[quote=""Pandora""]What is 'normal', and are we close to it? If the answer is that we're far from the norm, then it doesn't really matter if it's 50% or 95% - it's too much[/quote]
No. The urgency to do something would be much higher if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were 315 times than if it were three times of the general population.
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
LGBT and other labels
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Hermit""]
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.[/QUOTE]
BTW, you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Not just you, but loads of people. We're assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance. We don't know that.
Suicide is often surrounded by a lot of shame. That means that a lot of accidents are labelled as suicides. In Sweden and Japan suicide is considered less shameful for the family (for different reasons). So we have a high suicide statistic. I think Sweden is the only country in the world that automatically puts a single car accidents, without a plausible explanation, down to suicide. It's extremely hard to get accurate numbers on suicides at all.
And that's a necessary first start if you want to explore possible solutions to this.
I obviously support LGBTQ acceptance regardless. I think it is a good in itself no matter the of results. I just wanted to point this out.
No. The urgency to do something would be much higher if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were 315 times than if it were three times of the general population.Pandora;680797 wrote:What is 'normal', and are we close to it? If the answer is that we're far from the norm, then it doesn't really matter if it's 50% or 95% - it's too much
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.[/QUOTE]
BTW, you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Not just you, but loads of people. We're assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance. We don't know that.
Suicide is often surrounded by a lot of shame. That means that a lot of accidents are labelled as suicides. In Sweden and Japan suicide is considered less shameful for the family (for different reasons). So we have a high suicide statistic. I think Sweden is the only country in the world that automatically puts a single car accidents, without a plausible explanation, down to suicide. It's extremely hard to get accurate numbers on suicides at all.
And that's a necessary first start if you want to explore possible solutions to this.
I obviously support LGBTQ acceptance regardless. I think it is a good in itself no matter the of results. I just wanted to point this out.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
I am not assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance, nor am I assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is not because of lack of acceptance. All I have written in this thread so far is that the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 0.39 rather than 41%, and that the urgency to do something about it would be much higher if the latter was the case rather than the former.
BTW, you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Not just you, but loads of people. We're assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance. We don't know that.[/QUOTE]Hermit;680811 wrote:No. The urgency to do something would be much higher if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were 315 times than if it were three times of the general population.Pandora;680797 wrote:What is 'normal', and are we close to it? If the answer is that we're far from the norm, then it doesn't really matter if it's 50% or 95% - it's too much
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.
I am not assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance, nor am I assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is not because of lack of acceptance. All I have written in this thread so far is that the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 0.39 rather than 41%, and that the urgency to do something about it would be much higher if the latter was the case rather than the former.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Hermit""]
Here's a good quote. "If you don't know to what port you are sailing, no wind is favourable". Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?
I am not assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance, nor am I assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is not because of lack of acceptance. All I have written in this thread so far is that the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 0.39 rather than 41%, and that the urgency to do something about it would be much higher if the latter was the case rather than the former.[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;680830 wrote:BTW, you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Not just you, but loads of people. We're assuming that the reason suicide rates among transgendered people is because of lack of acceptance. We don't know that.Hermit;680811 wrote:No. The urgency to do something would be much higher if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were 315 times than if it were three times of the general population.Pandora;680797 wrote:What is 'normal', and are we close to it? If the answer is that we're far from the norm, then it doesn't really matter if it's 50% or 95% - it's too much
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.
Here's a good quote. "If you don't know to what port you are sailing, no wind is favourable". Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]"If you don't know to what port you are sailing, no wind is favourable".[/quote]Sure. As it happens, I knew exactly where I was going: Correcting an incorrect assertion.
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?[/quote]
"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?[/quote]
"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Hermit""]
Feeling very strongly about something doesn't mean you can throw science out the window. It's usually just the time when we need to get extra cautious, because strong feelings often cloud judgement. Or we risk solving the wrong problem.
Science has a long history of experimentation ending up with a reality that nobody had even imagined. True causes for stuff often is real left field.
Politics has a long history of trying to solve problems, but failing and instead just ending up making everything worse for everybody.
Truth is always better than guessing. I can't believe that I'm having to explain this.
An example: kids with ADHD/ADD were yelled at for centuries for being lazy, clumsy and inconsiderate. With resulting high depression rates and high suicide rates. Turned out that all they needed all along was a little pill, and everything instantly became good as if by magic.
