4 ms·

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 i

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.
  - almatabata 2y ago
    Well you have many examples of man and women who display this seemingly irrational behavior. Saying its not real leaves the question why the victims side with the perpetrator in those scenarios.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      Do you have any examples where the victims side with the perpetrator and after exhaustive search there isn't any rational explanation for them doing so? Assuming there is some condition that causes people to display a particular irrational behavior is typically god-of-the-gaps thinking - that you don't understand their motivations does not mean they don't have them.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I don't agree with the premise that coming up with an explanation for Stockholm Syndrome means it's not real. "People in captivity may develop emotional bonds with the violent criminals threatening to kill them" is an important fact for police and hostage negotiators to know, even if every single facet of that behavior is rational. I would also, though, strongly question the idea that it was rational in the original case the parent article cites. Plausible arguments for distrusting the police, sure, but it makes no sense to "fully trust" two criminals who are holding you captive and plan to murder you if they don't get their way.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
It makes complete sense! If you are in a hunter gatherer tribe 70,000 years ago and you get conquered by a neighboring tribe, as a female what is the genetically adaptive behavior? Fight the conquerer and also be killed? Or…?
- throw4847285 2y ago
  That's the beauty of evolutionary psychology. Look at the world you live in, pick any facet of it real or imagined, and make up an entirely unsubstantiated "just so" story rooted in a narrative of hunter gatherer life that cannot be proven to be true.

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.
- almatabata 2y ago
  Well you have many examples of man and women who display this seemingly irrational behavior. Saying its not real leaves the question why the victims side with the perpetrator in those scenarios.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Do you have any examples where the victims side with the perpetrator and after exhaustive search there isn't any rational explanation for them doing so? Assuming there is some condition that causes people to display a particular irrational behavior is typically god-of-the-gaps thinking - that you don't understand their motivations does not mean they don't have them.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      I don't agree with the premise that coming up with an explanation for Stockholm Syndrome means it's not real. "People in captivity may develop emotional bonds with the violent criminals threatening to kill them" is an important fact for police and hostage negotiators to know, even if every single facet of that behavior is rational. I would also, though, strongly question the idea that it was rational in the original case the parent article cites. Plausible arguments for distrusting the police, sure, but it makes no sense to "fully trust" two criminals who are holding you captive and plan to murder you if they don't get their way.

pfannkuchen 2y ago

It makes complete sense! If you are in a hunter gatherer tribe 70,000 years ago and you get conquered by a neighboring tribe, as a female what is the genetically adaptive behavior? Fight the conquerer and also be killed? Or…?

throw4847285 2y ago
That's the beauty of evolutionary psychology. Look at the world you live in, pick any facet of it real or imagined, and make up an entirely unsubstantiated "just so" story rooted in a narrative of hunter gatherer life that cannot be proven to be true.