11–20 of 71 posts
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.
[flagged]
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
> 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.
A recent similar example is dying of "Excited Delirium" https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4951 , which was made up by police and the taser manufacturer
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
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.
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…