User:Hkhenson/Talk:Capture bonding

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

Stockholm syndrome merge request

I suggest this article not be merged. The people who edit the Stockholm syndrome page objected to an evolutionary psychology explaination, so the capture bonding article would just be deleted if moved there. Keith Henson

Basically you're saying this page is about one theory which tries to explain Stockholm syndrome, so is distinct from a page about the effect itself? Ojw 20:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving it to the Stockhome page would result it in being deleted. If you want to delete the page just do it.

Capture-bonding is not worthy of its own article. It should be a section of the article on Stockholm syndrome. If you want to prove me wrong, add enough information to this article to show it's worth being separate from Stockholm syndrome — right now it's just a big quote (which might even be considered a copyvio). —Keenan Pepper 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capture-bonding as an evolutionary psychology explanation was deleted from the Stockholm syndrome page, or worse was garbled by being mixed with silly Fraudian explanations to the point the point was entirely lost. The long quote is not a copyright voliation because the site it comes from has similar policies to Wikimedia about quoting being ok with them. Hkhenson 03:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the two pages being the same. Stockholm syndrome is about learning to love your captors. Social reorientation is about gaining the characteristics of your captors in order to survive. I think two separate pages are legitimate here.

I like this article as it is, I vote that it not be deleted or merged. Hermitage 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

John Money additions

Sadi, I see no justification in bringing in John Money to the capture bonding page or the unrelated material you added. I am going to revert the page. But if you have a pointer to where John Money talked about capture bonding, please let me know. Keith Henson [hkhenson@rogers.com] 13 March 2006 (UTC).

I suggest the Stockholm Syndrome page. It would fit right in. Money gives examples here, but if there is no theory as to why humans should have these traits. The capture bonding page only incidently uses examples to propose a particular explaination, that of evolutionary psychology, to account for this strange human trait because--in the races hunter gatherer past--it was an essential tool for genetic survival.

Besides, it would freak Dr. Money out to be mentioned on a page supporting evolutionary psychology. Money is one of those who believed in the most extreme form of the Social Science Standard Model, even to saying that *gender* could be socialized into a child. Evolutonary psychology holds that the SSSM is nonsense. Keith Henson 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This might or might not be true, but capture bonding as understood by evolutionary psychology is unrelated to childhood development. Regardless of the person's history it is an evolved mechanism that is activated when appropriate (capture, fear, pain). I can't find any evidence with Google that Money was associated with "capture-bond" or "capture-bonding." His name is associated with Stockholm syndrome.

I would not propagate Money's theories since I consider them dangerous nonsense. Have you *read* the Wikipedia page on him? What he did to David Reimer trying to mash the poor kid into his "religious-like" SSSM view of the world is absolutely inexcusable. Criminal even.

Which article?

Capture-bonding is not a meme theory, at least not a theory about memes.

I think you are stirring up various postings I have made or you have a copy of my unpublished war paper. Capture-bonding was a rather minor part of the sex drugs and cults article. True, women would have capture-bonding activated when their tribe was defeated since those who didn't bond to their captors would probably be killed.

But that has nothing to do with men or boys having the capture-bonding psychological mechanism "installed." Men don't lactate, so by this measure, they should not have nipples. It takes divergent evolutionary pressures to make the psychological traits in males and females different. Even if men don't lactate, it is less "expensive" in evolutionary terms for them to have nipples. Likewise even if they are always killed on capture, it doesn't cost for men to have the capture-bonding brain mechanism where it was essential for women to have it.

If concepts were not used consistently the Wikipedia would be useless. I am sure you would object to this lovely shade of green being called "pink."

