6 ms·

"Stockholm Syndrome" was invented by police to discredit a female hostage (2020)

greatgib 2y ago
The term" Stockholm Syndrome" was probably created during this event, but that does not prevent the fact that the syndrome in itself might have be encountered and noticed before even without a clear name. Maybe this psychiatrist had a "bias" regarding the behavior of the woman regarding his past experience. In my opinion, there is really a Stockholm Syndrome even if it is probably not clearly definable and with variable geometry depending on the case. For example, in the corporate world, it is quite common to have employees being abused with them supporting their manager/hierarchy on the based opinion that their manager are doing that for the good of the company and so also for the good of the person.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
david_draco 2y ago
A recent similar example is dying of "Excited Delirium" https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4951 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4951, which was made up by police and the taser manufacturer
- AndrewOMartin 2y ago
  Good coverage of this for those in the UK (or otherwise have access to BBC Sounds) in Things Fell Apart S2. Ep 1: The Most Mysterious Deaths. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3dw https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3dw Actually more interesting to me than Stockholm Syndrome, as the captors of Patty Hearst had demands which would have sounded completely eye opening and reasonable if you'd had her upbringing.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  The thing is it happens even when tasers aren't involved. The reality is that if you pump somebody up enough with stimulants there's a possibility that the rebound is fatal.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    But how often does it happen when cops aren't involved. If this were a medical phenomenon we'd expect to see familiarity with it among emergency room staff, homeless outreach, and other front line mental health workers. Do we?
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      As a paramedic, we often do see these effects (and not withstanding the valid negatives of 'excited delirium') as a first order effect of synthetic cathinone ("bath salt") abuse: - stripping down because of overheating - this also causes tachypnea (rapid breathing) as the body looks for any means, efficient or not, to try to bleed off excess heat - frank bruxism (teeth grinding) to the point of craving 'gnawing' (this is where the "trying to eat people" sensationalist stories come from - there's no homicidal intent, it's 'just' "people are chewy") - reflection fixation (often with glass). Similar to other psychoactives, reflections in glass provide a stimulant effect. With this, the most problematic thing is that some of the most common objects with glass in them are moving (i.e. cars), which heightens the effect, and causes a danger to self and others. The challenge is that many of these behaviors, in public, are... "antisocial" and rapidly lead to police involvement. Notwithstanding what I believe is cynical CYA by some "less-lethal" manufacturers to glom onto this, the small mercy in my area is that the higher levels of police command have directed that these situations be treated as the medical emergency they are, and not a law enforcement issue. Indeed, protocol here is that LE should be used for restraint both as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time before the patient can be transitioned to "chemical restraint", i.e. sedation, at least with capnography (to monitor breathing), if not active ventilation as needed.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  In addition to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)[1], Legal Insanity[2], Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)[3], and Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)[4]. These may involve the testimony of medical experts, but do not exist as formal diagnoses and are therefore not clinical labels. Instead they exist in as legal labels of persons, in order to affect some legal conclusion. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome 2. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-a-person-legally-insane-40282 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-a-person-legally-i... 3. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/06/20/JAAPL.210105-21 https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/06/20/JAAPL.210105-21 4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp085 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/978111862539...
Kim_Bruning 2y ago
Presumably this was a one-off PR move, that wasn't intended to make it into common culture like this. I wonder how many things we consider to be common sense are actually due to this kind of thing.
keernan 2y ago
My immediate thought to the headline was newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst who was kidnapped and ended up participating with her kidnappers to rob multiple banks in the 1970s. It was an amazing story at the time (I was in college). https://apnews.com/article/patty-hearst-kidnapping-anniversary-stockholm-syndrome-1e155ada27b2b0ab8940c2fc70d9b7d1 https://apnews.com/article/patty-hearst-kidnapping-anniversa...
