Jump to content

Talk:Stockholm syndrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.167.145.44 (talk) at 21:06, 30 December 2013 (→‎Particularly Swedish aspects). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merge

I believe Lima syndrome should be merged to a short summary on this page - the term has no substantial play in any real scholarly sources. The sole scholarly reference is to a book, which gives it two lines. I'd rather simply delete it, but it has just enough references to suggest a brief mention here as a corollary to SS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, is it even a real syndrome or has someone just made it up? Madeline xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with Debresser. There is no good reason to merge them. The fact that they are opposites is irrelevant. Myopia and Hyperopia (near and far-sightedness) are also opposites, but they have their own pages on Wikipedia. If Stockholm and Lima syndrome are merged, it would not conform to the rest of Wikipedia which has a separate page for each distinct topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siming.guo (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like merging only begins to make sense because of the length of the Lima syndrome article, so a better response would be to extend it. - mw.t.floyd ----

Debresser's point is valid. The Stockholm Syndrome and the Lima Syndrome are - if not antonyms - at least the reverse of each other. They should remain distinct. Saintbrendan

Support/Agree: Should be merged, too small an article to sustain by itself and would also make Stockholm Syndrome longer as well. --ScythreTalkContribs 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think these articles should not be merged. They are somewhat related, but the important factor is, to my opinion, that the Stockholm Syndrome is a something that affects people NOT in control of the situation (the victims), whereas the Lima Syndrome refers to decisions made by those who ARE in control (athe agressors). September 29, 2009, Dranoel, Dranoel sverige (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Korean translation of Lima Syndrome relevant? Is there a reason the Korean is given and not the Japanese? 68.7.44.152 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only sources that could be found were Korean. If better ones turn up, there's no problem with foreign language sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Someone is vandalizing this page. You can see this where it reads "according to the faggots" 24.110.211.4 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belle (from Beauty & the Beast) was given as an example of somebody who suffered Stockholm Syndrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.212 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added "Apple Inc." as a See Also link. Maybe I'm unaware of a connection these articles have? Mentioning it just in case, to see what you all think. Macgyver89 (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error in Stockholm syndrom page

I recently read an AP article that claimed that the phrase 'Stockholm Syndrome' was coined by Dr. Frank Ochberg. The Wikipedia page claims that it was coined by Nils Bejerot. I just wanted to bring this to your attention; I'll let the experts determine the truth.

[1]

Euler010 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I agree with this removal, it doesn't seem appropriate to have this information in the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Syndrome

If the Helsinki Syndrome page is going to be redirected to the Stockholm Syndrome page, then shouldn't there be an explanation somewhere on the page as to why that happens? Also, I think it would be interesting to have a bit of an explanation about the newscaster who accidentally called Stockholm Syndrome Helsinki Syndrome and the confusion that results today because of it. Shelshula (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what Helsinki syndrome is, ever heard of it. I've a ref saying it's the same as SS, I'll put that in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a newscaster, whose name escapes me at the moment but was reporting on the Olympics at the time, referred to it as "Helsinki Syndrome" somehow causing the misnomer to spread crazily. Examples of it being propagated can be found in the Original "Die Hard" movie and the TV series "Babylon 5." Really hope someone can add this to the main article as it could help kick the, "Helsinki habit."
The fact that 'Helsinki Syndrome' redirects to here warrants an explanation of Helsinki Syndrome in this article. I've added this to the article, please improve it if you deem necessary. Zarcadia (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Helsinki Syndrome still redirects here, but the words don't show up in the article. That seems like a serious deficiency. You can include The X-Files in media that say "Helsinki syndrome" and mean "Stockholm syndrome". I guess someone just removed Zarcadia's addition without looking here? 88.113.226.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added Helsinki syndrome to the article, with a couple of literature references (the first reference cited cites the error in Die Hard, the second in "The Encyclopedia of Bad Taste").Olli Niemitalo (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock, I specificically came looking for infomation about people making the mistake of replacing Stockhome with Helsinki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.70.158 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lima syndrome

The "Lima syndrome" section doesn't appear quite accurate, specifically the sentence "Within a few days, the abductors had set free all but one of the hostages, including the most valuable ones, due to sympathy".

