4 ms·

Because it may backfire and increase the probability that they follow through.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
It may also work and decrease the probability that they follow through. Every strategy has its successes and its failures. If that were a reason not to do something, you'd never do anything.
- ralmeida 7y ago
  Fair enough. There is indeed a chance that, counterintuitively, "burdening" the at-risk person with the consequences of their acts may work. However, whose "burden of proof" is it? Should "OP" provide evidence to their claim or you to yours? If no claims are provided, what should the "default action" be? I argue that, in face of the extreme consequences of the proposed action ("burdening" instead of "no burdening"), "no burdening" should be the default action, unless there's evidence that "burdening" works (which none of us in the conversation have so far provided).
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > I argue that, in face of the extreme consequences of the proposed action ("burdening" instead of "no burdening"), "no burdening" should be the default action You're wholeheartedly endorsing the idea I was using to mock you: >> Every strategy has its successes and its failures. If that were a reason not to do something, you'd never do anything. The consequences of, in your terminology, "no burdening" are just as extreme as the consequences of "burdening". That's obvious, because they are exactly the same consequences. And the evidence that people will avoid doing things they might otherwise do, even at significant cost to themselves, for the sake of their family and close friends, is abundant.
    - ralmeida 7y ago
      > And the evidence that people will avoid doing things they might otherwise do, even at significant cost to themselves, for the sake of their family and close friends, is abundant. Rational people, maybe. People on the verge of suicide are not acting rationally. Where's the citable evidence for the claim that "shaming/guilting/burdening suicidal people makes them less likely to commit suicide"?
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        Look at what happened when a person who was actually suicidal shared the viewpoint that worked for him, in public: https://www.popehat.com/2016/04/21/what-empathy-looks-like-twitch-streamer-brandon-nance-resigns-after-ranting-at-a-depressed-fan/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/04/21/what-empathy-looks-like-t... With that level of public openmindedness, the citable evidence (of which this is a part) is guaranteed to dramatically understate the actual effectiveness of the approach.
        ralmeida 7y ago
        I don't think I'm following here. The viewer was suicidal, but wasn't anymore when he was berated. My interpretation from your link is that "watching videos of someone playing games helped a viewer not commit suicide". How's this evidence for advocating berating people while (not after) they are suicidal?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        thaumasiotes 7y ago
        The viewer was suicidal. The streamer was also suicidal, and responded to the viewer's note with his personal viewpoint on committing suicide. ("People who do it are selfish and weak" -- pretty much the same viewpoint we're discussing here.) Note that, since the streamer was alive, that viewpoint successfully prevented him, the streamer, from committing suicide. For sharing his successful views, he was made a pariah.

It may also work and decrease the probability that they follow through. Every strategy has its successes and its failures. If that were a reason not to do something, you'd never do anything.

ralmeida 7y ago
Fair enough. There is indeed a chance that, counterintuitively, "burdening" the at-risk person with the consequences of their acts may work. However, whose "burden of proof" is it? Should "OP" provide evidence to their claim or you to yours? If no claims are provided, what should the "default action" be? I argue that, in face of the extreme consequences of the proposed action ("burdening" instead of "no burdening"), "no burdening" should be the default action, unless there's evidence that "burdening" works (which none of us in the conversation have so far provided).
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > I argue that, in face of the extreme consequences of the proposed action ("burdening" instead of "no burdening"), "no burdening" should be the default action You're wholeheartedly endorsing the idea I was using to mock you: >> Every strategy has its successes and its failures. If that were a reason not to do something, you'd never do anything. The consequences of, in your terminology, "no burdening" are just as extreme as the consequences of "burdening". That's obvious, because they are exactly the same consequences. And the evidence that people will avoid doing things they might otherwise do, even at significant cost to themselves, for the sake of their family and close friends, is abundant.
  - ralmeida 7y ago
    > And the evidence that people will avoid doing things they might otherwise do, even at significant cost to themselves, for the sake of their family and close friends, is abundant. Rational people, maybe. People on the verge of suicide are not acting rationally. Where's the citable evidence for the claim that "shaming/guilting/burdening suicidal people makes them less likely to commit suicide"?
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Look at what happened when a person who was actually suicidal shared the viewpoint that worked for him, in public: https://www.popehat.com/2016/04/21/what-empathy-looks-like-twitch-streamer-brandon-nance-resigns-after-ranting-at-a-depressed-fan/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/04/21/what-empathy-looks-like-t... With that level of public openmindedness, the citable evidence (of which this is a part) is guaranteed to dramatically understate the actual effectiveness of the approach.
      - ralmeida 7y ago
        I don't think I'm following here. The viewer was suicidal, but wasn't anymore when he was berated. My interpretation from your link is that "watching videos of someone playing games helped a viewer not commit suicide". How's this evidence for advocating berating people while (not after) they are suicidal?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        thaumasiotes 7y ago
        The viewer was suicidal. The streamer was also suicidal, and responded to the viewer's note with his personal viewpoint on committing suicide. ("People who do it are selfish and weak" -- pretty much the same viewpoint we're discussing here.) Note that, since the streamer was alive, that viewpoint successfully prevented him, the streamer, from committing suicide. For sharing his successful views, he was made a pariah.