The famous evolutionary psychologist John Tooby figured out capture-bonding about 1980. He considered it so obvious he never published since it is a trivial application of evolutionary psychology. It occurred to Kennita Watson and me about 15 years later. It is unrelated to the kind of childhood neurological "love maps" Money proposes. If you can find support for Money using the term, I would like to see it. If he didn't use it, the term "capture-bonding" should remain in an evolutionary psychology context where it came from. Keith Henson 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

More reverting

• Sources don't matter when the substance is not relative. I see the information to the John Money book and POV relative to introduce reasoning (in different bonding definitions) why individuals become captivated based on 'neurological love maps.' This prediction does not fit the criteria for capture bonding in the general sense that this should be argued and consensually decided under the Stockholm Syndrome, and if proven to have any merit, be placed there.

"they may be interested in an abnormal psychology perspective;" - if they are, and if it refers to bonding - that discussion, consensus and categorization is elsewhere. Reverted article. Maureen D

• • You have shifted the text I wrote into one paragraph. I have changed that back. Do not alter other contributers text by shifting it around.

Please address the issues raised in my comments rather than rearranging text on the discussion page. You made numerous changes on the discussion page, why? Discussion of material is the reason for this page, before making changes on the article page. Maureen D

I see that Sadi Carnot who previously stated on the talk page

"11:44, 12 April 2006 Sadi Carnot (Talk | contribs) (Removed my comments (I am withdrawing from this article))"

Has now reverted to a version a year old.

I am reverting it back and requesting that nobody delete text from the talk page again. Also, if you have problems with the article, don't just stick a tag on it without making notes in the talk page. Keith Henson 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki formatting

Someone should format this article. --jeffrey elliot 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the current version is horrible. I have been wikify, but only to get reverted? --Sadi Carnot 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maureen D and Keith Henson

Please stop monopolizing this page! I’m trying wikify this page, e.g. headers, grammar, proper citing methods, sources, etc., and to make this into an encyclopedia article; yet I am getting reverted by Maureen and Keith who revert back to the horrible version? Keith Henson is mentioned in the article and he is also edits the article, which creates WP:COI issues and I don’t know what Maureen D’s problems are? I am going to request for help on the various related project pages and then get administers involved if this doesn’t remedy the problem.

I’ve written or contributed to the majority of the bonding-related articles in, e.g. human bonding, interpersonal ties, affectional bonding, female bonding, maternal bond, pair bonding etc., and the capture bonding is a sore thumb on all levels. For one, it has a 255 word copyvio in it. It a copyright violation to site more than 50 words per source. Second, the whole article needs to be wikified; I notice another user put clean-up tags on the article, which User:Keith Henson has reverted? Third, as to sources, if someone has a theory on capture bonding and they are notable, e.g. they have a preexisting Wikipedia entry, and they have published books on the subject, then they have a right to have their views represented in the article. I really don’t know what issues the two of you have with John Money, I own about 30-40 books on various human bonding theories, e.g. sociological-views, psychological-views, neurological-views, and evolutionary-wise views, etc., and I don’t bias myself with debates about a person’s background, only their theories.

Also, User:Drw25 added clean-up tags on 08 Sept. 2006 (but got reverted?), User:Bobryuu added clean-up tags on 04 Apr 2007 (but got reverted?) and User:jeffrey elliot on 2 Jan 2007 on the talk page suggests the page be wikified, but that went mute?

In short, please stop reverting me. I’m going back to the good version, i.e. one that is wikified and not biased with bulky quotes over-representing certain individuals. I will try to search the internet to find more related articles. Let us start with this version and build from there. I will be making request for comments on many talk pages about this issue. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadi, I agree with you, there is absolutely no reason to revert back to an unwikified version. If people have an issue with the new content, then they need to first discuss and then change the content within a proper structure. I don't know much about the actualy theory, so I will leave that issue aside, but if the identified users again revert back to an unwikified version, I think it is fine to report them at WP:3RR even though it is not with 24 hours (the policy says it does not actually have to be). JenLouise 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jen, thanks I agree with you. I will likely follow your suggestions in this regard. --Sadi Carnot 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Search results

I’ve been searching the internet, and most of the capture bonding articles are by Keith Henson, where he promotes his views:

• Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War, Keith Henson, 2006
• The Savage Solution, Keith Henson, 2004
• Privation as a particular memetic replication control mechanism, Keith Henson, 2003
• Thoughts on John Walker and the Taliban, Keith Henson, 2001
• Random Report (Scientology), 2001 (here Keith claims that he coined the word?)

