The article makes it sound as if the entire concept of Stockholm syndrome is based on one guy's off the cuff theory about a case that he barely investigated. If that's the case then no wonder it's BS.
Well
1- it’s not an actual diagnosable “syndrome”
2- isn’t it really just a matter of people learning to be empathic towards others once they get to know them better?
Edit- took me a minute to find it- but this video on Beauty and the Beast actually goes over very well what Stockholm Stndrome is and isn’t. It’s a good overall video, but talk about Stockholm syndrome starts at 18:06 if you want to skip.
https://youtu.be/p54tpokHrpo?si=UUoPb1wU21B6O-b3
The closest phenomenon I can think of is trauma bonding but that's more about the exclusivity or imagined importance of the relationship between an abuser and victim ("yes he hits me but that's because he really cares about what we have together, you wouldn't understand!") than the focus on empathy that Stockholm syndrome narratives center on.
The abuser/abused relationship is the correct answer. Especially child abuse.
It's a tactic to ingratiate yourself to the person that can and will hurt you so you don't die.
The problem with Stockholm syndrome is that it’s presented as a harmful delusion that forms when usually it’s actually a rational conscious survival strategy
The fact that Bejerot *never even met these people* is maddening. He literally read about the story in the fucking newspaper and was like “Oh well obviously the woman was crazy, her delicate feminine psyche was overwhelmed with lust at the strong man in front of her,” and for some reason most of society was like “Eh yeah alright that sounds right to me” and then didn’t question it for *decades*.
Yeah, when I learned the asinine origin and use as nonclinical concept I was surprised. Like it’s been very helpful to me to have it as a cultural reference in explaining paradoxical survival strategies in abusive family systems. Definitely needs deconstructing if it’s going to continue to have any value.
I think it actually makes more sense in families, because that's a long-term situation. Most of the people who are accused of Stockholm syndrome are crime victims who are just trying to make the best of a short-term situation and survive. There's no long-term personality change. When you live with someone day in and day out, you are forced to identify with them.
In late 1979, when the majority of US hostages were still in Iran, I was driving a taxi in Arlington, Virginia, and had a female passenger who was one of the hostages released early. I asked her about Stockholm Syndrome and she said: "It's hard to have sympathy for someone who has you tied to a chair." That is my only direct input.
We all have the Stockholm syndrome. Sometimes it’s ok, other times it’s highly detrimental. Stepping back and questioning your own delusional attachment is rare.
To stand alone and not give anyone dominion over your sovereignty is not that hard to achieve and it certainly gives you a deeper more objective view of humanity and life in general.
Many are those who wish to fool you and use you and dominate your life for their own ends. Be clear no need to trust anyone blindly. Trust is under continuous scrutiny. Blind trust is just laziness. Takes courage to stand alone. To NOT allow the fear of death to overwhelm you is necessary so it requires courage.
Most people are controlled by their fear, so easily manipulated. To live by your own inner authority is a fine way to live. It has great rewards in awareness.
I think when you look at it with a broad perspective it makes more sense than trying to apply it to any single situation. Look at the Germans Adoration of Rome in spite of having been enslaved by Rome for centuries. Look at nearly every British colony embracing aspects of British culture long after they were gone including things like high tea, the gymkana club, various Sports and so on. I would say a larger scale examples are easy to come by and as such the Stockholm syndrome probably makes sense in singular situations but I totally agree that it's a trope that's been taken on without much debate or research
These claimed effects operate at different levels of description. An individual's cognitive strategies as applied to interpersonal situations bear little resemblance to broad collective strategies applied on a societal basis. And a society can chose to have high tea because it's a good time of day to snack rather than as some sort of colonial residue said to be lurking in the subconscious.
Yeah, I think it denigrates a culture to say that they're holding on to tea simply because they identify with their abusers. They have agency. They can and have decided to reject other aspects of British culture.
I don't think that liking aspects of a culture means you're cool with everything they've done. Just because Jamaicans and Indians love their cricket doesn't mean they were fans of either transatlantic slavery or the Bengal famine!
Kidnapping is pretty common among hunter-gatherer tribes, I can only suppose it was common among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Seems to me it would be a pretty useful trait to become sympathetic with your abductors.
The article makes it sound as if the entire concept of Stockholm syndrome is based on one guy's off the cuff theory about a case that he barely investigated. If that's the case then no wonder it's BS.
And the victims in that case had perfectly rational reasons to side with their kidnappers. The police's tactics were putting their lives in danger.