philodeon 2y ago
Two-word phrases are rarely preferable to a single word. So let’s just use “hybristophilia” instead.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  > Two-word phrases are rarely preferable to a single word. I think you wanted to write "diwords are raripotiorous than monowords".
willcipriano 2y ago
> I fully trust Clark and the robber This story reminds me of the energy some women have for serial killers[0]. Looks like that's called Hybristophilia[1] instead of Stockholm Syndrome. [0]https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/lee-county/let-wade-live-letters-to-judge-from-around-country-try-to-save-wade-wilson https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/lee-county/let-wade-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
andrewla 2y ago
I'm glad to learn more about the incident itself, but honestly the article does not give me a real reason to doubt that the phenomenon is real. Calling it a "diagnosis" is an attempt to medicalize it, which seems ridiculous as it is so incredibly situation-specific. And they in turn use this to attempt to undermine the "diagnosis" by a psychiatrist who never met with the patient; clearly meeting the patient and being able to interrogate them should be a significant part of a medical diagnosis, but this is not that, so it's an irrelevant criticism. The hostages were held at gunpoint under the threat of execution, and even after a successful rescue with no hostages injured, they sided with their captors against the authorities. Nothing here seems to contradict that or the phenomenon.
- jjk166 2y ago
  > they sided with their captors against the authorities. Because the authorities told them point blank they would rather the hostages die than the captors walk free. That's not some unique phenomenon, that's what any rational person would do. In the last paragraph, the article states a 2008 review basically found that stockholm syndrome is pop science, not a well defined and experimentally verified phenomenon. While it doesn't debunk every claim of Stockholm syndrome, it doesn't need to - clearly the burden is to show an actual case of Stockholm syndrome that stands up to scrutiny.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    "Told them point blank" -- I mean, there was no private channel where police could confidentially tell the hostages about this. It's a negotiation point -- make the hostage-takers aware that they do not have unlimited immunity from consequences just because they have hostages. If the police had caused injury to come to a hostage, whether as collateral damage from police action or from the captors retaliating for police action, the afterwards I can see this being a cause of concern for the hostages. "Pop science" seems orthogonal to this concept -- it's like saying the concept of "jury of your peers" is pop science. It's a phenomenon that has some descriptive power, that's all. I mean, if you're going to say that in a hostage situation, it's okay for the police to deliberately endanger or harm the hostages because of Stockholm Syndrome, then that's clearly a misuse. But in hostage negotation and rescue, keeping in mind that the hostages may not be sympathetic or cooperative with the authorities seems like a really great thing to keep in mind.
throw4847285 2y ago
It's the kind of idea that is captivating from a literary perspective but doesn't actually make any sense if you think about it, which is why it has showed up in so many movies, tv shows, novels, etc. My favorite subversion is in Die Hard where the person on TV is explaining that the victims are likely bonding with their captors while a scene plays of Gruber and his gang terrorizing people who are huddled in fear.
- trevyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw4847285 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - trevyn 2y ago
      [flagged]
- almatabata 2y ago
  > It's the kind of idea that is captivating from a literary perspective but doesn't actually make any sense if you think about it As far as I understand we have no evidence either way that the phenomena has a basis in reality or not. I think we should maybe hold off on the quick judgements and check a bit more before that. People can behave irrationally.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Without evidence it is real, the default assumption is it's not. People can behave irrationally, but that's no reason to expect any particular irrational action.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      There is evidence. Victims sympathize with captors. Saying there is no evidence (because no proper science) is dismissive, on its own. The world is a messy place, with imperfect people. This, alone, is reason to believe that people take irrational action. Most people take irrational actions, every day. Some more extreme than others, eg Pica. Superior tactics employed by Abby Hernandez or similar behavior like Jaycee Dugard, can slide into a sort of misplaced bonding, like in the case of Mary McElroy. This can be due to contextual disposition, character, or situation. Shared experiences are part of what makes bonds that reinforce good or ill intention. If Traumatic Bonding is reasonable, then Stockholm is reasonable, regardless of the origin of the theories.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
