he said, was, “We simply follow the orders from above.”
We simply follow the orders from above.
Frame this
Is Jordan giving himself as an example or
…Teaching Your Kids What
Sissy crybaby SJW snowcucks teach that you shouldn’t be racist; sensible rationalist chadly ubermenschen teach that ancient civilizations had an instinctual understanding of DNA because “archetypes”.
did you just post 140 minutes of this guy’s yammering
Sorry that’s supposed to be at the right time. Bring it to 1:45:32
Those following along at home may find this article helps
https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths
The war of words between President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could have serious economic consequences. According to US data, Canada was the top export market for 33 states.
President Donald Trump’s fight with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau not only threatens to unravel the US’s relationship with one of its oldest international partners, but also could significantly damage the US economy.
Continue Reading.
Between 1999 and 2016, suicide rates increased across age, gender, race and ethnicity.
Suicide rates rose in all but one state between 1999 and 2016, with increases seen across age, gender, race and ethnicity, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In more than half of all deaths in 27 states, the people had no known mental health condition when they ended their lives.
In North Dakota, the rate jumped more than 57 percent. In the most recent period studied (2014 to 2016), the rate was highest in Montana, at 29.2 per 100,000 residents, compared with the national average of 13.4 per 100,000.
Only Nevada recorded a decline — of 1 percent — for the overall period, although its rate remained higher than the national average.
Increasingly, suicide is being viewed not only as a mental health problem but a public health one. Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th-leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second-leading cause of death.
The most common method used across all groups was firearms.
“The data are disturbing,” said Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “The widespread nature of the increase, in every state but one, really suggests that this is a national problem hitting most communities.”
It is hitting many places especially hard. In half of the states, suicide among people age 10 and older increased more than 30 percent.
“At what point is it a crisis?” asked Nadine Kaslow, a past president of the American Psychological Association. “Suicide is a public health crisis when you look at the numbers, and they keep going up. It’s up everywhere. And we know that the rates are actually higher than what’s reported. But homicides still get more attention.”
One factor in the rising rate, say mental health professionals as well as economists, sociologists and epidemiologists, is the Great Recession that hit 10 years ago. A 2017 study in the journal Social Science and Medicine showed evidence that a rise in the foreclosure rate during that concussive downturn was associated with an overall, though marginal, increase in suicide rates. The increase was higher for white males than any other race or gender group, however.
“Research for many years and across social and health science fields has demonstrated a strong relationship between economic downturns and an increase in deaths due to suicide,” Sarah Burgard an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan, explained in an email on Thursday.
Percent change in annual suicide rate* by state, from 1999-2001 to 2014-2016
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
_______
“In half of the states, suicide among people age 10 and older increased more than 30 percent [between 1999-2001 and 2014-2016].”
“Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th-leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second-leading cause of death.”
Between 1999 and 2016, suicide rates increased across age, gender, race and ethnicity.
Suicide rates rose in all but one state between 1999 and 2016, with increases seen across age, gender, race and ethnicity, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In more than half of all deaths in 27 states, the people had no known mental health condition when they ended their lives.
In North Dakota, the rate jumped more than 57 percent. In the most recent period studied (2014 to 2016), the rate was highest in Montana, at 29.2 per 100,000 residents, compared with the national average of 13.4 per 100,000.
Only Nevada recorded a decline — of 1 percent — for the overall period, although its rate remained higher than the national average.
Increasingly, suicide is being viewed not only as a mental health problem but a public health one. Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th-leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second-leading cause of death.
The most common method used across all groups was firearms.
“The data are disturbing,” said Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “The widespread nature of the increase, in every state but one, really suggests that this is a national problem hitting most communities.”
It is hitting many places especially hard. In half of the states, suicide among people age 10 and older increased more than 30 percent.
“At what point is it a crisis?” asked Nadine Kaslow, a past president of the American Psychological Association. “Suicide is a public health crisis when you look at the numbers, and they keep going up. It’s up everywhere. And we know that the rates are actually higher than what’s reported. But homicides still get more attention.”
One factor in the rising rate, say mental health professionals as well as economists, sociologists and epidemiologists, is the Great Recession that hit 10 years ago. A 2017 study in the journal Social Science and Medicine showed evidence that a rise in the foreclosure rate during that concussive downturn was associated with an overall, though marginal, increase in suicide rates. The increase was higher for white males than any other race or gender group, however.
“Research for many years and across social and health science fields has demonstrated a strong relationship between economic downturns and an increase in deaths due to suicide,” Sarah Burgard an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan, explained in an email on Thursday.
Percent change in annual suicide rate* by state, from 1999-2001 to 2014-2016
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
_______
“In half of the states, suicide among people age 10 and older increased more than 30 percent [between 1999-2001 and 2014-2016].”
“Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th-leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second-leading cause of death.”
Between 1999 and 2016, suicide rates increased across age, gender, race and ethnicity.
Suicide rates rose in all but one state between 1999 and 2016, with increases seen across age, gender, race and ethnicity, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In more than half of all deaths in 27 states, the people had no known mental health condition when they ended their lives.
In North Dakota, the rate jumped more than 57 percent. In the most recent period studied (2014 to 2016), the rate was highest in Montana, at 29.2 per 100,000 residents, compared with the national average of 13.4 per 100,000.
Only Nevada recorded a decline — of 1 percent — for the overall period, although its rate remained higher than the national average.
Increasingly, suicide is being viewed not only as a mental health problem but a public health one. Nearly 45,000 suicides occurred in the United States in 2016 — more than twice the number of homicides — making it the 10th-leading cause of death. Among people ages 15 to 34, suicide is the second-leading cause of death.
The most common method used across all groups was firearms.
“The data are disturbing,” said Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “The widespread nature of the increase, in every state but one, really suggests that this is a national problem hitting most communities.”
It is hitting many places especially hard. In half of the states, suicide among people age 10 and older increased more than 30 percent.
“At what point is it a crisis?” asked Nadine Kaslow, a past president of the American Psychological Association. “Suicide is a public health crisis when you look at the numbers, and they keep going up. It’s up everywhere. And we know that the rates are actually higher than what’s reported. But homicides still get more attention.”
One factor in the rising rate, say mental health professionals as well as economists, sociologists and epidemiologists, is the Great Recession that hit 10 years ago. A 2017 study in the journal Social Science and Medicine showed evidence that a rise in the foreclosure rate during that concussive downturn was associated with an overall, though marginal, increase in suicide rates. The increase was higher for white males than any other race or gender group, however.
“Research for many years and across social and health science fields has demonstrated a strong relationship between economic downturns and an increase in deaths due to suicide,” Sarah Burgard an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan, explained in an email on Thursday.
Former Toronto City Councillor, Journalist and Biographer of Rob Ford, John Filion explains what he expects from Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario.