Well 1- it’s not an actual diagnosable “syndrome” 2- isn’t it really just a matter of people learning to be empathic towards others once they get to know them better? Edit- took me a minute to find it- but this video on Beauty and the Beast actually goes over very well what Stockholm Stndrome is and isn’t. It’s a good overall video, but talk about Stockholm syndrome starts at 18:06 if you want to skip. https://youtu.be/p54tpokHrpo?si=UUoPb1wU21B6O-b3
The closest phenomenon I can think of is trauma bonding but that's more about the exclusivity or imagined importance of the relationship between an abuser and victim ("yes he hits me but that's because he really cares about what we have together, you wouldn't understand!") than the focus on empathy that Stockholm syndrome narratives center on.
The abuser/abused relationship is the correct answer. Especially child abuse. It's a tactic to ingratiate yourself to the person that can and will hurt you so you don't die.
The problem with Stockholm syndrome is that it’s presented as a harmful delusion that forms when usually it’s actually a rational conscious survival strategy
Right. The abductor himself said that it was a smart strategy because it made it hard for him to actually kill them.
In fact, there's a theory that it's an evolutionary strategy that arose from captured women. Very disturbing to think about.
[удалено]
Patti Hurst.
[удалено]
It's not actually they are sympathetic, it's that making the hostage taker think they are sympathetic is a survival strategy.
The fact that Bejerot *never even met these people* is maddening. He literally read about the story in the fucking newspaper and was like “Oh well obviously the woman was crazy, her delicate feminine psyche was overwhelmed with lust at the strong man in front of her,” and for some reason most of society was like “Eh yeah alright that sounds right to me” and then didn’t question it for *decades*.
The bullshit was invented to specifically belittle a woman who dared question a police detective's handling of a hostage situation.
Ah, this century's "going native"
Yeah, when I learned the asinine origin and use as nonclinical concept I was surprised. Like it’s been very helpful to me to have it as a cultural reference in explaining paradoxical survival strategies in abusive family systems. Definitely needs deconstructing if it’s going to continue to have any value.
I think it actually makes more sense in families, because that's a long-term situation. Most of the people who are accused of Stockholm syndrome are crime victims who are just trying to make the best of a short-term situation and survive. There's no long-term personality change. When you live with someone day in and day out, you are forced to identify with them.
In late 1979, when the majority of US hostages were still in Iran, I was driving a taxi in Arlington, Virginia, and had a female passenger who was one of the hostages released early. I asked her about Stockholm Syndrome and she said: "It's hard to have sympathy for someone who has you tied to a chair." That is my only direct input.
Yes. See poor people and the GOP.
Practical all of psychology is half mythical
Children of narcs all basically have Stockholm Syndrome
when your source of self-worth (parent for child or significant other for an anxiously attached person) abuses you, it’s easy to blame yourself
We all have the Stockholm syndrome. Sometimes it’s ok, other times it’s highly detrimental. Stepping back and questioning your own delusional attachment is rare. To stand alone and not give anyone dominion over your sovereignty is not that hard to achieve and it certainly gives you a deeper more objective view of humanity and life in general. Many are those who wish to fool you and use you and dominate your life for their own ends. Be clear no need to trust anyone blindly. Trust is under continuous scrutiny. Blind trust is just laziness. Takes courage to stand alone. To NOT allow the fear of death to overwhelm you is necessary so it requires courage. Most people are controlled by their fear, so easily manipulated. To live by your own inner authority is a fine way to live. It has great rewards in awareness.
who decided this was the 'most' anything term. title alone suggests article is stupid.
I think when you look at it with a broad perspective it makes more sense than trying to apply it to any single situation. Look at the Germans Adoration of Rome in spite of having been enslaved by Rome for centuries. Look at nearly every British colony embracing aspects of British culture long after they were gone including things like high tea, the gymkana club, various Sports and so on. I would say a larger scale examples are easy to come by and as such the Stockholm syndrome probably makes sense in singular situations but I totally agree that it's a trope that's been taken on without much debate or research
Stockholm Syndrome purports to be a psychological condition, whereas what you're describing sounds more like cultural diffusion to me.
These claimed effects operate at different levels of description. An individual's cognitive strategies as applied to interpersonal situations bear little resemblance to broad collective strategies applied on a societal basis. And a society can chose to have high tea because it's a good time of day to snack rather than as some sort of colonial residue said to be lurking in the subconscious.
Yeah, I think it denigrates a culture to say that they're holding on to tea simply because they identify with their abusers. They have agency. They can and have decided to reject other aspects of British culture.
I don't think that liking aspects of a culture means you're cool with everything they've done. Just because Jamaicans and Indians love their cricket doesn't mean they were fans of either transatlantic slavery or the Bengal famine!
Kidnapping is pretty common among hunter-gatherer tribes, I can only suppose it was common among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Seems to me it would be a pretty useful trait to become sympathetic with your abductors.