3 ms·
> There's nothing to suggest it serves a legitimate purpose. Well there's nothing if you disregard personal testimony as stockholm syndrome.
by slibhb 4y ago
> There's nothing to suggest it serves a legitimate purpose.
Well there's nothing if you disregard personal testimony as stockholm syndrome.
- vidarh 4y agoIf it served a legitimate purpose you'd expect actual research showing it, not having to rely on the accounts of a subset of victims.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Well there’s nothing if you disregard personal testimony as Stockholm syndrome I don’t disregard anything as Stockholm Syndrome, since that doesn’t exist. However, I do disregard anecdotal conclusory testimony about causative processes, as a general rule. I’ll accept testimony about facts plausibly within the knowledge of the person testifying as being (barring special reason for suspicion on those points) as trustworthy as the person testifying.
- slibhb 4y agoYou disregard anecdote when it clashes with your priors.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> You disregard anecdote when it clashes with your priors. No, I disregard anecdote to the extent it makes claims which are conclusory rather than observational. I weight anecdote very lightly in any case, though.