This is all great, but we need to write a NPOV article. I'll try searching again in a few days. --Sadi Carnot 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadi, there is no copyright violation since the source has a copy policy vitually identical to Wikipedia. I don't care what you do with articles about bonding in other places, but capture-bonding is a term out of evolutionary psychology. The concept was originally discussed by John Tooby one of the leading lights of EP when he was a graduate student. You just can't abuse the concept by shoveling in John Money's unrelated "love map" SSSM concepts. Money *never* used the term in this sense. It is like mixing astrology into an article on planetary science, i.e., abuse. The NPOV does *NOT* include butchering the concept. If one person is mostly responsible for a concept, such as Freud, then you stick to his concepts in an encyclopedia article. I am incidentally sticking up more for John Tooby's concepts than my own efforts at popularizing.

Incidentally, you seriously misread the "random report," "Proposed capture-bonding" was explaining it to the person who was trying to make since of his bad experiences, not generating the concept on the spot. Keith Henson 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby's 1992 The Adapted Mind and Buss' 1999 Evolutionary Psychology textbook. I can't find capture bonding in the index of either of these? If you know the page number where this is located please tell me? In regards to John Money, I will add 3 quoted references to the article where he uses the concept of capture bonding. That will now be 8 total references I have added; please do not revert. Thank you. --Sadi Carnot 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article you keep trying to paint over with this confusing mish mash, Tooby's discussion of this was when he was a graduate student and he didn't publish, partly because the concept is completely obvious. Do you want a statement from him? I was just talking to him today at a conference. Sadi, Money is dead, so we can't consult him, but given what he was widely known for, he would be extremely upset with you to be associated in any way with evolutionary psychology. I am going to revert the article, and I *strongly* suggest that you take it up with the Wikipedia administration. Capture-bonding is a *simple* concept. You have complicated it beyond reason and dragged in massive amounts of unrelated material--all of which either is in other locations on the Wikipedia or can be placed elsewhere. Keith Henson 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia article. We represent all points of view as per WP:NPOV, not just the views you are partial to. I have already asked two Admins to watch over this page. I am also guessing that User:Maureen D is your sock puppet based on the curious edit history of Maureen D and the timing of the following page revert and following talk page comment by you:

• 03:36, 15 April 2007 Maureen D (Talk | contribs) (rv; see discussion page)
• 03:43, 15 April 2007 Hkhenson (Talk | contribs) (talk page comment)

Also, as to Tooby having used the concept of capture bonding at all, let alone in the 1880s, the only source in the article substantiating this claim is: “(source: Leda Cosmides)”. This does not meet the requirements as a usable reference according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, where "verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Money, on the other had has two published books on the subject: his 1980 Love Sickness and Pair-Bonding, and his 1986 Lovemaps, where he specifically discusses the sexual aspects of capture bonding as well as Stockholm syndrome. Thanks for the comments: --Sadi Carnot 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And again you are violating the most basic principles of an article, to make it clear, accurate and useful. There is no NPOV that includes anything of John Money in an article about a descriptive term from evolutionary psychology because CB is a concept that originated in evolutionary psychology, a area Money bitterly opposed all his life. If the administrators want expert opinion on this, it would be easy to obtain.

Re your acusation, I have never used a sock puppet in my life. Do you wish to withdraw this personal attack?

Re John Tooby it is ultimately from Dr. Cosmides, but it was published in _Human Nature Review_. Footnote 4 here: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html If that is not a reliable source, then *all* content and references from that source should be deleted.