  • The MRTA hostage-takers kept not one but 72 hostages, including a Supreme Court judge, the foreign minister, and the president's brother. [2][3] (email me if you want copies of those Economist articles)
  • It's not at all clear from the sources that the other hostages were released due to "sympathy". It's just as likely the herd was trimmed for sheer logistical simplicity, 72 would be enough people to feed and send to the bathroom one at a time. Source #6 (the gbooks one) reports that the MRTA guerrills bonded with the remaining hostages, not the ones who were initially released. Source #7 (Inter Press Service) is hidden behind Highbeam's "free trial but give us your credit-card number anyway" barrier, so I haven't examined it fully.

I'm not sure how to address this, but I don't think the section is correct as written. Franamax (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source edit for the "all but one" statement and reverted it. My other concerns remain. Franamax (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, the original "syndrome" seems to have no real play within the social sciences, suggesting it's simply a neologism made up by the press. I'd happily just delete it but then Lima syndrome redirects here with no text to discuss it. You've my support to trim it back to only the text that is firmly and reliably sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in total agreement with this - what's the notability policy for neologisms on WP these days? Delete if unsupported. Reading the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, it's clear there were plenty of people left at the end of the crisis, as they're now the only source of evidence against the security forces. That said, you still get about 1300 google hits if you take wikipedia out of the search string. You see Franamax, this is the quality of commentary you get if I'm prised away from architecture......google hits indeed! --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it is a sufficiently pervasive neologism as to have been taken up in passing, with some healthy scepticism in this fine publication - but then, they get the date wrong in a trademark <ahem> typo.--Joopercoopers (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary explanations

The syndrome has also been explained in evolutionary terms. Historically raptio (e.g., Rape of the Sabine women) and bride kidnapping have been (and still are in some places) very common practices. Women who were kidnapped and consistently fought back were likely to be killed or imprisoned and thus not have children. But women who bonded with and submitted to their captors were more likely to have children and their children were more likely to receive the genes that made their mothers more passive and bonding towards their captors. And over several generations, this made the population of humans more genetically prone to submission and bonding when kidnapped. [citation needed]

I've found a paper [4] by Keith Henson pointing to some evolutionary psych rationale. It would be better to have secondary sources, however. Yakushima (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In hunter-gatherers women have been remarkably frequently kidnapped by opposing tribes, with little likelihood of rescue. From an evolutionary perspective defiance in such circumstances carries the prospect of death and the non-transmission of such defiant genetic traits. Defection by way of submission may promote genetic survival. This has been described as 'capture-bonding' (Henson, 2002). Thus the transmission of genes for appeasement may have been facilitated."
"About 1980 John Tooby, then in graduate school, discussed the concept of capture-bonding with various other students--reportedly reaching the same conclusion as the author about its evolutionary origin and widespread effects on humans and human societies. (Personal communication with Leda Cosmides.) Astonishingly, neither he nor anyone else known to the author has published on the subject." ಠ_ಠ
"Capture-bonding theories are used to explain various relationships, such as kidnapping or tribe takeover, in which a person seems to be 'caught' unhealthily or abnormally in a bond, even when given many chances to escape. The general explanation is that a sort of reverse-psychological mechanism or perspective develops in which, after a traumatic event, the captive person willing desires or stays in the bond. In abnormal psychology, battered women syndrome, where a woman stays bonded to a man who beats her is an example of an activated capture-bond. In evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding is understood as an evolved response to inter-tribe 'capture' and takeover, which has been a prominent feature of human existence during the last few million years, such as infanticide, which occurs frequently in the animal kingdom."
"According to evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding, or social reorientation after capture, was an essential survival feature for millions of years. The captives who reoriented survived, and those who did not form social bonds with captors were killed. Psychologists say that anyone can become a victim of Stockholm Syndrome if the certain conditions are met: (i) Perceived threat to survival (ii) The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor (iii) Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor (iv) Perceived inability to escape. And it is said that it takes as little as 3-4 days for this psychology to take hold of the victim."