h4jrheue388 2y ago
[flagged]
moi2388 2y ago
Jesus.. I doubted the diagnosis, but this is the origin?!
- engineer_22 2y ago
  Right? Explained from the perspective of the hostage, it seems like reasonable behavior.
gradientsrneat 2y ago
When I looked into the history behind the Streisand Effect, my opinion soured on the term, for similar reasons claimed in the article: The entymology boils down to one woman's wellbeing being disregarded in a manner that is more common for women than it should be. In the case of Stockholm Syndrome, the connection one may draw from the article is the issue of women being sexualized. In the case of the Streisand Effect; I propose it's disproportionate frequency of unwanted attention, harrassment, doxxing, etc. And there is often a moral justification for it. One notorious example is the Quinnspiracy. In the case of Streisand, Streisand being rich may be moral justification enough for some people. I think the concepts behind these terms make sense, though. But singling out a specific person by their last name is arguably worse than a phenomenon named after a city in Sweden. And I cynically observe that some people do origins-based criticism in an unbalanced way to achieve their political ends.
- RevEng 2y ago
  You completely misunderstand what the Streisand effect is. It's the old saying "You can't close the barn door once the cows are out." She wanted to stop the spread of knowledge that was already available publicly by legally blocking sources sharing it. But trying to hide something just makes people want it more, so doing this will actually draw more attention to it. It's the same way we see scandals blow up on TV every day. Embarrassing things are embarrassing, but trying to cover them up is even more salacious. Yelling "Don't look!" isn't a good way to hide. Instead, it's best to say nothing and let people lose interest.
  - gradientsrneat 2y ago
    I know what the Streisand Effect "means". See my statement: "I think the concepts behind these terms make sense, though." I am also not trying to argue about rights to privacy. There are already many threads on this website about privacy.
- scotty79 2y ago
  > The entymology boils down to one woman's wellbeing being disregarded in a manner that is more common for women than it should be. Do you believe that survival of a male hostage in similar situation would be treated with greater care?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nullc 2y ago
Why does everything have to be a syndrome? When any animal, including humans, is trapped in a situation they can't escape, failing to adopt a degree of acceptance is bad for their health and survival. Almost all other animals will stop fighting after being held captive for a while, so why shouldn't humans? When people do bad things they almost always have a reason for it. The reason may be sick, twisted, or wrong. Its 'justification' may be prohibited by our culture and for good reason. The causes of their actions may be, a lest from some perspective, an inevitable conclusion of forces which they felt they could not control. An open mind could often understand why or have sympathy for it, even if they continue to disapprove in the strongest way possible. Humans are very social and often become friendly with people they spend a lot of time around or interact with a lot. Even when they start out with very different views or places, or with a profound disagreement. In plenty of situations outside of captive abuse people sometimes fall into the trap of becoming addicted to abusive treatment, be it the rare bits of approval or reprieve from the expected abuse, or simply the fact that they're the center of attention (even if its negative attention). -- if you've not seen this happen first hand, I envy your sheltered existence. People outside of a situation are also not blameless. Why didn't they prevent it? Why didn't they rescue the person sooner? Why can't they understand how significant the event was and why can't they understand how significant the event wasn't? Why can't they accept that you do or don't feel defined by it? I think it would be easy to feel worse about the people who let you be taken hostage than the hostage taker, the hostage taker owed you nothing, the hostage taker wasn't in a position of trust, the hostage taker will suffer retribution for their acts, but perhaps the people who screwed up preventing it will be called heros. So with all these factors at play why should any out of a wide spectrum of responses to a adverse situation not be considered perfectly natural?
gklitz 2y ago
The Stockholm syndrome is when propaganda get people to believe a theory so strongly that even when all evidence and circumstance gets removed, even when it’s scientifically proven to not be true, even when direct facts contradict the stated propagada, people continue to believe the propaganda. In a hostage situation, telling the government “stop trying to get us murdered” is not a mental illness. Being dissatisfied with the governments handling of the situation is not “siding with your captors because you’ve fallen in love with them” but people will to the end of times continue to believe these falls narratives because the government propaganda to discredit completely reasonable criticism was just that damn effective.
alecco 2y ago
Just like CIA and "conspiracy theorist".

