Hacker News Reader

Comment by ralmeida | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

> 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.

> 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"?

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-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.

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?

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.

Nowhere in the post says the streamer was suicidal. It says they were depressed.

Even if it did, the suicidal person themselves thinking suicide is selfish is a totally different thing than someone else saying it to them, especially in a moment of crisis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com