3 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 As far as I understand we hav

> 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.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        I'm not talking about an explanation for stockholm syndrome, I'm talking about an explanation for why they would side with their captors besides stockholm syndrome. There is no evidence this phenomenon exists, nonetheless that it is beneficial for police or hostage negotiators to know about it. And in the original case the victim did not "fully trust" the captors, she merely feared them less than the police, which given their comments is undoubtedly rational.
    - almatabata 2y ago
      I do not have access to first hand accounts nor detailed records that would allow me to to make such an analysis. I only have access to stories that look irrational from the outside. I would like to see more rigorous study of it. If they find its nonsense fine. We can move on to something else. They might find something else entirely.

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.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      I'm not talking about an explanation for stockholm syndrome, I'm talking about an explanation for why they would side with their captors besides stockholm syndrome. There is no evidence this phenomenon exists, nonetheless that it is beneficial for police or hostage negotiators to know about it. And in the original case the victim did not "fully trust" the captors, she merely feared them less than the police, which given their comments is undoubtedly rational.
  - almatabata 2y ago
    I do not have access to first hand accounts nor detailed records that would allow me to to make such an analysis. I only have access to stories that look irrational from the outside. I would like to see more rigorous study of it. If they find its nonsense fine. We can move on to something else. They might find something else entirely.