The term" Stockholm Syndrome" was probably created during this event, but that does not prevent the fact that the syndrome in itself might have be encountered and noticed before even without a clear name. Maybe this psychiatrist had a "bias" regarding the behavior of the woman regarding his past experience. In my opinion, there is really a Stockholm Syndrome even if it is probably not clearly definable and with variable geometry depending on the case. For example, in the corporate world, it is quite common to have employees being abused with them supporting their manager/hierarchy on the based opinion that their manager are doing that for the good of the company and so also for the good of the person.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

david_draco 2y ago

A recent similar example is dying of "Excited Delirium" https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4951 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4951, which was made up by police and the taser manufacturer

AndrewOMartin 2y ago
Good coverage of this for those in the UK (or otherwise have access to BBC Sounds) in Things Fell Apart S2. Ep 1: The Most Mysterious Deaths. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3dw https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3dw Actually more interesting to me than Stockholm Syndrome, as the captors of Patty Hearst had demands which would have sounded completely eye opening and reasonable if you'd had her upbringing.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
The thing is it happens even when tasers aren't involved. The reality is that if you pump somebody up enough with stimulants there's a possibility that the rebound is fatal.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  But how often does it happen when cops aren't involved. If this were a medical phenomenon we'd expect to see familiarity with it among emergency room staff, homeless outreach, and other front line mental health workers. Do we?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    As a paramedic, we often do see these effects (and not withstanding the valid negatives of 'excited delirium') as a first order effect of synthetic cathinone ("bath salt") abuse: - stripping down because of overheating - this also causes tachypnea (rapid breathing) as the body looks for any means, efficient or not, to try to bleed off excess heat - frank bruxism (teeth grinding) to the point of craving 'gnawing' (this is where the "trying to eat people" sensationalist stories come from - there's no homicidal intent, it's 'just' "people are chewy") - reflection fixation (often with glass). Similar to other psychoactives, reflections in glass provide a stimulant effect. With this, the most problematic thing is that some of the most common objects with glass in them are moving (i.e. cars), which heightens the effect, and causes a danger to self and others. The challenge is that many of these behaviors, in public, are... "antisocial" and rapidly lead to police involvement. Notwithstanding what I believe is cynical CYA by some "less-lethal" manufacturers to glom onto this, the small mercy in my area is that the higher levels of police command have directed that these situations be treated as the medical emergency they are, and not a law enforcement issue. Indeed, protocol here is that LE should be used for restraint both as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time before the patient can be transitioned to "chemical restraint", i.e. sedation, at least with capnography (to monitor breathing), if not active ventilation as needed.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
In addition to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)[1], Legal Insanity[2], Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)[3], and Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)[4]. These may involve the testimony of medical experts, but do not exist as formal diagnoses and are therefore not clinical labels. Instead they exist in as legal labels of persons, in order to affect some legal conclusion. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome 2. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-a-person-legally-insane-40282 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-a-person-legally-i... 3. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/06/20/JAAPL.210105-21 https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/06/20/JAAPL.210105-21 4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp085 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/978111862539...

Kim_Bruning 2y ago

Presumably this was a one-off PR move, that wasn't intended to make it into common culture like this. I wonder how many things we consider to be common sense are actually due to this kind of thing.

keernan 2y ago

My immediate thought to the headline was newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst who was kidnapped and ended up participating with her kidnappers to rob multiple banks in the 1970s. It was an amazing story at the time (I was in college). https://apnews.com/article/patty-hearst-kidnapping-anniversary-stockholm-syndrome-1e155ada27b2b0ab8940c2fc70d9b7d1 https://apnews.com/article/patty-hearst-kidnapping-anniversa...

philodeon 2y ago

Two-word phrases are rarely preferable to a single word. So let’s just use “hybristophilia” instead.

