21–30 of 71 posts
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…
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…
> 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…
"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.
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…
I think this goes deeper. Independently of this origin accident, calling this card - which is scientifically unfounded - police can discredit hostages who, "from the inside", see their brutality or ignorance. Not every hostage situation is actually life threatening.
Really? I would say that every hostage situation is tautologically life threatening -- that's what makes it a hostage situation.
Two-word phrases are rarely preferable to a single word. So let’s just use “hybristophilia” instead.
I think you wanted to write "diwords are raripotiorous than monowords".
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.
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.
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…
Do you believe that survival of a male hostage in similar situation would be treated with greater care?
A recent similar example is dying of "Excited Delirium" https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4951 , which was made up by police and the taser manufacturer