Defense of Religion: Is it ultimately just a form of Stockholm Syndrome?

[ParanoiA]

Sure.

 

I was reading about the 33 trapped Chilean miners, in a 600 square foot space, 95 degrees, 95% humidity with no hope of extraction until around Christmas. Their mental health and sanity is the biggest concern at this point, since they can send food, water and other resources to keep them alive indefinitely. But how long can 33 men suffer that crowded pit of hell down there? They've been able to communicate a little:

 

The miners seem to sense the journey ahead of them. In the note to his wife, Mario Gomez scrawled, translated from Spanish, "patience and faith, God is great and the help of my God is going to make it possible to leave this mine alive."

 

Do victims of Stockholm Syndrome draw on their syndrome for strength when facing impossible adversity? I really don't know.

 

(Personally, I could probably use some godholm syndrome if I was in that situation)

[pioneer]

This theory does not explain those who call themselves born again. If we apply the theory, this would suggest someone who is watching a hostage situation on the TV, decides to sneak into the hostage room to joyfully become a hostage. It is not that simple. They were born again because something inside their mind/brain self triggered an affinity.

 

Say someone who was interested in computer games, decides to go to a gaming convention. This is not by force even if the hosts are pitching product. They are there because they get to share what they like with others, who like this just as much as they do. They feed off each other helping each other recreate those memorable gaming moments.

[iNow]

Do victims of Stockholm Syndrome draw on their syndrome for strength when facing impossible adversity? I really don't know.

In fact, my understanding is that you've just touched on the core of Stockholm Syndrome. At it's root, it's ENTIRELY about drawing strength during impossible diversity.

 

Maybe counter-intuitive, but it's the diversity itself which drives the phenomenon into existence... It is the foundation, AFAIK.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

 

The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.

 

<...>

 

In fact, experts have concluded that the intensity, not the length of the incident, combined with a lack of physical abuse more likely will create favorable conditions for the development of Stockholm syndrome.

 

<...>

 

[T]his tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.

 

 

So, in essence, without impossible diversity, Stockholm Syndrome does not exist. There is a strength found in no longer having to face the captor as evil, and the mind accepts the situation more effectively by attributing positive attributes to the captor. Excellent question, and insight, btw.

 

 

 

---

If we apply the theory, this would suggest someone who is watching a hostage situation on the TV, decides to sneak into the hostage room to joyfully become a hostage.

No. It does not even come close to suggesting that. One must first exist within the situation for the phenomenon to manifest. You seem not to understand the requirement for existing circumstances based on your suggestion above.

 

 

They were born again because something inside their mind/brain self triggered an affinity.

A cognitive mental break? Social reinforcement or parental training? Delusion... Yes, I agree.

 

 

 

Say someone who was interested in computer games, decides to go to a gaming convention. This is not by force even if the hosts are pitching product. They are there because they get to share what they like with others, who like this just as much as they do. They feed off each other helping each other recreate those memorable gaming moments.

You've obviously missed the entire point of the discussion.

Edited August 25, 2010 by iNow

[pioneer]

Could the theory also apply to atheism? For example, most scientists are atheists. If one wanted to move up the ladder, and this majority was ragging on religion, one might feel they are a hostage to the atheist majority. Their future is under the control of their captors, so don't upset them. Eventually, you learn to empathize, since beyond this one thing they are people.

 

But it can also be like a born again atheist experience. Then you seek out birds of a feather to share that moment of enlightenment.

Edited August 25, 2010 by pioneer

[iNow]

Could the theory also apply to atheism? For example, most scientists are atheists. If one wanted to move up the ladder, and this majority was ragging on religion, one might feel they are a hostage to the atheist majority.

I'll just say again... You seem to have no clue about what the phenomenon entails and what is required for it to exist, despite my defining it throughout the thread simply and clearly.

 

What you are talking about is better described as "peer pressure" and "social cohesion," not "Stockholm syndrome."

[Mr Skeptic]

There is a strength found in no longer having to face the captor as evil, and the mind accepts the situation more effectively by attributing positive attributes to the captor.