If you want to do this, or better, delete the entire article, I will not revert it. Please point me to the title and page where Money used "capture-bonding." If you can find this, I will sppologize and do my best to globally remove uses in the EP sense of the term. It is not useful for human knowledge to call pink "green." Keith Henson 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop breaking up comments. Again, add to the article but do not revert. I will be filing a report at WP:3RR if you keep this up. Five people now have requested that this article be cleaned. Please stop your negative efforts. --Sadi Carnot 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned article

I merged everything into one page, added three direct quotes, as references, to support Money’s 1986 theories on capture bonding, and put all of remaining quotes into supporting references. If anyone wants to re-add those quotes back into the article please do so in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. not just as a paste of 250 words. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

John Money the first to publish theories on capture bonding

As to a futher redundant request for John Money’s 1986 published descriptions of the capture bond even though it is already cited 3 times in the article, from page 34 of the 1986 book Lovemaps:

“ The bond that in some instances develops between a captor and a captive, or terrorist and hostage, is referred to as the Stockholm syndrome. In the case of paraphilic sadism, the bond that develops between a lover and spouse and the paraphilic partner clearly resembles the bond that between captor and captive. The Stockholm syndrome, more broadly defined, may be regarded as applying across the board to all of the paraphilias in which on partner exercises paraphilic power and the other becomes collusionally bonded to the paraphile as an accomplice. ”

By way of this published reference, Money is the first person to have published views and theories on the subject of capture bonding. In sum, to Keith Henson, this is not your article and your theory, nor did Tooby originate the concept, as he did not publish, nor can his views be substantiated, but only via personal communications according to the article that you wrote. Thank-you. --Sadi Carnot 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Money did not use the term capture-bonding, he did not use it in the evolutionary psychology sense, and he certainly did not explain it in evolutionary psychology terms. As a matter of fact, I don't see where he proposes any deep theory at all. It is just description terms such as "collusionally bonded," a common situation back before EP put a foundation under psychology. I am reverting it again. I suggest you seek a ruling rather than continuing this ping pong. If you get support for for term "capture-bonding" belonging to John Money, that's ok by me, I am not hung up on terms and can figure out another name for the unrelated evolutionary psychology explanation. Keith Henson 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Henson, can you not read? In the above quote, Money is specifically applying the psychological aspects of Stockholm syndrome to abnormal bonds in relationships, such as those that resemble a “captive and a captor”, e.g. paraphilic and a paraphile. As far as I know, he is the first to publish these views, with his 1980 and 1986 books, well ahead of your 2002 article. This is just one example. Again, I you don’t want other people’s views to be compared to your view then don’t read or edit Wikipedia articles. I count six editors now who are objecting to your efforts. --Sadi Carnot 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Illogical--to the attention of the admins

Sadi wrote:

"Capture-bonding is a bond that in some instances develops between captor and captive, and is sometimes referred to as Stockholm syndrome."

This isn't even good grammar. It should be capture-bond or "is a bonding." Stockholm syndrome is a state someone like Patty Hearst was in, this sentence makes "capture-bonding" into a synonym for Stockholm syndrome. Keith supports (I don't remember who wrote it):

"Capture-bonding is a descriptive evolutionary psychology term for the evolved psychological mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome." Both of these conflicting statements are in the version Sadi is pushing. This isn't as clear as it perhaps could be, but in the second section we are talking about an evolved mental mechanism that (activated by the stress of capture) is the cause of the Stockholm syndrome. To put it another way, capture/abuse acts on the capture-bonding mental mechanism(s) in a person to produce the state we see as Stockholm syndrome. Sadi's rewrite confuses an internal mental mechanism (and/or its process) with the end result of the process. Thus I revert. Keith Henson 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Henson, the top definition comes from Money's 1986 book. Again, you are not the only person who has written on this subject. --Sadi Carnot 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith, let's get a couple of things straight right now.

Capture-bonding is not "the cause" of Stockholm Syndrome. It is your proposition of a cause. It is not the only description of evolutionary events which could lead to the survival of Stockholm Syndrome as an adapted trait, nor even the simplest. Your edits have not given any indication of the acceptance of your theory among other practitioners: it is only Sadi's efforts which have given any indication that others may share your views. In effect, you have simply posed an unfalsifiable hypothesis which you then present as accepted science, both here and in other places on Wikipedia.

