Discussion Two models of suicide: 'Bargaining' vs 'Inclusive Fitness'

[Superdeterminist]

In academic circles, there are currently two popular models of suicide; these are attempts to explain suicidality from an evolutionary standpoint, proposing that suicidality is an adaptation rather than a dysfunction or disease. This may seem impossible because, how can death be adaptive? Well, it has been noticed that the vast majority of suicidal behaviour doesn't result in death, and using this fact, some argue that it may well be an adaptation that confers reproductive or survival advantages.​

The Bargaining model - "suicide attempts are a costly signal of need, with completed suicides an unfortunate by-product." In this model, suicidality is seen to be a signal to others that the individual isn't getting what they want/need, which may prompt others around the individual to help the individual get what they want/need. It might sound like some kind of manipulation or blackmail, but it's absolutely true that for many of our desires, we cannot achieve them alone - we are not totally independent, and we rely on others heavily for many of our successes in life, and this of course includes finding a mate, and surviving.

The Inclusive fitness model - "successful suicide would increase the inclusive fitness of individuals with low reproductive potential who are a burden on kin" In this model, suicides increase the collective evolutionary fitness of a group, because the individuals of low fitness remove themselves from the gene pool via suicide.

Testing the bargaining vs. inclusive fitness models of suicidal behavior against the ethnographic record

Suicide is responsible for more deaths than all wars and homicides combined. Despite over a century of research on this puzzling and tragic behavior, …

www.sciencedirect.com

Thoughts? In my opinion we're in very early days of the science of suicide, and these models are likely to be either completely wrong or very oversimplified, but they're interesting explanatory angles nonetheless. What I like about them is that they challenge the typical notion that suicide is an entirely individualistic phenomenon that originates from within a single person, instead suggesting that external factors are crucial to the development of suicidal intent.

 

[alane]

I think IF SOME of these theories really DO apply, then they do to 'suicidal gestures' not the people that actually WANT to die...

 

[Bullit]

Both of those apply to me!

 

[Superdeterminist]

I think IF SOME of these theories really DO apply, then they do to 'suicidal gestures' not the people that actually WANT to die...

I know what you mean and I agree, since no suicidal person ever has concepts like 'evolutionary fitness' or 'need signalling' on their minds when they have those urges to die, I think it's argued that these phenomena achieve these adaptive effects, even though the individual isn't actually consciously thinking about them. Similar to how hunger doesn't by itself say anything about the replenishment of nutrients in the body, even though that's what its function is.

 

[Crod68]

Seems pretty limited to people who are fairly healthy still and looking to mainly cry for help - Suicide to escape pain so unrelenting that you're willing to risk the future existence of offspring (who may themselves commit suicide from the pain of your suicide) in order to escape it. Doesn't seem that great for the continuance of my (flawed) genes..

 

[OnlyTheWind]

What about those who are suffering from a terminal health condition? I doubt that their death by suicide is just an accidental by-product. These individuals really do want to die.

 

[Superdeterminist]

What about those who are suffering from a terminal health condition? I doubt that their death by suicide is just an accidental by-product. These individuals really do want to die.

For the terminally ill, the 'inclusive fitness' model may provide a better explanatory fit - they are 'evolutionarily unfit' (sounds gross and dehumanising I know) and their death would serve to increase the fitness of their genetic group, as the group no longer needs to provide for them.

In the article I linked, they may be suggesting that inclusive fitness suicides are more applicable to those with terminal illnesses:

"Results indicate limited support for the inclusive fitness model, which might apply primarily to older adults in harsh environments, and widespread support for most elements of the bargaining model, especially among younger healthy adolescents and adults."

Since I would guess (could be wrong) that terminally ill people are for the most part older individuals rather than young. Perhaps, both models may be required to explain some or all suicides, assuming either is valid in the first place.

 

[OnlyTheWind]

For the terminally ill, the 'inclusive fitness' model may provide a better explanatory fit - they are 'evolutionarily unfit' (sounds gross and dehumanising I know) and their death would serve to increase the fitness of their genetic group, as the group no longer needs to provide for them.