 

Well, we do tend to think of crooks and robbers and such as evil people, but they aren't necessarily as bad as people think. Some of them may have only turned to crime due to bad choices, such as owing a big debt to nasty people. Getting stuck with them you can get to know them As to why then it would relate more to intensity than length, when people are under a lot of stress but don't crack, they can earn a lot of respect.

 

Oh, and I think you meant adverse rather than diverse

[iNow]

Oh, and I think you meant adverse rather than diverse

Yes, you're quite right. Impossible diversity is what members of the KKK feel when you let black people shop from the same stores as them and what many Christians feel when you let homosexual people marry each other. My bad. Thanks for the correction. I did, in fact, mean adversity.

[ParanoiA]

In fact, my understanding is that you've just touched on the core of Stockholm Syndrome. At it's root, it's ENTIRELY about drawing strength during impossible diversity.

 

Maybe counter-intuitive, but it's the diversity itself which drives the phenomenon into existence... It is the foundation, AFAIK.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ckholm_syndrome

 

 

The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.

 

 

<...>

 

 

In fact, experts have concluded that the intensity, not the length of the incident, combined with a lack of physical abuse more likely will create favorable conditions for the development of Stockholm syndrome.

 

 

<...>

 

 

[T]his tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.

 

 

 

So, in essence, without impossible diversity, Stockholm Syndrome does not exist. There is a strength found in no longer having to face the captor as evil, and the mind accepts the situation more effectively by attributing positive attributes to the captor. Excellent question, and insight, btw.

 

But here you're still tying the victim to the original captor that creates the syndrome. I'm talking about post-initialization, using that syndrome to draw strength for an entirely different adversary.

 

Do victims of Stockholm syndrome use their previous captivity and subsequent emotional attachment to their previous captor to draw strength to deal with an entirely new incident? This would require that they anchor their emotions with their previous captor, not switch to a new emotional attachment with a new captor - otherwise, that's not the same as what I'm now going to start calling the godholm syndrome.

 

With godholm syndrome, if we accept the premise that they have suffered Stockholm Syndrome, the victim's emotions are anchored to god. Any and all intense adversity does not change the nature of their syndrome, they still draw on their original "captor", god. They then use that emotional attachment to face an entirely new adverse situation, never emotionally attaching themselves to that new "captor". That would appear to be unique, and not found in Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Either way, I've got a new song title. Also, Muse wrote a song called Stockholm Syndrome as well, but it's not as lyrically cool as the one you referenced in the OP. For some reason, it still feels like he's talking about god also.

[iNow]

BI'm talking about post-initialization, using that syndrome to draw strength for an entirely different adversary.

 

Do victims of Stockholm syndrome use their previous captivity and subsequent emotional attachment to their previous captor to draw strength to deal with an entirely new incident?

No, I don't think so. New incidents would result in new associations and new responses. While those new responses may be impacted by previous experience, they are not tied to it in the way required by the syndrome. The feelings toward the captor are specific to the incident where that captor was involved. New incidents, like everything else in our lives will be influenced by previous experience, but still are to be considered as "new" incidents.

 

 

Either way, I've got a new song title. Also, Muse wrote a song called Stockholm Syndrome as well, but it's not as lyrically cool as the one you referenced in the OP. For some reason, it still feels like he's talking about god also.

Now... that was interesting. Hmmm... Muse?

[padren]

Thanks for keeping this topic alive iNow.

 

I've been thinking that the "Godholm syndrome" could be taken a degree further but I'm not sure. What if it isn't God, but "this adversarial and volatile world" that is the oppressor? God is simply one (albeit dominant) pattern people use to make sense of the world, but there are many others. People use all kinds of patterns ranging from "positive thinking" to karma to voodoo to try to apply some level of sense and order to life's events.

 

Those people trapped in the mine are dealing with a horrible scenario that was created by physical laws of the world in a semi-random fashion - in that... while physics is responsible for the inevitable disaster, enough small factors contribute to such disasters occurring in any given individual's life that it appears random.

By having faith in God, they are quite literally expressing faith in some sort of "order" to the events as they apply to them. It's entirely within context of Stockholm syndrome because they are trusting their tormentor to get them out of the very situation "he" put them in.

 

However, the reason it's a comfort is that it is much better to think your captor has a plan, than is playing Russian roulette with your life.