If you cannot stand other people writing about your views, you should not even be reading this article, let alone editing it. Please note that Wikipedia has evolved a number of different methods for bringing about debonding of editors towards certain articles. Relevant policies and guidelines include: WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:EW. If you continue to prevent other editors from improving this article, I shall not hesitate you apply one or more of these debonding methods to you. Physchim62 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is elementary evolutionary psychology that psychological mechanisms evolved to solve survival problems of our remote ancestors. What we are today is the result of direct selection, side effects of such direct selections, and random drift. If humans have an unlearned behavior (such as SS) that comes out in response to certain stimuli, then the species has an evolved psychological mechanism that is the cause of the behavior. This is absolutely fundamental to the field. If you want recent cites, I can provide them.

I certainly do not mind people writing about my views, you can find thousands of places on the net were people wrote about them. For example, there are massive and polite debates on line with major figures such as Aaron Lynch in the memetics arena.

And I have no objection whatsoever to people editing and improving my work. At least a dozen people have reviewed my papers or postings in the last few years. For example the EP meme and war paper that is up on kuro5hin underwent significant editing both before and after it was posted there. (And a little further editing before it was published last Summer in the print reviewed journal _Mankind Quarterly_.)

But the key word here is *improving.* Stirring in pre evolutionary psychology work by John Money does not improve an article about an aspect of evolutionary psychology. John Money was one of the most vocal advocates of "the blank state" where people have no evolved psychological traits. Money promoted this view even to the point of fooling himself and falsely reporting as successful the sexual reassignment of David Reimer as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. This is, as we know now, nonsense, people have many evolved psychological traits including gender and the mechanisms that (most of the time) sets gender male or female well before birth.

In the evolutionary psychology viewpoint there *is* an evolved psychological mechanism that is activated and is the cause what we observe as Stockholm syndrome. It is rarely activated today in the non-tribal world, but we still have it from selection in our remote ancestors and it comes forth in full flower in such (thankfully rare) occasions as Patty Hearst, Elizabeth Smart and the bank hostages for which it was originally named.

Now as to the name "capture-bonding," if Sadi (clearly a John Money partisan) makes and wins the case that that term was preempted by John Money then "the evolved psychological mechanism that when activated causes the state we know as Stockholm syndrome" simply needs to be renamed and the evolutionary psychology verbiage removed from a John Money capture-bonding article. Otherwise, you have one term pointing to two completely different things.

Wikipedia policy should not result in articles containing confusing conflicting information. I suggest that an overriding policy in this area should be formulated. Keith Henson 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would remove the long quoted section and just leave in the pointer, but the article is a long one and capture-bonding only a minor part of it. It would not be easy for people who were looking for this specifically to find it quickly. Suggestions welcome. Keith Henson 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another ridiculous point is that in the version of the article you want to keep it says you have the same views as Money in regards to capture bonding and various sexual practices, specifically:

"He (Henson) also makes a case that the intense reward from sexual practices such as BDSM derives from activation of the capture-bonding psychological mechanisms."

I really do not understand why you continue to argue illogically like this? Anyway, I will revert you yet again and I will also add an evolutionary psychology take of capture bonding, this time from Matt Ridley. Please stop your reverting and let's work together. Also, please read the new version, all of the verbiage, i.e. the bulk quotes, that you keep reverting back to is in the updated article, but put in footers. I did not delete any of the old version, but only added to it. Thank-you: --Sadi Carnot 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Money and "love maps" do not relate to evolutionary psychology. You are mixing oil and water here and the resultant article is full of conflicting information as I detailed above.

And there is no possible way that my speculations about sexual practices, hazing or basic training could be the same as Money's. Money would deny the very existence of *any* evolved psychological mechanism. If you understand him at all, you can't bring John Money into an evolutionary psychology context.

Also you have added "abnormal" to the article with no justification. The trait we are talking about here is normal, in fact was an essential psychological survival mechanism for millions of years and it still is in the few remaining women-abducting tribal societies.

