Why is there a racial disparity in suicide?

Again, Already addressed

 

I'm just curious how anyone or any computer program could fathom "strong social support"

Amongst the community with the nation's highest rate of single parent and absentee father households. There is no way that those two mesh together.

The math just isn't mathing up.

 

Well, some families are close with their extended family. With brothers and sisters and cousins and such. So just looking at the nuclear family wouldn't tell the whole story. It's not like the nuclear family is that stable anyway, but your sister is always your sister, and if close with cousins, that's not going to change either. I think it's more common in white families to have basically no ties with extended family. Being in the professional class, personally speaking, we get scattered all over the country and don't see each other anymore.

I guess that's one advantage to being poor. You can just stay where you grew up with people you've always known.

 

You do raise a good point. When black folks have a family reunion they tend to have 30 to 50 people at gathering. I don't even know my second or third cousin's name much less ever met... Or know if I even have one for that matter

 

DEFinning said: ↑
Why would it seem to you, not to be the case, when you present the evidence, yourself, that indicates that it indeed, is the case?

That was not exactly my meaning, in the small part of my quote, you'd excerpted. I was saying that the numeric averages you present, show very significant differences between the groups. But you had said that it didn't seem to you, that there was any reason to explain these differences, which your quoted figures, prove does exist. To have the opinion that these wide gaps between whites on one hand, and blacks, & Hispanics on the other, are just normal, random fluctuations, I think, is the same as questioning the entire field of statistical analytics. If we were talking about relatively small populations, aberrations would be more common; I noticed, for instance, on the PDF you'd linked, that there were vast gaps between different states, in the particular year shown. There was a note there, in fact, suggesting that multiple year stats would be more reliable than the figures from just any single year. Still, the number of blacks in the country, is greater than the population of any state, with the possible exception of California.

Nevertheless, let's say, for the sake of argument, that you could have the suicide average of one huge group, due to nothing but random chance, differing greatly from that of another, even larger group. That same discrepancy, however, would absolutely not, essentially, repeat, year after year. Yet, I would assume that those averages for each group, are fairly stable. This proves, that the different racial/ethnic groups you list, actually do kill themselves at markedly different rates. That is why I'd asked, why you'd said you had doubted that there were any differences between the groups, that would account for this. Obviously, there must be some factor(s), explaining the variance.

I can get into them, on a very general, hypothetical basis, if you'd like.

 

I assume that you got that PM.

 

Did you miss where I said: "It would seem to me that this is not the case?"

 

maybe white males are just better at suicide than other genders or races, one would have to total the attempted suicides to know for sure vs only the successful ones

 

You hadn't addressed anything prior to your errors being pointed out. You've partially addressed part of it now, which is something at least.

 

Suicide by cop is a known tactic but not counted as suicide. In my city an example of that is documented (with a white person), but since gang culture is strong in some black dominated geographical areas....which carry a lot of despair in general...probably good opportunities to have yourself killed by pissing off a gang or pointing a gun at a cop. Might be easier then doing it yourself. Just a thought. Those incidents aren't counted as suicide even when known to be suicide from what they say or talking to friends and family.

 

Whites today are being taught that they are to blame for everything that's wrong in the world and black are being taught that anything they do is justified because of racism.

 

And that causes them to kill themselves?

 

16 percent of them yes... And let's not forget the late pandemic response saw a sharp rise in suicides among teens cut off from their peers.

 

I addressed the information prior to your post. Which means you didn't read the thread. You were just targeting post.
Is there something in my post you don't understand.

 

You've not addressed anything, you just tried to fumble and distract away from your mistakes.

You initially asserted that the OP statistics are politically slanted and that if black people made up 60% of the US population, their suicide rate would be 35-40 per 100K. That was simply wrong.

When you were challenged on that by the OP, you asserted that the rates were all based on the total US population, and tried to back that up with the calculation of [population]/[incidence]. Unfortunately, that is the wrong way around and you miscalculated anyway, suggesting 3320/3708 is 0.08 when it's actually 0.87 (neither of which match the 8.4 rate you were actually aiming for).