Joker_vD 2y ago
> Two-word phrases are rarely preferable to a single word. I think you wanted to write "diwords are raripotiorous than monowords".

willcipriano 2y ago

> I fully trust Clark and the robber This story reminds me of the energy some women have for serial killers[0]. Looks like that's called Hybristophilia[1] instead of Stockholm Syndrome. [0]https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/lee-county/let-wade-live-letters-to-judge-from-around-country-try-to-save-wade-wilson https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/lee-county/let-wade-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

andrewla 2y ago

I'm glad to learn more about the incident itself, but honestly the article does not give me a real reason to doubt that the phenomenon is real. Calling it a "diagnosis" is an attempt to medicalize it, which seems ridiculous as it is so incredibly situation-specific. And they in turn use this to attempt to undermine the "diagnosis" by a psychiatrist who never met with the patient; clearly meeting the patient and being able to interrogate them should be a significant part of a medical diagnosis, but this is not that, so it's an irrelevant criticism. The hostages were held at gunpoint under the threat of execution, and even after a successful rescue with no hostages injured, they sided with their captors against the authorities. Nothing here seems to contradict that or the phenomenon.

jjk166 2y ago
> they sided with their captors against the authorities. Because the authorities told them point blank they would rather the hostages die than the captors walk free. That's not some unique phenomenon, that's what any rational person would do. In the last paragraph, the article states a 2008 review basically found that stockholm syndrome is pop science, not a well defined and experimentally verified phenomenon. While it doesn't debunk every claim of Stockholm syndrome, it doesn't need to - clearly the burden is to show an actual case of Stockholm syndrome that stands up to scrutiny.
- andrewla 2y ago
  "Told them point blank" -- I mean, there was no private channel where police could confidentially tell the hostages about this. It's a negotiation point -- make the hostage-takers aware that they do not have unlimited immunity from consequences just because they have hostages. If the police had caused injury to come to a hostage, whether as collateral damage from police action or from the captors retaliating for police action, the afterwards I can see this being a cause of concern for the hostages. "Pop science" seems orthogonal to this concept -- it's like saying the concept of "jury of your peers" is pop science. It's a phenomenon that has some descriptive power, that's all. I mean, if you're going to say that in a hostage situation, it's okay for the police to deliberately endanger or harm the hostages because of Stockholm Syndrome, then that's clearly a misuse. But in hostage negotation and rescue, keeping in mind that the hostages may not be sympathetic or cooperative with the authorities seems like a really great thing to keep in mind.

throw4847285 2y ago

It's the kind of idea that is captivating from a literary perspective but doesn't actually make any sense if you think about it, which is why it has showed up in so many movies, tv shows, novels, etc. My favorite subversion is in Die Hard where the person on TV is explaining that the victims are likely bonding with their captors while a scene plays of Gruber and his gang terrorizing people who are huddled in fear.

trevyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- throw4847285 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - trevyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
almatabata 2y ago
> It's the kind of idea that is captivating from a literary perspective but doesn't actually make any sense if you think about it As far as I understand we have no evidence either way that the phenomena has a basis in reality or not. I think we should maybe hold off on the quick judgements and check a bit more before that. People can behave irrationally.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Without evidence it is real, the default assumption is it's not. People can behave irrationally, but that's no reason to expect any particular irrational action.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    There is evidence. Victims sympathize with captors. Saying there is no evidence (because no proper science) is dismissive, on its own. The world is a messy place, with imperfect people. This, alone, is reason to believe that people take irrational action. Most people take irrational actions, every day. Some more extreme than others, eg Pica. Superior tactics employed by Abby Hernandez or similar behavior like Jaycee Dugard, can slide into a sort of misplaced bonding, like in the case of Mary McElroy. This can be due to contextual disposition, character, or situation. Shared experiences are part of what makes bonds that reinforce good or ill intention. If Traumatic Bonding is reasonable, then Stockholm is reasonable, regardless of the origin of the theories.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

h4jrheue388 2y ago

[flagged]

moi2388 2y ago

Jesus.. I doubted the diagnosis, but this is the origin?!

engineer_22 2y ago
Right? Explained from the perspective of the hostage, it seems like reasonable behavior.

