Search

Methods of suicide have received considerable attention in suicide research. The common approach to differentiate methods of suicide is the classification into "violent" versus "non-violent" method. Interestingly, since the proposition of this dichotomous differentiation, no further efforts have been made to question the validity of such a classification of suicides. This study aimed to challenge the traditional separation into "violent" and "non-violent" suicides by generating a cluster analysis with a data-driven, machine learning approach. In a retrospective analysis, data on all officially confirmed suicides (N = 77,894) in Austria between 1970 and 2016 were assessed. Based on a defined distance metric between distributions of suicides over age group and month of the year, a standard hierarchical clustering method was performed with the five most frequent suicide methods. In cluster analysis, poisoning emerged as distinct from all other methods – both in the entire sample as well as in the male subsample. Violent suicides could be further divided into sub-clusters: hanging, shooting, and drowning on the one hand and jumping on the other hand. In the female sample, two different clusters were revealed – hanging and drowning on the one hand and jumping, poisoning, and shooting on the other. Our data-driven results in this large epidemiological study confirmed the traditional dichotomization of suicide methods into "violent" and "non-violent" methods, but on closer inspection "violent methods" can be further divided into sub-clusters and a different cluster pattern could be identified for women, requiring further research to support these refined suicide phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The commentary is an elaboration on Schyns. Goldstone & Thibaut's proposal for flexible features in categorization in the light of three areas not explicitly discussed by the authors: connectionist models of categorization, computational learning theory, and constructivist theories of the mind. In general, the authors' proposal is strongly supported, paving the way for model extensions and for interesting novel cognitive research. Nor is the authors' proposal incompatible with theories positing some fixed set of features.

Shastri and Ajjanagadde's (S&A's) model on reflexive reasoning appears to offer a connectionist soloution to the binding problem of neural networks. However, a careful dissection of the S&A model shows that it is also a very classical solution to the binding problem. Its definition of binding itself, being a synchronous firing of nodules, is identical to the syntactic solution in traditional artificial intelligence systems. Therefore, the S&A model of reflexive reasoning must be viewed more as symbolic than connectionist.