Is StockHolm really irrational?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Is Stockholm really that irrational? Stockholm Syndrome is something which happens when the captor bonds to their captor. This is considered irrational and not fully understood by psychologists. I don't think its really that irrational if you think about how people interact with other though. People if put in an eviorment will often create bonds with those around them. In situation of capture they are often cut off from anyone other than the captor and anyone the captor allows them to see. So what if this is human nature? What if these captured people are simply adapting? Making a social connection to the captor since that is the only hope of sociol interaction they can possibly hope to have? They says people are naturally social creatures and putting a person in solitary confinement has been proved to be mentally damaging. Given this information in a situation where a person is not allowed contact with anyone other than the captor themselves doesn't it make sense that they would create some type of bond with them? Perhaps this is simply a defense mechanism that the mind is doing to stop the person from completely losing their mind caused by isolation?

[Hakai no Kame]

This is an interesting point, I'd be interested in seeing a counter-argument to this.

[iNow]

But then why would these bonds persist even long after the captive is released? Stockholm syndrome tends to continue in victims even when they are no longer in custody, even when they are once again free, and even when they are surrounded once again by their social community. Your idea here does not seem to account for these issues, even though there is definitely some merit to it as pertains to the formation of such bonds during the time they spend being held.

[Marshalscienceguy]

But then why would these bonds persist even long after the captive is released? Stockholm syndrome tends to continue in victims even when they are no longer in custody, even when they are once again free, and even when they are surrounded once again by their social community. Your idea here does not seem to account for these issues, even though there is definitely some merit to it as pertains to the formation of such bonds during the time they spend being held.

1.They developed a psychological need for the person since they make the victim dependent on them

2.Culture shock (They been in the new environment so long they are not necessarily sure they can function in another one)

 

Culture shock actually happens with troops as well. They are in the new environment so long that when they get out of the service its sometimes very difficult for them to function. Despite the fact they came from the outside world they adapted to military life and when the world isnt like the military it sometimes become very difficult for them to re adapt.

[iNow]

1.They developed a psychological need for the person since they make the victim dependent on them

But upon release that need can easily be filled by someone else, yet the connection to the captor often persists despite the availability of others in the community. How does your conjecture account for this? Based on what you've shared so far, it does not seem to. If the bond with the captor forms due to an inherent human need for community, then why isn't that bond replaced by better ones once the victims community expands once again?

 

Culture shock (They been in the new environment so long they are not necessarily sure they can function in another one)

So now your assertion involves the duration of captivity? How long must one be captive for Stockholm syndrome to manifest? 10 days? 10 months? 10 years? Is it the same for each captive? Why do some victims experience the syndrome but not others?

 

Listen... I think some of your points are valid, but I also think you're over simplifying the syndrome far too much. There are many underlying layers to this phenomenon that should be included in our thinking. Also, I'm not entirely clear who you think is suggesting it is irrational. When viewed correctly, it it the outcome of incredibly logical thinking and motivations, IMO.

 

This page below summarizes the key points pretty well. Notice how your idea is included, but also significantly expanded upon in some very reasonable and intelligent ways:

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/mental-disorders/stockholm-syndrome2.htm

 

[Marshalscienceguy]

But upon release that need can easily be filled by someone else, yet the connection to the captor often persists despite the availability of others in the community. How does your conjecture account for this? Based on what you've shared so far, it does not seem to. If the bond with the captor forms due to an inherent human need for community, then why isn't that bond replaced by better ones once the victims community expands once again?

 

So now your assertion involves the duration of captivity? How long must one be captive for Stockholm syndrome to manifest? 10 days? 10 months? 10 years? Is it the same for each captive? Why do some victims experience the syndrome but not others?

 

Listen... I think some of your points are valid, but I also think you're over simplifying the syndrome far too much. There are many underlying layers to this phenomenon that should be included in our thinking. Also, I'm not entirely clear who you think is suggesting it is irrational. When viewed correctly, it it the outcome of incredibly logical thinking and motivations, IMO.

 

This page below summarizes the key points pretty well. Notice how your idea is included, but also significantly expanded upon in some very reasonable and intelligent ways:

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/mental-disorders/stockholm-syndrome2.htm

 

Well generally these type of kidnapping cases last months to years. In fact some of these cases happen when the child is in the early pubescent stages of development and are trained to be perfect wives for the captures. So they might kidnap a 13 year old and keep her to age 19 and by 19 she is not going to leave if there is other people around that could help her escape or not. There has even been cases of women staying with the captures when they have wives and no one questioning it but not realizing why the girl is really even there. However the victem wont auctully speak about why she is there to begin with.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[iNow]

Okay, but none of that addresses any of the core points I have made. Yes, kidnappings often last for extended periods of time. Nobody was contesting that.

[Marshalscienceguy]

Okay, but none of that addresses any of the core points I have made. Yes, kidnappings often last for extended periods of time. Nobody was contesting that.

You asked how long. I was saying these cases are generally months to years. So I think its probably going to develop over months to years vs a couple of days.

[pwagen]

However, the event that birthed the phrase only lasted for 5 days.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery

[iNow]

Marshal - Just to be clear, I did ask you how long a person would need to be in captivity before developing Stockholm syndrome. You basically replied, "kidnappings sometimes last a long time, sometimes a month and sometimes years." That is neither a good answer the actual question I asked, nor is the question I asked really that relevant to the larger point I was making.

 

To help, let me summarize. Elements of your idea are certainly involved in the manifestation of stockholm syndrome (the human need for community and social bonds, for example). However, your idea completely fails to account for the many other aspects of the syndrome that have been found, and it also doesn't offer much in the way of predictive capability.

 

There are existing ideas that do a far better job of explaining potential causes and I even shared a link that summarizes some of those. Additionally, your own assumption that about duration required to develop has quickly been demonstrated to be false by pwagen in the post immediately preceding this one.

 

Lastly, who is claiming that Stockholm syndrome is irrational? What has driven you to make this assumption?

[Ophiolite]

Lastly, who is claiming that Stockholm syndrome is irrational? What has driven you to make this assumption?

I should like to see an answer to this to. It was the first thing - and only important thing - that struck me about the OP.

[Marshalscienceguy]

I should like to see an answer to this to. It was the first thing - and only important thing - that struck me about the OP.

 

Not an assumption.

 

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims,

[iNow]

Okay, so Wikipedia cites a source in the overview stating that some people consider it irrational. Fair enough. And, as for the rest?

[Ophiolite]

 

Not an assumption.

 

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims,

I didn't say it was an assumption. I don't think inow said it was an assumption.

 

Where is your quotation from? I'm guessing wikipedia. If so do you have some primary sources for the claim.

[Roamer]

 

 

This is considered irrational and not fully understood by psychologists.

 

People will often attack what they don't understand, like calling it "irrational."