It's kinda shameful that the blatantly obvious evolutionary origin of this well-documented psychological mechanism isn't even mentioned. Does anyone actually argue in favor of the ridiculous (albeit creatively so) Freudian explanation anymore?!? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up historical instances of raptio in a section about evolutionary psychology could be a problem. As the references make clear, capture-bonding theory involves circumstances over millions of years, not "several generations." On one hand, this confusion could reinforce misconceptions about the timeframe of human evolution, i.e. that human traits have evolved as a result of recent historical events. On the other hand, it could lead to prejudice against the idea by associating it with pseudo-anthropology. Rexodus (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much support for this theory is there? I ask because evolutionary psychology seems to have a rather poor reputation among evolutionary biologists. The problem being that evolutionary explanations get given for things without providing evidence that a) they actually are genetically/biologically controlled rather than cultural, and b) that the selection pressures proposed actually occur. (For example, the evolutionary benefit of Stockholm Syndrome requires that a) resistance/passivity is genetically inherited, and b) people who attempt to resist capture are less likely to reproduce than those who don't. Not to mention that these passivity genes will also be passed on to the male descendents of the captives and captivators, not just the females). Now, it isn't the place of Wikipedia - or this talk page - to argue about whether this theory is correct or reasonable, but we should make sure we are not giving undue weight to a non-notable opinion. Iapetus (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logical reasons for loyalty?

 Smallman12q (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC) If the kidnapper explains his motives and reasoning to a hostage, who then evaluates his view on the situation based on this new information, turning loyal to the kidnapper may in fact be rational. Is such behavior explained in the science and if so, is such loyality also considered Stockholm syndrome? It would be nice if this was discussed in the article, assuming of course that there is any reliable research on it to refer to. Tronic2 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section that should cover it.Smallman12q (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say the same thing, nothing based in any science or anything that should necessary be added to the page, I'm not a psychologist, just a discussion and opinion. It seems that the syndrome is considered an irrational reaction, surely a more likely reason would be that the kidnapper has no ill intentions. For instance a bank robber could well just be trying to get by and has no wish to harm anybody. I don't think it is irrational to sympathise and see his point of view, especially is he has some good reasons for being in the situation he is in. I'm sure a lot of kidnappings have higher purposes, in political situations it's often not the hostage that is the real victim, but the kidnapper who has been forced to retaliate by taking hostages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.16.147 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

"In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a mother figure protecting her child from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The victim then begins a struggle for survival, both relying on and identifying with the captor. Possibly, hostages’ motivation to live outweighs their impulse to hate the person who created their dilemma."

is directly plagiarized from: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2007/july2007/july2007leb.htm#page10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.212 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that -- except for the final paragraph, the entire section was plagiarized from that source. I've turned it into one big block quote. Obviously, the entire thing should be rewritten, and should use more than just that one source. Yakushima (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly of note?

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning in the article, but the movie Ruthless People included both Stockholm syndrome AND Lima syndrome in its plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.208.201 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Could do with consistency over whether 'syndrome' is capitalised i.e. Stockholm Syndrome or Stockholm syndrome; the latter is used in the article title and intro but the former in most other examples. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Psychoanalytic explanations" section blanking

I was critical of the explanations here, but I didn't anonymously blank the section. I don't known who "203.51.185.147" is. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I think this article needs to expand more on Lima Syndrome. Also, there needs to be more examples of Stockholm Syndrome.--Ewoodruff13 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • One very notable case is when Julius Caesar was kidnapped by pirates in the Aegean Sea. "When the pirates thought to demand a ransom of twenty talents of silver, he insisted they ask for fifty. After the ransom was paid, Caesar raised a fleet, pursued and captured the pirates, and imprisoned them. He had them crucified on his own authority, as he had promised while in captivity—a promise the pirates had taken as a joke. As a sign of leniency, he first had their throats cut." Maelstromlusby (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more information

I think you should also include in the article how battered wives, children of child abuse, and rape victims can also suffer from this syndrome.

Dallascowboys8aikman (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 18 September 2011[reply]

NPOV addition

Edit [5] seems pretty clear to me that it's not NPOV, and pretty hostile at that. The IP user who posted it undid my reversion because "it's fact, not opinion." Since I really don't want to get into an edit war, I'm going to talk on the talk page about this before I revert again. I'm confident enough that I'll revert in a day or two if there's no disagreement. Writ Keeper (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged material from Capture Bonding

Here are a few official sources that mention capture bonding:

