4 ms·

The origins of Stockholm Syndrome and its initial framing may be debated, its continued use in psychology suggests that it provides a useful framework for under

The origins of Stockholm Syndrome and its initial framing may be debated, its continued use in psychology suggests that it provides a useful framework for understanding certain psychological responses

grecy 2y ago
The one where people distrust the authorities because they are handling a situation extremely poorly ?
marcuskane2 2y ago
That's a very optimistic and charitable interpretation. It also might be that "its continued use in psychology suggests" that false information taught to university students can result in years of incorrect orthodoxy before the error is corrected.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> The origins of Stockholm Syndrome and its initial framing may be debated It's not really a matter of debate. We know the origins. We know it is junk science. We know this about multiple sciences and scientific theories, that's how science works: someone gets an idea, they theorize about it, test their theories, and our shared understanding grows. This is not that. This is an ass-pulled theory that's been debunked at it's point of origin. This doesn't deserve rebuttal, it deserves mockery and derision.
- olalonde 2y ago
  Doesn't the idea that one can debunk a theory at its point of origin contradict your earlier statements about how science works? You could perhaps argue that it has neither be proven nor disproven, due to lack of data and experimentation. Also, the FBI seems to believe it exists, based on 1200 hostage incident reports[0]: > According to the FBI’s Hostage/Barricade System (HOBAS), a national database that contains data from over 1,200 reported federal, state, and local hostage/barricade incidents, 92 percent of the victims of such incidents reportedly showed no aspect of the Stockholm Syndrome. When victims who only showed negative feelings toward law enforcement (usually due to frustration with the pace of negotiations) are included, the percentage rises to 95 percent. In short, this database provides empirical support that the Stockholm Syndrome remains a rare occurrence. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040627010420/http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/stockholm_syndrome.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20040627010420/http://www.au.af....
  - kstenerud 2y ago
    A theory (as in a proper, scientific theory) must be testable, and then it must actually be tested to verify it. Neither of these are true of Stockholm Syndrome. It's no better than the many "theories" of hair tonic merchants. You're also grossly abusing the concept of "statistics" in your statement "this database provides empirical support that the Stockholm Syndrome remains a rare occurrence."
    - olalonde 2y ago
      Why do you believe that the Stockholm Syndrome is not testable?
      - kstenerud 2y ago
        Because that would require building a testing protocol (what specific outcomes are predicted, how it would be measured, and what constitutes success/failure), and it must pass peer review. Since this has not happened, Stockhom Syndrome is not considered testable (because no such scientific tests have been defined). If one were to successfully design a testing protocol for it, it would then be considered testable. For now, it's not even a theory.
        olalonde 2y ago
        I'm curious why you feel so confident about that. From what I can tell, it's regarded as real by the FBI, American Psychiatric Association, etc. I also don't see why it wouldn't be testable... do you not see interviewing hostage victims as a legitimate testing protocol? Not to mention the many high profile cases where victims clearly demonstrated symptoms.
        kstenerud 2y ago
        The scientific process requires you to make specific, measurable predictions, and then conduct unbiased experiments that test for those measured predictions in a way that can be replicated by other people. This is a well-established process that Stockholm Syndrome has yet to undergo (much like the polygraph - also a favorite of the FBI). The fact that it's "regarded as real" is immaterial - in fact, that's PRECISELY WHY the scientific process exists. It used to be "regarded as real" that homosexuality is a mental disorder - by both the BOI/FBI and the psychiatric community. Everyone just somehow "knew" it to be true... > Not to mention the many high profile cases where victims clearly demonstrated symptoms. Such as? If this is indeed a real thing, then there should be so many recorded instances by now that there's enough data to perform an actual study and publish a paper demonstrating the effcet (gaining the author some serious recognition in the scientific community).
some_random 2y ago
Is there any standard too low for Psychology? Would you balk at someone telling you that they know something is untrue but still teach it because it's politically convenient? How about if it just makes them money? Why does Psychology get to call itself a science when the field seems to refuse to stop teaching known falsehoods, to say nothing of actually using the Scientific Method?
- ItCouldBeWorse 2y ago
  The quacks rode the boomer wave all the way to shore..
kstenerud 2y ago
That's known as the "bandwagon fallacy": People in authority believe it, so it must be true. Homosexuality used to be a psychological disorder, at times treated by castration. Hysteria used to be a diagnosable illness in women for which they'd spend years in an institution. The psychological establishment has a very dark and nasty history, replete with "theories" that they all believed were justified - a practice that continues to this day.