I will revert the article to get rid of the conflicting, unrelated information and continue to do so until you quit piling in conflicting material or the admins rule against me. Keith Henson 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to contributors and other admins

For real life reasons, I will not be on-wiki this weekend, although I hope to be able to (more calmly) review some of the sources which Keith and Sadi have posted. Edit warring may be dealt with through the normal channels. Bee good while I'm away! Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I have posted notice here. --Sadi Carnot 09:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another published example of capture bonding according to Money

That Money’s 1986 book on capture bonding has significance I have been able to determine. In the 2006 book From Princess to Prisoner by Linda McJunckins, on page 211, we find: "Capture bond – a term used to define the bonding that in some instances develops between the captor and captive, or terrorist and hostage." The book is about a parent's account of a daughter who relinquished her freedoms as a college student to an arduous life as a slave among strangers. Pages 211-212 come right out of Money’s 1986 book. The fact that the term has use in culture, justifies it’s inclusion in Wikipedia. A merge to Stockholm syndrome, however, is not the best option. For one, the concept of capture bonding is used significantly in animal psychology to explain how a female attaches to and reproduces with the take-over male who previously killed her offspring. Most writers don’t say, for example, that “the female Gorilla suffers from Stockholm syndrome.” This is one example why a merge would be a wrong move. I will add one example of this to the article from Matt Ridleys 2003 book The Agile Gene - How Nature Turns on Nurture (pg. 19-20). --Sadi Carnot 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I looked quickly and couldn't find an article on wikipedia about the indian abductions of colonists that took place in the late 1600's and early 1700s. There is a body of primary source narratives from former captives that would be of use to this article or the article. The abductions were primarily undertaken to replace women and children who died in the plagues that dessimated the native american populations or to replace sons and daughters who died as the result on conflicts with the colonists. After a fashion, when it became proiftable to ransom abductees, the kidnappings became motivated more by greed. Such individuals were put through a test period and if agreeable to it, they were eventually adopted into the tribe. There are some famous cases of young women abducted as children who refused to be ransomed back to their familes, having assimilated, married and had children within the tribes. This might be an area to explore since the term Capture-bonding seems tailor-made for such circumstances.LiPollis 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to put in examples. I researched this subject years ago for an article and there is quite a list, both those who assimulated and those who were released. There is one starting point here: link, where there is a book mentioned with over 300 accounts. link. Cynthia Ann Parker (1836 capture) is both an example of the mechanism working and it failing to work when she was captured the second time. Evolutionary psychology reasoning would lead you to expect that it would be more effective at a younger age when there was more reproductive potential at risk. Fascinating tale of her and her son Quanah Parker. She did very well in spreading her genes because this son had 25 children. Mary Jemison (1750 capture) was a very famous case, at least 4 links here: link. The last one (1851 capture) may have been Olive Oatman. I am going to put these two in as examples. If you want to add more or more discussion, please do. Keith Henson 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Henson please stop vandalizing this page

Thank you User:Fredrick day for restoring the article per your comment “why was this changed to that unsourced version?” Basically, Henson keeps reverting back to this 2005 version, with a 200+ word quote from an obscure article he wrote. He has reverted 8 total times now. He feels that he owns the article and doesn’t want any other views shown but his own. He has been warned, yet he continues to persist? Thanks again for your help Fredrick. Later: --Sadi Carnot 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Consider this the ruling. You will cease edit warring for the sake of edit warring, if you have a dispute take it to WP:RFC, as I have suggested the other party do. But this type of gaming the system won't play, monsignor. --Golbez 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)"