Therapy is largely wasted on people with ADHD (if the goal is to fix the ADHD). Because it's not that kind of problem. Yet we tried very very hard for a very long time to fix it with it. And threw billions of dollars at it.
"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;681004 wrote:Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?
Feeling very strongly about something doesn't mean you can throw science out the window. It's usually just the time when we need to get extra cautious, because strong feelings often cloud judgement. Or we risk solving the wrong problem.
Science has a long history of experimentation ending up with a reality that nobody had even imagined. True causes for stuff often is real left field.
Politics has a long history of trying to solve problems, but failing and instead just ending up making everything worse for everybody.
Truth is always better than guessing. I can't believe that I'm having to explain this.
An example: kids with ADHD/ADD were yelled at for centuries for being lazy, clumsy and inconsiderate. With resulting high depression rates and high suicide rates. Turned out that all they needed all along was a little pill, and everything instantly became good as if by magic.
Therapy is largely wasted on people with ADHD (if the goal is to fix the ADHD). Because it's not that kind of problem. Yet we tried very very hard for a very long time to fix it with it. And threw billions of dollars at it.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
You have my emphatic agreement on this. Why do you feel the need to tell me, though? Don't you think the first step in any scientific endeavour is to ascertain facts as best as one can? Don't you agree that this is precisely what I did when I drew attention to the massively incorrect assertion of the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population?
Feeling very strongly about something doesn't mean you can throw science out the window.[/QUOTE]Hermit;681034 wrote:"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.DrZoidberg;681004 wrote:Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?
You have my emphatic agreement on this. Why do you feel the need to tell me, though? Don't you think the first step in any scientific endeavour is to ascertain facts as best as one can? Don't you agree that this is precisely what I did when I drew attention to the massively incorrect assertion of the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population?
-
DrZoidberg
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am
[quote=""Hermit""]
I'm starting to wonder what we are discussing? It doesn't seem to be the same thing.
Suicide rates among transgendered can both be 41% and 0.39% at the same time. They can both be true. Because they might be measuring different things.
You have my emphatic agreement on this. Why do you feel the need to tell me, though? Don't you think the first step in any scientific endeavour is to ascertain facts as best as one can? Don't you agree that this is precisely what I did when I drew attention to the massively incorrect assertion of the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population?[/QUOTE]DrZoidberg;681047 wrote:Feeling very strongly about something doesn't mean you can throw science out the window.Hermit;681034 wrote:"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.DrZoidberg;681004 wrote:Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?
I'm starting to wonder what we are discussing? It doesn't seem to be the same thing.
Suicide rates among transgendered can both be 41% and 0.39% at the same time. They can both be true. Because they might be measuring different things.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
/Dr Zoidberg
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]I'm starting to wonder what we are discussing? It doesn't seem to be the same thing.[/quote]Starting? How many more times need I tell you what I am posting about? It certainly is not what you're trying to discuss.
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Suicide rates among transgendered can both be 41% and 0.39% at the same time. They can both be true. Because they might be measuring different things.[/quote]Except nobody bar Here Rests A Cemetery ever mentioned a 41% suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population, no matter which way it might have been measured, and Here Rests A Cemetery only did so because he was too clueless to do something as simple as reading the title of the article he quoted. Of course he didn't read article itself either. That much is obvious.
Correcting his error is the only thing I have posted about in this thread since our compulsive drama generator has been shown the door.
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Suicide rates among transgendered can both be 41% and 0.39% at the same time. They can both be true. Because they might be measuring different things.[/quote]Except nobody bar Here Rests A Cemetery ever mentioned a 41% suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population, no matter which way it might have been measured, and Here Rests A Cemetery only did so because he was too clueless to do something as simple as reading the title of the article he quoted. Of course he didn't read article itself either. That much is obvious.
Correcting his error is the only thing I have posted about in this thread since our compulsive drama generator has been shown the door.
[quote=""Hermit""]
I'm gonna go ahead and put my stake in the ground: 3X Average is more than enough to prompt urgency. Anything MORE THAN 3X shouldn't materially increase the urgency - it should ALREADY be at about max urgency.
I didn't think this was complicated:
Five babies died this month of tainted baby food --> Massive response to address the issue.
Fifty babies died with month of tainted baby food --> Massive response to address the issue.
