4 ms·

"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

"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.

jjk166 2y ago
> Sensing that their likelihood of survival was getting slimmer by the hour, Enmark took matters into her own hands. She called the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme, and begged him to let her and another hostage leave the bank with their captors. ‘I fully trust Clark and the robber,’ she told Palme. ‘I am not desperate. They haven’t done athing to us. On the contrary, they have been very nice. But you know, Olof, what I’m scared of is that the police will attack and cause us to die.’ Palme refused to let her leave, saying they could not give in to the demands of criminals. At the end of the conversation, Enmark says Palme said ‘Well, Kristin, you can’t get out of the bank. You will have to content yourself that you will have died at your post.’ If someone said this to you, would you be on their side? > "Pop science" seems orthogonal to this concept -- it's like saying the concept of "jury of your peers" is pop science. What? Pop science in this context means something that is widely believed to be rooted in scientific fact by the general public but actually isn't. > But in hostage negotiation 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. That's moving the goal posts dramatically. The whole point of this article is that stockholm syndrome does not have descriptive power because there are no scientific criteria to delineate what it is, when it's happening, or even if it's real. You can name things that don't exist, like dragons, but that does not mean people should be using dragons as an explanation for what they observe.
- andrewla 2y ago
  If Clark had a gun to my head and Olof was refusing to give them what they wanted I would be pretty upset with Olof but way more upset with Clark. I might convince myself that Clark is super nice and only holding a gun to my head because of something something, but that's the essence of Stockholm syndrome in the end. I disagree that Stockholm syndrome is "widely believed to be rooted in scientific fact" -- I would say that "Stockholm Syndrome is widely believed to be a real phenomenon" and remove the pretension of "science" from the equation entirely. I don't feel that I'm moving the goalposts -- what, in your mind, is the "application" of the theory of Stockholm Syndrome other than what I've said here? Do you honestly believe that hostage negotiators are saying "if the hostages get in your way, shoot them because they have Stockholm Syndrome Which Is A Scientific Fact"?
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  But how can a rational person believe the police is at fault compared to captors like it's a normal thing to take hostages?
  - GeoAtreides 2y ago
    Surely the question is whose fault it is, but whose side offers more chances for survival; apparently, in this case, it was the wrong side.
    - lbwtaylor 2y ago
      You can desire the police cooperate with the hostage takers, without taking the side of the hostage takers. The proof is in the pudding - the police ended the hostage taking with no lives lost. To after the fact continue to take the side of the hostage takers is pretty terrible to me. All of this is Olsson's fault.
      - octopoc 2y ago
        What constitutes "taking the hostage takers' side"? She's not begging that the police release the perps, she's not saying that they were within their rights to rob the bank or anything like that. It's more complicated than just "she is taking the police's side" vs "she is taking the perps' side".

jjk166 2y ago

> Sensing that their likelihood of survival was getting slimmer by the hour, Enmark took matters into her own hands. She called the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme, and begged him to let her and another hostage leave the bank with their captors. ‘I fully trust Clark and the robber,’ she told Palme. ‘I am not desperate. They haven’t done athing to us. On the contrary, they have been very nice. But you know, Olof, what I’m scared of is that the police will attack and cause us to die.’ Palme refused to let her leave, saying they could not give in to the demands of criminals. At the end of the conversation, Enmark says Palme said ‘Well, Kristin, you can’t get out of the bank. You will have to content yourself that you will have died at your post.’ If someone said this to you, would you be on their side? > "Pop science" seems orthogonal to this concept -- it's like saying the concept of "jury of your peers" is pop science. What? Pop science in this context means something that is widely believed to be rooted in scientific fact by the general public but actually isn't. > But in hostage negotiation 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. That's moving the goal posts dramatically. The whole point of this article is that stockholm syndrome does not have descriptive power because there are no scientific criteria to delineate what it is, when it's happening, or even if it's real. You can name things that don't exist, like dragons, but that does not mean people should be using dragons as an explanation for what they observe.

andrewla 2y ago
If Clark had a gun to my head and Olof was refusing to give them what they wanted I would be pretty upset with Olof but way more upset with Clark. I might convince myself that Clark is super nice and only holding a gun to my head because of something something, but that's the essence of Stockholm syndrome in the end. I disagree that Stockholm syndrome is "widely believed to be rooted in scientific fact" -- I would say that "Stockholm Syndrome is widely believed to be a real phenomenon" and remove the pretension of "science" from the equation entirely. I don't feel that I'm moving the goalposts -- what, in your mind, is the "application" of the theory of Stockholm Syndrome other than what I've said here? Do you honestly believe that hostage negotiators are saying "if the hostages get in your way, shoot them because they have Stockholm Syndrome Which Is A Scientific Fact"?
mewpmewp2 2y ago
But how can a rational person believe the police is at fault compared to captors like it's a normal thing to take hostages?
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  Surely the question is whose fault it is, but whose side offers more chances for survival; apparently, in this case, it was the wrong side.
  - lbwtaylor 2y ago
    You can desire the police cooperate with the hostage takers, without taking the side of the hostage takers. The proof is in the pudding - the police ended the hostage taking with no lives lost. To after the fact continue to take the side of the hostage takers is pretty terrible to me. All of this is Olsson's fault.
    - octopoc 2y ago
      What constitutes "taking the hostage takers' side"? She's not begging that the police release the perps, she's not saying that they were within their rights to rob the bank or anything like that. It's more complicated than just "she is taking the police's side" vs "she is taking the perps' side".