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.
The thing is it happens even when tasers aren't involved. The reality is that if you pump somebody up enough with stimulants there's a possibility that the rebound is fatal.
But how often does it happen when cops aren't involved. If this were a medical phenomenon we'd expect to see familiarity with it among emergency room staff, homeless outreach, and other front line mental health workers. Do we?
As a paramedic, we often do see these effects (and not withstanding the valid negatives of 'excited delirium') as a first order effect of synthetic cathinone ("bath salt") abuse:
- 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.
In addition to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)[1], Legal Insanity[2], Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)[3], and Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)[4]. These may involve the testimony of medical experts, but do not exist as formal diagnoses and are therefore not clinical labels. Instead they exist in as legal labels of persons, in order to affect some legal conclusion.
My immediate thought to the headline was newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst who was kidnapped and ended up participating with her kidnappers to rob multiple banks in the 1970s. It was an amazing story at the time (I was in college).
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 able to interrogate them should be a significant part of a medical diagnosis, but this is not that, so it's an irrelevant criticism.
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.
> 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 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.
"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.
> 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.
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"?
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.
Irrational behavior goes well beyond clinical mental disorders. There are dozens of known biases and heuristics that we all follow every day that are irrational. There's a big difference between disproportionately attributing blame and a mental disorder like Stockholm syndrome. Just look at any news post here and watch people make wild accusations against all parties involved based on a 500 word synopsis of an otherwise complicated incident that is still under investigation. It happens constantly.
In the moment it's not a question of fault or good vs bad. It's a question of who do you cast your lot in with in order to have a better chance of exiting the situation alive. Stuff like helping law enforcement or getting back at the bad guys only matters so long as it isn't likely to get you dead.
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.
These are all good explanations for the phenomena, and if you are being taken hostage, it is even rational to empathize with whoever took you hostage to maximize chances of your survival. I think the syndrome part is when you are out of that situation, but still continue to be kind to the hostage takers, and/or keep yourself intentionally in the dangerous situation to be with the hostage taker.
How can a rational person not? The police had the opportunity to deescalate, which would increase their chances of survival, and they chose not to. It would be like if a mugger stabbed you, and the ER surgeon refused to operate on you to save you - you can and should fault both.
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.
Quiet so. The article suggest the police and government offered no reassurances to the hostages, gambled with their lives, and to top it all off tear gassed them.
But the hostage takers are the ones who created the hostage situation, not the police. They are the ones that caused the risk to the lives of the hostages - in fact that it the whole purpose of hostage taking, to use human lives as bargaining chips.
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?
The expectations for hostage-takers are pretty low, whereas the expectations for police are, if not sky-high, at least that they won't kill or injure you.
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.
These are all valid explanations or potentiators for what can cause the phenomena or syndrome, but it doesn't mean that the behavior is accurate to the truth.
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.
Don't equate criticism for police with a preference for hostage takers. In my view that's exactly the point of the article.
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.
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.
> article does not give me a real reason to doubt that the phenomenon is real
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.
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.
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.
There is evidence. Victims sympathize with captors. Saying there is no evidence (because no proper science) is dismissive, on its own. The world is a messy place, with imperfect people. This, alone, is reason to believe that people take irrational action. Most people take irrational actions, every day. Some more extreme than others, eg Pica.
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.
Well you have many examples of man and women who display this seemingly irrational behavior. Saying its not real leaves the question why the victims side with the perpetrator in those scenarios.
Do you have any examples where the victims side with the perpetrator and after exhaustive search there isn't any rational explanation for them doing so?
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 don't agree with the premise that coming up with an explanation for Stockholm Syndrome means it's not real. "People in captivity may develop emotional bonds with the violent criminals threatening to kill them" is an important fact for police and hostage negotiators to know, even if every single facet of that behavior is rational.
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.
I'm not talking about an explanation for stockholm syndrome, I'm talking about an explanation for why they would side with their captors besides stockholm syndrome.
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 do not have access to first hand accounts nor detailed records that would allow me to to make such an analysis. I only have access to stories that look irrational from the outside.
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…?
That's the beauty of evolutionary psychology. Look at the world you live in, pick any facet of it real or imagined, and make up an entirely unsubstantiated "just so" story rooted in a narrative of hunter gatherer life that cannot be proven to be true.
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; 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.
I won't respond directly to your whataboutism, as it is not productive, but let me put it this way: In the case of the article, Freudian psychology is pseudoscience and has been widely debunked. Therefore, continuing to advocate for Freudian psychology is harmful.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about the article as a whole for reasons previously stated.
Sorry, I don't follow. What whataboutism? Where did the Freud came into the picture? I though I asked you a simple question about your belief. This should be easily answerable just with a single yes or no.
You completely misunderstand what the Streisand effect is. It's the old saying "You can't close the barn door once the cows are out." She wanted to stop the spread of knowledge that was already available publicly by legally blocking sources sharing it. But trying to hide something just makes people want it more, so doing this will actually draw more attention to it. It's the same way we see scandals blow up on TV every day. Embarrassing things are embarrassing, but trying to cover them up is even more salacious. Yelling "Don't look!" isn't a good way to hide. Instead, it's best to say nothing and let people lose interest.
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?
The Stockholm syndrome is when propaganda get people to believe a theory so strongly that even when all evidence and circumstance gets removed, even when it’s scientifically proven to not be true, even when direct facts contradict the stated propagada, people continue to believe the propaganda.
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.
The term" Stockholm Syndrome" was probably created during this event, but that does not prevent the fact that the syndrome in itself might have be encountered and noticed before even without a clear name.
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.
67 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadhttps://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...
I wonder how many things we consider to be common sense are actually due to this kind of thing.
https://apnews.com/article/patty-hearst-kidnapping-anniversa...
I think you wanted to write "diwords are raripotiorous than monowords".
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-...
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
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.
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.
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…?
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.
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?
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.
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.