Not 'more massive' because it's already massive. Five deaths is already well beyond norm. The appropriate response is one that is massive. Quibbling about whether it was Five or Fifty is unimportant - we've already crossed a threshold for acceptability. It's not a linear relationship. It should be approximately logarithmic - it should have a rapidly escalating response as the rate drifts away from norm, and should rapidly approach a steady state response of "way too fucking much" where it doesn't matter what the actual count is because it's way too fucking much.
[quote=""Hermit""]
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.[/quote]
That was the first question in my list: What is 'normal', and are we close to it?
I don't know where your 0.39% number is coming from. You previously referenced a difference between 3X the norm and 315X the norm. I'm of the opinion that 3X the norm is sufficiently high to prompt a response of "too fucking much" and that arguing about whether it's 3 or 315 is kind of pointless because 3 is already too much.
What point are you making that I'm missing? I'm pretty sure I'm missing something. I just can't figure out what it is.
No. The urgency to do something would be much higher if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were 315 times than if it were three times of the general population.[/QUOTE]Pandora;680797 wrote:What is 'normal', and are we close to it? If the answer is that we're far from the norm, then it doesn't really matter if it's 50% or 95% - it's too much
I'm gonna go ahead and put my stake in the ground: 3X Average is more than enough to prompt urgency. Anything MORE THAN 3X shouldn't materially increase the urgency - it should ALREADY be at about max urgency.
I didn't think this was complicated:
Five babies died this month of tainted baby food --> Massive response to address the issue.
Fifty babies died with month of tainted baby food --> Massive response to address the issue.
Not 'more massive' because it's already massive. Five deaths is already well beyond norm. The appropriate response is one that is massive. Quibbling about whether it was Five or Fifty is unimportant - we've already crossed a threshold for acceptability. It's not a linear relationship. It should be approximately logarithmic - it should have a rapidly escalating response as the rate drifts away from norm, and should rapidly approach a steady state response of "way too fucking much" where it doesn't matter what the actual count is because it's way too fucking much.
[quote=""Hermit""]
Even though you disagree, you ought to at least acknowledge that the discrepancy between Here Rests A Cemetery's assertion of 41% and the actual rate of 0.39% is massive enough to draw attention to.[/quote]
That was the first question in my list: What is 'normal', and are we close to it?
I don't know where your 0.39% number is coming from. You previously referenced a difference between 3X the norm and 315X the norm. I'm of the opinion that 3X the norm is sufficiently high to prompt a response of "too fucking much" and that arguing about whether it's 3 or 315 is kind of pointless because 3 is already too much.
What point are you making that I'm missing? I'm pretty sure I'm missing something. I just can't figure out what it is.
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
[quote=""Hermit""]
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?[/quote]
"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.[/QUOTE]
Where is that number coming from? Because it's much lower than any of the national averages for the population at large that I can find for suicide attempts.
Sure. As it happens, I knew exactly where I was going: Correcting an incorrect assertion.DrZoidberg;681004 wrote:"If you don't know to what port you are sailing, no wind is favourable".
[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Perhaps a good first start would be to try to figure out why suicide rates are so high among the transgendered? As well as working on transgendered acceptance, because, why not?[/quote]
"First start", as you put it, is to get basic facts right. The difference between a 41% and a 0.39% suicide rate is no trifling matter.[/QUOTE]
Where is that number coming from? Because it's much lower than any of the national averages for the population at large that I can find for suicide attempts.
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
Seriously, I'm very confused by the 0.39% number, and where the hell that's coming from.
Here is the 41% of suicide attempts:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... -Final.pdf
Here is the 41% of suicide attempts:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... -Final.pdf
The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide attempt, and is also higher than the 10-20 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever attempting suicide. Much remains to be learned about underlying factors and which groups within the diverse population of transgender and gender non-conforming people are most at risk.
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
[quote=""Pandora""]Seriously, I'm very confused by the 0.39% number, and where the hell that's coming from.[/quote]According to you it does not matter whether the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 3 times or 315 times the national average, so why do you waste your time on that?
[quote=""Pandora""]Here is the 41% of suicide attempts:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... -Final.pdf
Yes, that is the link Here Rests A Cemetery linked to and misread. You can calculate the 0.39% rate using the link I provided when I replied to him in post #170.
