"Stockholm Syndrome" was invented by police to discredit a female hostage (2020)
stadafa.com
stadafa.com
The hostages were held at gunpoint under the threat of execution, and even after a successful rescue with no hostages injured, they sided with their captors against the authorities. Nothing here seems to contradict that or the phenomenon.
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.
"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.
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.
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"?
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.
Could police have done things better? For sure. Were they inexperienced with the hostage situation? Yeah.
But to speak negatively of the people trying to diffuse the situation and positively of the hostage takers is what is definition of the stockholm syndrome, because clearly none of it would've happened if it wasn't for the hostage takers.
The fact that she's not actively condemning the criminals and hostage takers speaks volumes to me.
You're valuable to the hostage takers so long as you're alive. Your continued existence is a nuisance to the police. But obviously the police with their infinite money and manpower have better odds on their side. Situation specific facts must be taken into consideration, etc, etc.
If I were ever in that situation, I would 100% fault the police for their behavior, and I would question the sanity of anyone who didn't.
I'd be less-than-thrilled, too.
I understand it is rational to want the police to cooperate with hostage takers if you are a hostage. But if the police successfully orchestrate a rescue, how is it rational to prefer the hostage takers to the police? One created the problem, one solved it?
Disappointment is often proportionate to anger.
There's a second point which is, from a political perspective, police behaviour can be easily changed. Desperate criminal behaviour cannot.
She chose to spoke in a way that condemned the police who tried to help you and she chose to spoke kindly to the hostage takers - you can frame everything in anyway you want.
But reality is that police tried to do good for society while hostage takers were actively putting her in risk and trying to take from the society.
To be empathetic to the police, they were also under tremendous stress, and had never seen a situation like that, Sweden had never seen this, and like the article said they hadn't trained for that. They tried to make the best of the bad situation they could, and after managing to have everyone lives intact, they were still condemned by someone who they tried to save, and that someone was speaking kindly of the people who caused the situation in the first place.
The police told her to prepare to die at her post. She criticized that response. "You developed the hots for your captors!" was the response to her criticism.
Really? I would say that every hostage situation is tautologically life threatening -- that's what makes it a hostage situation.
I think framing it as something pathological is what's doubtful. It's perfectly human reaction to try to form bonds in the environment you found yourself in with whoever is there to increase your chances of survival. And to feel distrustful of wannabe soldiers pointing guns in your general direction with the goal of bringing back business as usual as promptly as feasible (from PR standpoint) rather than saving your life.
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.
- stripping down because of overheating - this also causes tachypnea (rapid breathing) as the body looks for any means, efficient or not, to try to bleed off excess heat
- frank bruxism (teeth grinding) to the point of craving 'gnawing' (this is where the "trying to eat people" sensationalist stories come from - there's no homicidal intent, it's 'just' "people are chewy")
- reflection fixation (often with glass). Similar to other psychoactives, reflections in glass provide a stimulant effect. With this, the most problematic thing is that some of the most common objects with glass in them are moving (i.e. cars), which heightens the effect, and causes a danger to self and others.
The challenge is that many of these behaviors, in public, are... "antisocial" and rapidly lead to police involvement.
Notwithstanding what I believe is cynical CYA by some "less-lethal" manufacturers to glom onto this, the small mercy in my area is that the higher levels of police command have directed that these situations be treated as the medical emergency they are, and not a law enforcement issue. Indeed, protocol here is that LE should be used for restraint both as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time before the patient can be transitioned to "chemical restraint", i.e. sedation, at least with capnography (to monitor breathing), if not active ventilation as needed.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome
2. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-a-person-legally-i...
3. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2022/06/20/JAAPL.210105-21
4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/978111862539...
https://apnews.com/article/patty-hearst-kidnapping-anniversa...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…?
I wonder how many things we consider to be common sense are actually due to this kind of thing.
This story reminds me of the energy some women have for serial killers[0]. Looks like that's called Hybristophilia[1] instead of Stockholm Syndrome.
[0]https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/lee-county/let-wade-...
In a hostage situation, telling the government “stop trying to get us murdered” is not a mental illness. Being dissatisfied with the governments handling of the situation is not “siding with your captors because you’ve fallen in love with them” but people will to the end of times continue to believe these falls narratives because the government propaganda to discredit completely reasonable criticism was just that damn effective.
When any animal, including humans, is trapped in a situation they can't escape, failing to adopt a degree of acceptance is bad for their health and survival. Almost all other animals will stop fighting after being held captive for a while, so why shouldn't humans?
When people do bad things they almost always have a reason for it. The reason may be sick, twisted, or wrong. Its 'justification' may be prohibited by our culture and for good reason. The causes of their actions may be, a lest from some perspective, an inevitable conclusion of forces which they felt they could not control. An open mind could often understand why or have sympathy for it, even if they continue to disapprove in the strongest way possible.
Humans are very social and often become friendly with people they spend a lot of time around or interact with a lot. Even when they start out with very different views or places, or with a profound disagreement.
In plenty of situations outside of captive abuse people sometimes fall into the trap of becoming addicted to abusive treatment, be it the rare bits of approval or reprieve from the expected abuse, or simply the fact that they're the center of attention (even if its negative attention). -- if you've not seen this happen first hand, I envy your sheltered existence.
People outside of a situation are also not blameless. Why didn't they prevent it? Why didn't they rescue the person sooner? Why can't they understand how significant the event was and why can't they understand how significant the event wasn't? Why can't they accept that you do or don't feel defined by it? I think it would be easy to feel worse about the people who let you be taken hostage than the hostage taker, the hostage taker owed you nothing, the hostage taker wasn't in a position of trust, the hostage taker will suffer retribution for their acts, but perhaps the people who screwed up preventing it will be called heros.
So with all these factors at play why should any out of a wide spectrum of responses to a adverse situation not be considered perfectly natural?
Maybe this psychiatrist had a "bias" regarding the behavior of the woman regarding his past experience.
In my opinion, there is really a Stockholm Syndrome even if it is probably not clearly definable and with variable geometry depending on the case. For example, in the corporate world, it is quite common to have employees being abused with them supporting their manager/hierarchy on the based opinion that their manager are doing that for the good of the company and so also for the good of the person.
I think you wanted to write "diwords are raripotiorous than monowords".
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.
Do you believe that survival of a male hostage in similar situation would be treated with greater care?
Overall, I have mixed feelings about the article as a whole for reasons previously stated.
I am also not trying to argue about rights to privacy. There are already many threads on this website about privacy.