In the article I linked, they may be suggesting that inclusive fitness suicides are more applicable to those with terminal illnesses:

"Results indicate limited support for the inclusive fitness model, which might apply primarily to older adults in harsh environments, and widespread support for most elements of the bargaining model, especially among younger healthy adolescents and adults."

Since I would guess (could be wrong) that terminally ill people are for the most part older individuals rather than young. Perhaps, both models may be required to explain some or all suicides, assuming either is valid in the first place.

That would make some sense, if we are to take the evolutionary process to have complete control in determining our actions. I don't want children, and would like to see humanity cease completely. But if I had to fit into a category, it would be the bargaining model (not that I expect anyone to be able to help me). Honsetly, it's hard to see how these work when one has a high degree of self-awareness and knows exactly why they are doing it. Interesting topic anyway, even if it approaches the issue from a purely scientific perspective.

 

[lugerepair]

I don't like looking at suicide from an evolutionary perspective. I find evolutionary psychology to be rather suspect in many ways. I would be more interested in studying the psychology of suicide from a different perspective. I want to know why people commit suicide, not according to evolutionary psychology (wild speculation), but rather by literally asking them.

 

[Apep]

[27:38 - 31:00] - 'events that triggered suicidality are forced marriages almost always for females and loss of social status almost always for males'

 

[chocolatebar]

I don't like approaching suicide from an evolutionary perspective, because it assumes that the behavior is somewhat hardcoded into us, like some sort of disease, and not like the result of a rational process.

 

[BeyondGoodNEvil]

n academic circles, there are currently two popular models of suicide; these are attempts to explain suicidality from an evolutionary standpoint, proposing that suicidality is an adaptation rather than a dysfunction or disease.

i get what they mean.suicides are mostly linked towards species who have high intelligence like us dolphins etc.having intelligence means being more conscious about your environment and so this beings who determine defeat (lack of resources,mentality or physically crippled) come to an conclusion that death is a better option then struggling through.
but for us its hard to judge.we are the most compilcated beings on this planet.their is a pattern that leads to the conclusion of suicide but it'll be hard or impossible to understand it completely.

 

[LakatosDiogenesz]

Not everything created by evolution is beneficial though. It could easily be an unintended byproduct of our ability to analyze and think. Many animals die out because only the pretty but incapable ones reproduce.

 

[Snake of Eden]

very interesting thanks for sharing. I definitely belong more to the inclusive fitness model than the bargaining model. I think my suicidality is part wanting to end the burden I inflict on my family and society at large so they can focus on higher priority matters. I also think part of me is feeling this way as a cry for help as I feel really hopeless in my current state.

 

[everydayiloveyou]

I don't think it's any of these.

In the first place, humans are a poor example of inclusive fitness because of how social and cooperative we are. More independent animals are ready to abandon the runt of their litters and cull off the weak, but there's evidence that humans have cared for the weak/disabled to reproductive age for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm thinking of this one particular case where a tribe of humans was found, and one of the people had a congenital disability that would've made them really unproductive back in hunter-gatherer times. But the individual lived to old age and was buried respectfully by their peers. They were clearly beloved and well-cared for despite the fact that it must've taken lots of extra work and energy from the rest of the group to care for them. We are pretty unique in how we nurse and care for the "weak" and how we value the more abstract contributions someone can have to their community vs. simply their reproductive viability.

I feel like both models ignore the fact that the mentally ill make up a big chunk of the people who are commiting suicide. We already know some of the risk factors for mental illness. We also know that people have been committing suicide since before industrialization and the internet... there were probably hunter-gatherers who committed suicide but I haven't done much research on that. I feel like there's a much simpler explanation for suicide than any of this which is assuming too much about nature and humanity.

After all nature is not thinking about who's better for the group or who needs help. Sometimes the most useless and unproductive traits stand the test of evolution because it's simply not getting selected against for whatever reason. Kinda like how a sunfish is gigantic and just flops around all day. There was no reason for nature to select against being big and floppy, so bigger and floppier sunfish kept being born. Maybe mental illness is one of those things that wasn't really a problem back in hunter-gatherer days, so those genes got spread around without issue. And maybe cavemen contemplated suicide too. It's just that now, the circumstances are such that mental illness tends to put you at a disadvantage in modern life, and thus leaves people more compelled to commit suicide.