> Like native people all around the Arctic — and all over the world — Greenlanders were seeing the deadly effects of rapid modernization and unprecedented cultural interference. [...] Between 1970 and 1980, the suicide rate there quadrupled to about seven times the U.S. rate (it's still about six times higher).

> Her observations are in line with something psychologists and sociologists think is fundamental to the causes of suicide in Greenland. When communities are disrupted, like Kangeq was, families start to collapse. There's an increase in alcoholism, child neglect and physical abuse, all of which are risk factors for suicide. Later, people who didn't get the love and support they needed as children find it difficult to cope with the routine heartbreak of dating, and a breakup becomes the final insult in a lifetime of hurt.

If there was one thing that my conservative culture had taught me better, It would be this. Even knowing this doesn't make the process any easier although there is some comfort in knowing that many others face this situation as well.

I suggest you just preface all your searches with wikipedia, then you won't have to hear a story.

That way, nothing needs to be stopped, and people like me who enjoy some context and humanity with their facts can continue to find excellent stories like this.

The title should communicate what the reader is to expect when opening the piece.

Fact is, it isn't completely clear why the rate is so high. Rapid modernization, decades of Danish control, a disappearing culture/way of life and lack of mental health facilities can all be named as factors.

Sorry were annoyed and feel like you've wasted your time on a well written, well researched human interest piece. And yes, sometimes you need to know just the bare facts. But do you really have to know the reasons behind the high suicide rate in Greenland? Or were you triggered by the headline? In that case a human interest story conveys the message a lot better than just the numbers. To me, Hacker News is about triggering curiosity about things that were previously unknown by me. Stories like these remind me that there is a world beyond choosing if I want soy milk or regular milk in my mochachino.

But hey, let me save you a couple of minutes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Greenland#Reasons

This is mildly in conflict with the finding that there's more suicide in Greenland in summer than in winter, but worth considering.

Doctors have a very high suicide rate, and some of that is due to their knowledge and ability to kill themselves properly.

I've seen some theories that people in general don't commit suicide while under active hardship, but after the hardship lets up a bit and they have time to reflect on it.

Also relative hardship is far more important than absolute hardship. During the winter everybody is a bit miserable and under the weather so you don't stick out so much. When the summer comes and everybody but you cheer up the contrast becomes a lot more noticeable.

When suicide is driven by an established tradition of leaving so that your family doesn't starve, you really expect it to occur in winter. By the time the hardship is gone, so is the justification for suicide.

And yeah, this isn't a problem limited to Greenland. There has been a lot of news lately about the suicide strings at Attawapiskat. And Alaskan natives are twice more likely to commit suicide than non-natives.

It is highly suggestive that it will though.

> Fact is, it isn't completely clear why the rate is so high.

Then why bother writing an article about it at all ?

> And yes, sometimes you need to know just the bare facts.

No, I always want just the bare facts. Anything else simply isn't relevant. You may call it "well researched human interest" I call it filler material. It feels like a high-school kid trying to make the minimum word count for an essay.

A story is a series of facts, but can provide a richer understanding sometimes, as one can build a cohesive picture in their mind.

Putting forward a hypothesis requires facts and a ton of "fluff." It seems to me that you're not actually interested in learning anything, you just want some factoids. Try the CIA Factbook.

Begin with a short abstract in which you present your conclusions. Then follow up with how you arrived at that conclusion for people who want to go in-depth. Basically the way scientific papers are organised.

"The drought had lasted now for ten million years, and the reign of the terrible lizards had long since ended..."

Not every story should be structured as a scientific document.

The point of news it not to entertain but to inform.

Nonfiction need not read like crop reports or scientific papers. The best analogy is to photography. Photography is by its nature nonfiction, and yet we recognize that all photographs are not equal. Some are beautiful, some are moving, some are dry and clinical. They all inform, but some do more.

Usually I find this is the difference between a good broadsheet newspaper and a provincial one.

It's fine to write in an expansive, non-tabloid way in the main body but you must address the headline in the first paragraph.

If you don't care for the lives affected by the phenomenon, then why would you be caring for the reason?

That's something even less important to know if one doesn't care about the effects.

I'm interested in the mechanism, not some anecdotes about one or two specific people. I like complicated systems and how they work, this interest me because it could give me additional insight in how the human machine works.

I don't need to be interested traveling to be interested in how a plane stays in the air or how the engine of a car works.