"In hunter-gatherers women have been remarkably frequently kidnapped by opposing tribes, with little likelihood of rescue. From an evolutionary perspective defiance in such circumstances carries the prospect of death and the non-transmission of such defiant genetic traits. Defection by way of submission may promote genetic survival. This has been described as 'capture-bonding' (Henson, 2002). Thus the transmission of genes for appeasement may have been facilitated."
"On an emotional level, I found my response both unexpected and bizarre. I would not have been surprised to feel anger, catharsis, resentment, victimization, turmoil of one sort or another, all of which I had been prepared to explore in a participant-observation study of SM. I did not expect gratitude to be a salient and profound part of my experience. My first impulse was to pathologize my response; was this, I wondered, something similar to “capture-bonding,” the psychological explanation for Stockholm syndrome? Knowing little about Stockholm syndrome, but doubting that a forty-minute consensual flogging scene would have produced it, I moved beyond the discourse of pathology."
"In the aggregate, memes constitute human culture. Most are useful. But a whole class of memes (cults, ideologies, etc.) have no obvious replication drivers. Why are some humans highly susceptible to such memes? Evolutionary psychology is required to answer this question. Two major evolved psychological mechanisms emerge from the past to make us susceptible to cults. Capture-bonding exemplified by Patty Hearst and the Stockholm Syndrome is one."
"About 1980 John Tooby, then in graduate school, discussed the concept of capture-bonding with various other students--reportedly reaching the same conclusion as the author about its evolutionary origin and widespread effects on humans and human societies. (Personal communication with Leda Cosmides.) Astonishingly, neither he nor anyone else known to the author has published on the subject." ಠ_ಠ
"According to evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding, or social reorientation after capture, was an essential survival feature for millions of years. The captives who reoriented survived, and those who did not form social bonds with captors were killed. Psychologists say that anyone can become a victim of Stockholm Syndrome if the certain conditions are met: (i) Perceived threat to survival (ii) The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor (iii) Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor (iv) Perceived inability to escape. And it is said that it takes as little as 3-4 days for this psychology to take hold of the victim."

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least this means you've figured out the difference between capture bonding and Stockholm syndrome. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious difference - that still doesn't mean that capture bonding isn't better discussed at the stockholm syndrome page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing capture bonding in Stockholm syndrome without giving it its own page is like AFDing the article on the appendix because it gets enough coverage in appendicitis. Do you get it or do I need to come up with more catchy analogies? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a funny analogy. The reason it doesn't work is that the appendix actually exists and isn't just some fictive mental module invented by evolutionary psychologists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, you're saying the human mind is not the product of evolution? I need to establish the degree to which your worldview deviates from reality before I attempt to argue further. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not what I am saying. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtLXGQu-OF4 Slartibartfastibast (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly Swedish aspects

It's sad that this article isn't able to cover such important background aspects as Sweden's history, politics, culture and frequently prevalent national traits of attitude in the Swedish people, which I believe constitute vital ingredients as to how this thing happened (attitudes not unusual at all in Sweden) and became world famous for the first time (this clearly).

I wish I had reliable sources to quote, and if I find any I will expand the article a bit.

Briefly, a look at Sweden's judicial system gives one a vital clue. Decade after decade, Swedes generally-politically support extreme tolerance toward criminals. The kingdom's penal policies have got to be some of the most lenient in the world. If getting away with cold-blooded murder means 4-7 years in and out (on leave) of a relatively comfortable institution, that's what's available in Sweden. The hostages all knew that their captors would be off the hook in a relatively short time (which also happened); why not support them and/or be quiet rather than have them showing up angry on your doorstep?

Additionally almost every Swede, living in a country where the population long has suffered under strong, authoritative government discipline and almost unconscionably high taxes, as well as determinative group pressure from a media and opinion elite that basically rules any and all personal individuality out, has a secret desire to rebel against authority and legality. This began during past centuries when tyranny over the people by the (then) unusually rigorous Church of Sweden invented shame terms such as oäkta barn (thousands of children called illegitimate), registered everyone in the country, required that they let their knowledge of Lutheran Catechism be investigated annually in visitation to every single home and literally mapped your every move.

A necessarily submissive general attitude, coupled with a secret underlying rebelliousness evidenced by their generally disastrous national drinking and drug problem and high suicide rate, has long been the main emotional inheritance of Swedish men and women. It's more than just Nordic melancholy, or at least it's explicable, and it only has to do with weather inasmuch as long winters prevent a lot of people from getting together for human warmth.

Black market (tax free) employment has been shockingly rampant in Sweden as long as taxes have been high (for decades and decades), and many businesses, even well established ones such as famous restaurants or respected craftsmen, feel they would not be able to make it if they had to pay taxed wages by the book. The government puts on a few occasional cosmetic shows of interest, but in fact basically ignores this established and accepted system of criminality, effecting hundreds of thousands of Swedes directly and known, though not officially recognized, by every resident.