grecy 2y ago

The one where people distrust the authorities because they are handling a situation extremely poorly ?

marcuskane2 2y ago

That's a very optimistic and charitable interpretation. It also might be that "its continued use in psychology suggests" that false information taught to university students can result in years of incorrect orthodoxy before the error is corrected.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> The origins of Stockholm Syndrome and its initial framing may be debated It's not really a matter of debate. We know the origins. We know it is junk science. We know this about multiple sciences and scientific theories, that's how science works: someone gets an idea, they theorize about it, test their theories, and our shared understanding grows. This is not that. This is an ass-pulled theory that's been debunked at it's point of origin. This doesn't deserve rebuttal, it deserves mockery and derision.

olalonde 2y ago
Doesn't the idea that one can debunk a theory at its point of origin contradict your earlier statements about how science works? You could perhaps argue that it has neither be proven nor disproven, due to lack of data and experimentation. Also, the FBI seems to believe it exists, based on 1200 hostage incident reports[0]: > According to the FBI’s Hostage/Barricade System (HOBAS), a national database that contains data from over 1,200 reported federal, state, and local hostage/barricade incidents, 92 percent of the victims of such incidents reportedly showed no aspect of the Stockholm Syndrome. When victims who only showed negative feelings toward law enforcement (usually due to frustration with the pace of negotiations) are included, the percentage rises to 95 percent. In short, this database provides empirical support that the Stockholm Syndrome remains a rare occurrence. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040627010420/http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/stockholm_syndrome.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20040627010420/http://www.au.af....
- kstenerud 2y ago
  A theory (as in a proper, scientific theory) must be testable, and then it must actually be tested to verify it. Neither of these are true of Stockholm Syndrome. It's no better than the many "theories" of hair tonic merchants. You're also grossly abusing the concept of "statistics" in your statement "this database provides empirical support that the Stockholm Syndrome remains a rare occurrence."
  - olalonde 2y ago
    Why do you believe that the Stockholm Syndrome is not testable?
    - kstenerud 2y ago
      Because that would require building a testing protocol (what specific outcomes are predicted, how it would be measured, and what constitutes success/failure), and it must pass peer review. Since this has not happened, Stockhom Syndrome is not considered testable (because no such scientific tests have been defined). If one were to successfully design a testing protocol for it, it would then be considered testable. For now, it's not even a theory.
      - olalonde 2y ago
        I'm curious why you feel so confident about that. From what I can tell, it's regarded as real by the FBI, American Psychiatric Association, etc. I also don't see why it wouldn't be testable... do you not see interviewing hostage victims as a legitimate testing protocol? Not to mention the many high profile cases where victims clearly demonstrated symptoms.
        kstenerud 2y ago
        The scientific process requires you to make specific, measurable predictions, and then conduct unbiased experiments that test for those measured predictions in a way that can be replicated by other people. This is a well-established process that Stockholm Syndrome has yet to undergo (much like the polygraph - also a favorite of the FBI). The fact that it's "regarded as real" is immaterial - in fact, that's PRECISELY WHY the scientific process exists. It used to be "regarded as real" that homosexuality is a mental disorder - by both the BOI/FBI and the psychiatric community. Everyone just somehow "knew" it to be true... > Not to mention the many high profile cases where victims clearly demonstrated symptoms. Such as? If this is indeed a real thing, then there should be so many recorded instances by now that there's enough data to perform an actual study and publish a paper demonstrating the effcet (gaining the author some serious recognition in the scientific community).

some_random 2y ago

Is there any standard too low for Psychology? Would you balk at someone telling you that they know something is untrue but still teach it because it's politically convenient? How about if it just makes them money? Why does Psychology get to call itself a science when the field seems to refuse to stop teaching known falsehoods, to say nothing of actually using the Scientific Method?

ItCouldBeWorse 2y ago
The quacks rode the boomer wave all the way to shore..

kstenerud 2y ago

That's known as the "bandwagon fallacy": People in authority believe it, so it must be true. Homosexuality used to be a psychological disorder, at times treated by castration. Hysteria used to be a diagnosable illness in women for which they'd spend years in an institution. The psychological establishment has a very dark and nasty history, replete with "theories" that they all believed were justified - a practice that continues to this day.