gradientsrneat 2y ago

When I looked into the history behind the Streisand Effect, my opinion soured on the term, for similar reasons claimed in the article: The entymology boils down to one woman's wellbeing being disregarded in a manner that is more common for women than it should be. In the case of Stockholm Syndrome, the connection one may draw from the article is the issue of women being sexualized. In the case of the Streisand Effect; I propose it's disproportionate frequency of unwanted attention, harrassment, doxxing, etc. And there is often a moral justification for it. One notorious example is the Quinnspiracy. In the case of Streisand, Streisand being rich may be moral justification enough for some people. I think the concepts behind these terms make sense, though. But singling out a specific person by their last name is arguably worse than a phenomenon named after a city in Sweden. And I cynically observe that some people do origins-based criticism in an unbalanced way to achieve their political ends.

RevEng 2y ago
You completely misunderstand what the Streisand effect is. It's the old saying "You can't close the barn door once the cows are out." She wanted to stop the spread of knowledge that was already available publicly by legally blocking sources sharing it. But trying to hide something just makes people want it more, so doing this will actually draw more attention to it. It's the same way we see scandals blow up on TV every day. Embarrassing things are embarrassing, but trying to cover them up is even more salacious. Yelling "Don't look!" isn't a good way to hide. Instead, it's best to say nothing and let people lose interest.
- gradientsrneat 2y ago
  I know what the Streisand Effect "means". See my statement: "I think the concepts behind these terms make sense, though." I am also not trying to argue about rights to privacy. There are already many threads on this website about privacy.
scotty79 2y ago
> The entymology boils down to one woman's wellbeing being disregarded in a manner that is more common for women than it should be. Do you believe that survival of a male hostage in similar situation would be treated with greater care?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nullc 2y ago

Why does everything have to be a syndrome? When any animal, including humans, is trapped in a situation they can't escape, failing to adopt a degree of acceptance is bad for their health and survival. Almost all other animals will stop fighting after being held captive for a while, so why shouldn't humans? When people do bad things they almost always have a reason for it. The reason may be sick, twisted, or wrong. Its 'justification' may be prohibited by our culture and for good reason. The causes of their actions may be, a lest from some perspective, an inevitable conclusion of forces which they felt they could not control. An open mind could often understand why or have sympathy for it, even if they continue to disapprove in the strongest way possible. Humans are very social and often become friendly with people they spend a lot of time around or interact with a lot. Even when they start out with very different views or places, or with a profound disagreement. In plenty of situations outside of captive abuse people sometimes fall into the trap of becoming addicted to abusive treatment, be it the rare bits of approval or reprieve from the expected abuse, or simply the fact that they're the center of attention (even if its negative attention). -- if you've not seen this happen first hand, I envy your sheltered existence. People outside of a situation are also not blameless. Why didn't they prevent it? Why didn't they rescue the person sooner? Why can't they understand how significant the event was and why can't they understand how significant the event wasn't? Why can't they accept that you do or don't feel defined by it? I think it would be easy to feel worse about the people who let you be taken hostage than the hostage taker, the hostage taker owed you nothing, the hostage taker wasn't in a position of trust, the hostage taker will suffer retribution for their acts, but perhaps the people who screwed up preventing it will be called heros. So with all these factors at play why should any out of a wide spectrum of responses to a adverse situation not be considered perfectly natural?

gklitz 2y ago

The Stockholm syndrome is when propaganda get people to believe a theory so strongly that even when all evidence and circumstance gets removed, even when it’s scientifically proven to not be true, even when direct facts contradict the stated propagada, people continue to believe the propaganda. In a hostage situation, telling the government “stop trying to get us murdered” is not a mental illness. Being dissatisfied with the governments handling of the situation is not “siding with your captors because you’ve fallen in love with them” but people will to the end of times continue to believe these falls narratives because the government propaganda to discredit completely reasonable criticism was just that damn effective.

alecco 2y ago

Just like CIA and "conspiracy theorist".