"Let's not make a big deal of this", about anything whatsoever, is an stance so prevalent in the attitude of most Swedes that I would venture to say 95% of the population feel and act that way always, except when drunk. Try complaining about someone unusually rudely and intentionally cutting in front of you in line at any Stockholm supermarket, and you'll see how almost everyone gangs up on you, not on the cheater, especially if your complaint was loud!

Swedes are heavily affected by the so called Jante Law. What I have tried to explain here is my belief that the Stockholm syndrome can be attributed in a very high degree to an opportunity on the part of those captives, scared half to death as bank robbery hostages, to rebel safely against typically Swedish normalcy, for once, that is for once in a lifetime questionable both for quality of living and for expected duration, trapped as one was. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The attitude you describe is omnipresent in western society. It is not particular to Sweden or even Scandinavia. It might be stronger in Sweden than, for example Spain (I am not commenting on the situation in Spain, it's a hypothetical example), but it is not distinct. My bet is that the attitude you describe is common to human nature and is not just part of some european mindset.

Capture-bonding

I wrote most of the material on capture bonding, in fact it was taken from my user page without even asking me about it.

Stockholm syndrome is *one* example of activating the evolved psychological mechanism humans have for such situations, but it's not the only one.

If it is going to be mentioned at all on Wikipedia, it should get its own page so other examples of the mechanism being activated (BDSM, battered wife, hazing, and military basic training) can reference the page.

Pointing those pages here is a level error.

Keith Henson (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

It seems this article discusses multiple topics, and that Stockholm syndrome is only a subtopic. Traumatic bonding (which redirects here and is bolded as if a synonym), would seem the encompassing term, and a better title. ENeville (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Stockholm syndrome" gets 2 550 000 results on Google, "traumatic bonding" gets 17 300. It seems obvious that the first term is the one widely used, not the second one - even though it might be more accurate. Lova Falk talk 07:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity bonding by hazing

According to the article, "Battered-person syndrome is an example of activating the capture–bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training and fraternity bonding by hazing". Although the kuro5hin source on evolutionary psychology sources that fraternity bonding by hazing is an example, our definition reads: "[...]capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express [...]". Our definition uses the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin as a source, where the definition given is wider than ours, but still rather narrow: "[...] Stockholm syndrome as a psychological response of a hostage or an individual in a similar situation in which the more dominant person has the power to put the victim’s life in danger." Later, the bulleting simplifies and speaks of victims simply as hostages just like our definition does. Military training doesn't fit our definition, and it is IMHO a stretch to fit it in the FBI's definition. But I find fraternity bonding by hazing not qualified at all as an example of Stockholm syndrome, with our definition of even the FBI's. Either the example should be removed, or our definition is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chealer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 June 2013‎

Reader feedback: i need some real incidents

115.241.56.108 posted this comment on 1 September 2013 (view all feedback).

i need some real incidents and case studies on stockholm syndrome

Any thoughts? I think that real-life examples could help improve the article, by helping to explain specific effects etc, but I have only a basic familiarity with the subject. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broader meaning of "identification with the aggressor"

Identification with the aggressor automatically redirects here, however, it is much broader than Stockholm syndrome. For example, neo-nazism is much stronger in Poland and Ukraine than in many other countries, even though these two countries suffered some of the worst mass murders at the hands of the nazis. This is to a large extent identification with the aggressor, but it's not Stockholm syndrome, and it's not a hostage taking situation. Maybe we should split off identification with the aggressor into a separate article? BigSteve (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broader meaning of "traumatic bonding"

Traumatic bonding also redirects here, but that's also different, as that usually involves a willing or at least unaware participant from the very outset (i.e. a wife or offspring). Even if traumatic bonding is not a separate article, it should at least be a subsection of this article. BigSteve (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonding among victims

Finally, isn't there a specific other concept that refers to the bonding among the victims of such situations (i.e. the hostages/beaten children, etc)? BigSteve (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Syndrome

"Stockholm syndrome is sometimes erroneously referred to as Helsinki syndrome."

Helsinki syndrome is not a misnomer. The root of Icelandic Helsinki is helsi, which means "captivity". The suffix /-ki/ means "place"; thus, "captivity place". Shinju (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of what you say about the underlying meaning of The word "Helsinki" is true, (although I would note that our article on the subject does not mention this interpretation) but it isn't worth arguing over because it is irrelevant. The syndrome is named after the place where it was first identified, it has nothing to do with the entomology of the city's name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockholm_syndrome&oldid=588423043"