4 ms·

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

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).
snapcaster 2y ago
The FBI is the last place i would look for evidence of techniques working. They still use polygraphs, drug dogs, etc. the whole justice system is awash in pseudoscience
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  Fingerprinting, fire foresenics, hair analysis, every kind of sniffing dog (except corpse/person). If you want to have a good time sometime, look up all the various branches of criminal "science" and find out how many have any substantial backing in real science, then go watch an episode of CSI or Forensic Files and count how much of what's discussed with such grandiosity is utter bullshit.

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).

snapcaster 2y ago

The FBI is the last place i would look for evidence of techniques working. They still use polygraphs, drug dogs, etc. the whole justice system is awash in pseudoscience

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
Fingerprinting, fire foresenics, hair analysis, every kind of sniffing dog (except corpse/person). If you want to have a good time sometime, look up all the various branches of criminal "science" and find out how many have any substantial backing in real science, then go watch an episode of CSI or Forensic Files and count how much of what's discussed with such grandiosity is utter bullshit.