As for a difference between 0.39% and 41% not making a difference in the size of countermeasures, we simply disagree. 0.39% is too high already, yes, but we live in a world with unlimited demands competing for limited resources. No problem ever gets sufficient treatment. Sad, but true. I bet more funds would be diverted from other matters if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were in fact 41%.
[quote=""Pandora""]Here is the 41% of suicide attempts:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... -Final.pdf
[/quote]The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality, is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide attempt, and is also higher than the 10-20 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever attempting suicide. Much remains to be learned about underlying factors and which groups within the diverse population of transgender and gender non-conforming people are most at risk.
Yes, that is the link Here Rests A Cemetery linked to and misread. You can calculate the 0.39% rate using the link I provided when I replied to him in post #170.
As for a difference between 0.39% and 41% not making a difference in the size of countermeasures, we simply disagree. 0.39% is too high already, yes, but we live in a world with unlimited demands competing for limited resources. No problem ever gets sufficient treatment. Sad, but true. I bet more funds would be diverted from other matters if the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population were in fact 41%.
I read that as saying it's 41% of transgenders who report attempting suicide over their lifetimes, not the entirety of the LGBT+ spectrum.
And obviously that doesn't include whatever percentage of those attempts succeeded.
However, I also may be misinterpreting something here- and I'd definitely want to see more confirmation of that figure than just this one study.
And obviously that doesn't include whatever percentage of those attempts succeeded.
However, I also may be misinterpreting something here- and I'd definitely want to see more confirmation of that figure than just this one study.
[quote=""Hermit""]
I didn't think this was particularly difficult.
0.39% higher than the national average is very small, and is very likely to be within the margin of error - that would mean that we can't tell whether it's a statistically significant difference or not. That would indicate that in general, the rate is approximately the same as it is for anyone else - there's no additional suicide risk for this sub-population.
But both 3X and 315X are extremely likely to be well outside the margin of error. Both of those indicate a statistically significantly higher risk factor for that specific population.
Having a significantly higher risk for a specific population merits investigation and intervention in order to bring it back into line with the general population. At that point, action is required... and whether it's 'much' or 'very very very very very much' doesn't make it 'not much'.
Why is the concept of materiality so difficult here? Or are you merely digging in your heels to fulfill some need to argue and win the internet?
[quote=""Hermit""]
Yes, that is the link Here Rests A Cemetery linked to and misread. You can calculate the 0.39% rate using the link I provided when I replied to him in post #170.[/quote]
Your first link is the same source I linked. I cannot open your second link. I can't figure out how you calculated that rate. Can you please walk me through your calculations?
According to you it does not matter whether the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 3 times or 315 times the national average, so why do you waste your time on that?[/QUOTE]Pandora;681334 wrote:Seriously, I'm very confused by the 0.39% number, and where the hell that's coming from.
I didn't think this was particularly difficult.
0.39% higher than the national average is very small, and is very likely to be within the margin of error - that would mean that we can't tell whether it's a statistically significant difference or not. That would indicate that in general, the rate is approximately the same as it is for anyone else - there's no additional suicide risk for this sub-population.
But both 3X and 315X are extremely likely to be well outside the margin of error. Both of those indicate a statistically significantly higher risk factor for that specific population.
Having a significantly higher risk for a specific population merits investigation and intervention in order to bring it back into line with the general population. At that point, action is required... and whether it's 'much' or 'very very very very very much' doesn't make it 'not much'.
Why is the concept of materiality so difficult here? Or are you merely digging in your heels to fulfill some need to argue and win the internet?
[quote=""Hermit""]
Yes, that is the link Here Rests A Cemetery linked to and misread. You can calculate the 0.39% rate using the link I provided when I replied to him in post #170.[/quote]
Your first link is the same source I linked. I cannot open your second link. I can't figure out how you calculated that rate. Can you please walk me through your calculations?
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
[quote=""Jobar""]I read that as saying it's 41% of transgenders who report attempting suicide over their lifetimes, not the entirety of the LGBT+ spectrum.
And obviously that doesn't include whatever percentage of those attempts succeeded.
However, I also may be misinterpreting something here- and I'd definitely want to see more confirmation of that figure than just this one study.[/quote]
I believe that it is referencing Transgender.
And obviously that doesn't include whatever percentage of those attempts succeeded.
However, I also may be misinterpreting something here- and I'd definitely want to see more confirmation of that figure than just this one study.[/quote]
I believe that it is referencing Transgender.