If you'd tried to apply the same calculation to the other groups, you would have probably spotted your error because they'd be way off. I'd suggest that you were so desperate to challenge any data that suggests something vaguely positive for "blacks" over "whites", you rushed in without enough consideration or checking. It'd be better if you acknowledged your mistake, if only to yourself.

 

So when I claimed the OP was right and provided the formula to prove he was right, what part went over your head?

 

No, I saw right through it. You wrote it to make it appear that nothing you'd previously written was wrong and you were just clarifying. You even tried to gaslight the OP with the "I thought my post... was clear" line.

The key thing is that you haven't addressed is your assertion that the OP data was slanted for political purposes and that a 60% "black" population would have a rate of 35-40.

 

Says the poster who obviously needs a bit of tutoring on what I posted.
So. allow me to help you comprehend the following.

And my assessment was wrong.

So after looking at the data, I agreed that the rate number was based on the population of the race and agreed that the rate is based on the black population and not total population.

Then LiveUninhibited commented

And he was right, so I stated as much

Which was my admission that the rate was based on the population by race and not my first assumption.
Then I provided the formula backing up Liveuninhibiteds claim was actually right

Meaning, again, I admitted the numbers were based on the black population and not total population.

Is there anything else I can tutor you on? were you able to finally figure out what my post say?
You're welcome

 

That's the key thing that was missing. You didn't really need any of the calculations and explanations since that had already been covered much more clearly.

 

If thats true, since you couldn't conclude on your own what my post stated was the explanation.
What is it you saw right through again?

 

The fact you didn't want to simply state "I was wrong" or "I am sorry" for slandering the original data source so you presented your follow-up posts as if they were just continuations or clarifications rather than the simple u-turn they should have been.

It isn't easy to admit you're wrong and we can all be guilty of this kind of thing (I certainly have been in the past), but that's all the more reason to recognise and acknowledge it when it happens, especially in ourselves.

 

Another thing that could be driving the racial disparity in the statistics are regional differences.

I've covered this in other threads, but America has two vertical belts of economic malaise running from north to south. One in the Rocky Mountain states, and the other running from the Rust Belt through Appalachia down to Alabama and Mississippi. Both have a high percentage of rural whites and diminished economic opportunity, as well as elevated suicide rates.

In other words, it were as if the U.S. were a sandwich, with 5 layers, layered sideways, and 2 of those layers are economically depressed.

Further reading if you're interested
Why 'Deaths of Despair' May Be a Warning Sign for America
The "Eastern Heartland", regional economy in U.S.

 

Thats not what (I saw right through it) means when I claimed the poster was right. And it wasn't what you posted. Now whos being dishonest.

This is what you actually posted

So you can save the back tracking for someone else

What actually happened is you just picked out one single post, attacked me for posting it, without reading the conversation and you got caught. Then you tried to make up a bunch of guff to cover your tracks when you found out what the conversation actually was.

And who made you the God of accountability?
You sitting in judgement of other peoples post now? It seems the only one here who magically had any problem was you since the poster I quoted liked my post for claiming he was right.

So you can save your excuses for someone else as I don't remember YOU stating YOU were wrong.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable

 

It was exactly what I meant and exactly what I wrote to clarify that you'd structured your responses to make them read like clarifications rather than acceptance of outright error. A generic statement of "Your (sic) right" on the basis of one technical aspect isn't the same as accepting you were wrong to assert that the source of the data was being politically manipulated or the truth is that blacks should be listed higher than whites in this list.

I did read the conversation and I've looked through it again just now. Nothing I've seen changes anything I've previously posted here.

Nobody obviously. I'm not demanding you do anything, I'm only suggesting what I think you (and indeed, anyone else, myself included) should.

As I said, this is something we can all be guilty of and admitting a mistake is difficult. It is worth noting that several posters pointed out your errors (before and after your clarification posts) but you're the only one suggesting I've said anything incorrect in this thread.

Regardless, I've made my point and I think we can now take the source data and assessments on face value.

 

Where are you getting 16% from?