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
[quote=""Pandora""]
0.39% higher than the national average is very small, and is very likely to be within the margin of error - that would mean that we can't tell whether it's a statistically significant difference or not. That would indicate that in general, the rate is approximately the same as it is for anyone else - there's no additional suicide risk for this sub-population.
But both 3X and 315X are extremely likely to be well outside the margin of error. Both of those indicate a statistically significantly higher risk factor for that specific population.
Having a significantly higher risk for a specific population merits investigation and intervention in order to bring it back into line with the general population. At that point, action is required... and whether it's 'much' or 'very very very very very much' doesn't make it 'not much'.
Why is the concept of materiality so difficult here? Or are you merely digging in your heels to fulfill some need to argue and win the internet?[/QUOTE]
Minor point: Where did you get the notion from that anyone claimed that the suicide rate among among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 0.39% higher than that of the general population? The 0.39% is three times greater than the average suicide rate of the general population.
Now to the point we're discussing: I agree that both 3X and 315X are extremely likely to be well outside the margin of error, and that both of those indicate a statistically significantly higher risk factor for that specific population. There is, I hope you agree, a huge magnitude of difference between just how statistically significantly higher a 3x risk factor for that specific population is than if it were 315x higher. Now let me ask you this: If the suicide rate were 0.39% and you determined that action costing (insert your number here) million (or billion) dollars would bring the suicide rate down to the general average, would the same amount suffice if the suicide rate were 41%?
[quote=""Pandora""]
Yes, the first link is the one you linked to. Did you notice that I mentioned that it is also the same link Here Rests A Cemetery provided and so spectacularly misread? As for walking through the calculations, I have done that in post #170. The post immediately below that is one of yours. The next one is also yours, and that's where you quoted mine in full. I suggest you read #170 to 176 again, attentively this time, for if you don't, we'll just going over the same ground we have already traversed, and that would be too boring for me to go through with.
I didn't think this was particularly difficult.Hermit;681360 wrote:According to you it does not matter whether the suicide rate among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 3 times or 315 times the national average, so why do you waste your time on that?Pandora;681334 wrote:Seriously, I'm very confused by the 0.39% number, and where the hell that's coming from.
0.39% higher than the national average is very small, and is very likely to be within the margin of error - that would mean that we can't tell whether it's a statistically significant difference or not. That would indicate that in general, the rate is approximately the same as it is for anyone else - there's no additional suicide risk for this sub-population.
But both 3X and 315X are extremely likely to be well outside the margin of error. Both of those indicate a statistically significantly higher risk factor for that specific population.
Having a significantly higher risk for a specific population merits investigation and intervention in order to bring it back into line with the general population. At that point, action is required... and whether it's 'much' or 'very very very very very much' doesn't make it 'not much'.
Why is the concept of materiality so difficult here? Or are you merely digging in your heels to fulfill some need to argue and win the internet?[/QUOTE]
Minor point: Where did you get the notion from that anyone claimed that the suicide rate among among the LGBTQIA+ sub-population is 0.39% higher than that of the general population? The 0.39% is three times greater than the average suicide rate of the general population.
Now to the point we're discussing: I agree that both 3X and 315X are extremely likely to be well outside the margin of error, and that both of those indicate a statistically significantly higher risk factor for that specific population. There is, I hope you agree, a huge magnitude of difference between just how statistically significantly higher a 3x risk factor for that specific population is than if it were 315x higher. Now let me ask you this: If the suicide rate were 0.39% and you determined that action costing (insert your number here) million (or billion) dollars would bring the suicide rate down to the general average, would the same amount suffice if the suicide rate were 41%?
[quote=""Pandora""]
Your first link is the same source I linked. I cannot open your second link. I can't figure out how you calculated that rate. Can you please walk me through your calculations?[/QUOTE]Hermit;681360 wrote:Yes, that is the link Here Rests A Cemetery linked to and misread. You can calculate the 0.39% rate using the link I provided when I replied to him in post #170.
Yes, the first link is the one you linked to. Did you notice that I mentioned that it is also the same link Here Rests A Cemetery provided and so spectacularly misread? As for walking through the calculations, I have done that in post #170. The post immediately below that is one of yours. The next one is also yours, and that's where you quoted mine in full. I suggest you read #170 to 176 again, attentively this time, for if you don't, we'll just going over the same ground we have already traversed, and that would be too boring for me to go through with.
-
Here Rests A Cemetery
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:03 pm
- Location: not commencing at the obedience academy
-
Here Rests A Cemetery
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:03 pm
- Location: not commencing at the obedience academy
"According to surveys, 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population has self-reported a suicide attempt, with that number climbing to between 10 and 20 percent for lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents. By comparison, 41 percent of trans or gender non-conforming people surveyed have attempted suicide."
Reading that link, it seems those figures come from the UCLA Williams Suicide Report published in 2014. So it has pretty substantial backing.
[quote=""Jobar""]Reading that link, it seems those figures come from the UCLA Williams Suicide Report published in 2014. So it has pretty substantial backing.[/quote]You are the fourth member to link to the Williams report. I wonder if anyone, apart from me, has actually read it.
[quote=""Hermit""]
Yes, the first link is the one you linked to. Did you notice that I mentioned that it is also the same link Here Rests A Cemetery provided and so spectacularly misread? As for walking through the calculations, I have done that in post #170. The post immediately below that is one of yours. The next one is also yours, and that's where you quoted mine in full. I suggest you read #170 to 176 again, attentively this time, for if you don't, we'll just going over the same ground we have already traversed, and that would be too boring for me to go through with.[/quote]
I've read them I don't follow your calculations. Please feel free to call me dumb, but if you could actually step through them I would find it immensely helpful.
Yes, the first link is the one you linked to. Did you notice that I mentioned that it is also the same link Here Rests A Cemetery provided and so spectacularly misread? As for walking through the calculations, I have done that in post #170. The post immediately below that is one of yours. The next one is also yours, and that's where you quoted mine in full. I suggest you read #170 to 176 again, attentively this time, for if you don't, we'll just going over the same ground we have already traversed, and that would be too boring for me to go through with.[/quote]
I've read them
I don't follow your calculations. Please feel free to call me dumb, but if you could actually step through them I would find it immensely helpful.Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
[quote=""Hermit""]
I think we've all read it.
But I don't follow your argument against it. I get that you have one, but I can't currently make heads nor tails of what that argument is. You keep implying that we haven't read it, and aren't getting it. That's great... so please explain?
You are the fourth member to link to the Williams report. I wonder if anyone, apart from me, has actually read it.[/QUOTE]Jobar;681570 wrote:Reading that link, it seems those figures come from the UCLA Williams Suicide Report published in 2014. So it has pretty substantial backing.
I think we've all read it.
But I don't follow your argument against it. I get that you have one, but I can't currently make heads nor tails of what that argument is. You keep implying that we haven't read it, and aren't getting it. That's great... so please explain?
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain
-
subsymbolic
- Posts: 13371
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
- Location: under the gnomon
Personally I think the study is junk either way. The fact is that the statistic is generated by asking the question, and I quote:
This has got sod all to do with gender, sexuality or sex and everything to do with piss poor experimental design. This survey can't work out if it is is qualitative or quantitative and goes downhill from there.
I guess you could say that the study gives an insight into the numbers of people who will claim to have attempted suicide when asked the question in the midst of questions about abuse, rejection and bullying by someone who is being kind and supportive. I'd like to see the percentage when they were asked in the midst of questions that led in a different direction. What I'd more like to see is a study that actually looked at medical data or tried to corroborate its data at all...
Worse, they are quite clear that:First, the NTDS questionnaire included only a single item about suicidal behavior that asked, “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No.
So we are looking at self reporting from a self selecting cohort and no attempt to either follow up or validate the claim. Call me cynical, but I'd minimally want to call a suicide attempt something that lead to medical treatment of some sort. If you didn't end up in hospital one way or another then I just don't think you were trying hard enough for it to be called a suicide attempt.the survey did not directly explore mental health status and history
This has got sod all to do with gender, sexuality or sex and everything to do with piss poor experimental design. This survey can't work out if it is is qualitative or quantitative and goes downhill from there.
I guess you could say that the study gives an insight into the numbers of people who will claim to have attempted suicide when asked the question in the midst of questions about abuse, rejection and bullying by someone who is being kind and supportive. I'd like to see the percentage when they were asked in the midst of questions that led in a different direction. What I'd more like to see is a study that actually looked at medical data or tried to corroborate its data at all...