I am not enough of a Wikipedian to know how to take this to a ruling. My email is hkhenson@rogers.com if you want to tell me to how one does this. I have no problem of this being taken to a ruling. My arguments are as stated in this talk page. If the ruling is that Wikipedia should be filled with nonsense such as what sadi has produced, so be it. Keith Henson 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this dispute is largely about evolutionary psychology model vs John Money and the SSSM (blank state) model, one resolution would be to split the article into two pages. Considering Money's verbiage, the page about his version might be "capture bond (John Money)" and if you wanted to distinguish the other one it could be "capture-bonding (Evol Psych)" The two are very different subjects and really don't belong on the same page. Keith Henson 21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If the objections are to the inclusion of material about the historical abductions of colonists by Native American, which took place for complex sociopolitical reasons, then I suggest a compromise. Create an article called Native American Abductions, include the information there, mention Capture-Bonding in the See Also section. Works for me. I can see that the issue of Capture-bonding as a term has become a personal issue between some editors. Relocating the very useful and interesting material on native american abductions to another page would hopefully free that content from the dispute. LiPollis 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:COI, Mr. Henson. --Golbez 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not my objection at all, those cases are just examples like Patty Hearst and Elizabath Smart and I think examples are just fine. The objection is to bringing in John Money to an evolutionary psychology oriented article or for that matter bringing in abnormal psychology to an article about a completely normal (though rarely expressed) trait people have. Much as it would be prestegious to claim having discovering this psychological trait (whatever it is eventually called), I can't do it. It properly belongs to the extremely well known EP researcher John Tooby. I discussed it with him last Monday, and it just isn't a conflict of interest for me. Unfortunately for me he has an unpublished (but referenced) paper on another subject I have written about thinking I was the first. Keith Henson 03:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely a conflict of interest, since the bulk of the edits you are making quote your own writings. This has nothing to do with who 'discovered' it and you know it. --Golbez 07:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Golbez for taking a look at things over here. I will look into the RFC page you referred me to. In short, I am simply trying to clean, wikify, and add material to this article, and I am getting reverted to no end. At this point, it is not simply a matter of edit war or a matter of content, my last contribution, for example, was a referenced definition of "Capture bond verbatim right out of a new 2006 book, and it was straight out reverted by Henson. Henson has been playing games with this article since 2005, here, for example, Henson toys with a proposed merge tag, by merging the article back into itself. Basically, he wants a Wikipedia article to summarize his 2002 article and does not want any other views next to his.

• The best option, if Henson will stop reverting, is to keep the article as it is now; it has multiply points of view from several sources.
• A second option, which Henson wants, is to have capture bonding (evolutionary psychology) and capture bonding (abnormal psychology). This is a poor idea, for one the topic is very obscure, it’s very hard to find any people writing about or using this concept. Second, the article, as it stands is very short. Third, if they were split, someone would just put merge tags on them, to have them merged back together.
• A third option is to simply VFD the article. With Henson in the picture trying to promote his views and the unpublished views of his good friend Tooby, the watch time on this article, is too much for one Wikipedian to handle.

This is my view. I have been working hard trying to combat the issues at this article, but I have never worked on an article where I have to watch reference after reference get reverted. --Sadi Carnot 07:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Egregious nonsense

Please read the page as is now stands protected. It makes no sense as a page about an evolutionary psychology topic. And because of the EP mentions, it makes no sense as a page about John Money's pre EP concepts. In the sense of evolutionary psychology, it is not in any way "abnormal psychology." I would sincerely appreciate it if someone would fix the page so it made sense. I really don't care if you decide to wipe out the EP sense of the page, but please make it into either an astrology or a planetary science article. The confused mix is unworthy of Wikipedia. Keith Henson 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Henson, I'm glad you finally took time to actually read the page. As to your comment: "I think Sadi is vandalizing the page by filling it with nonsense", I'm filling the page with sourced opinions, they are not my opinions, they are views of people who have used the concept of capture bonding in published works. This is what we do at Wikipedia. --Sadi Carnot 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

In short, there is a conflict of interest in this article. In 2005, Keith Henson, i.e. User:Hkhenson, started the article with a paste from a 2002 article he wrote. In this paste version, he cites the unpublished views of his good friends John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, who he says he talks to weekly. He has been reverting the article continuously since 2005 to keep it according to his point of view. He especially does not want any abnormal psychology views, such as those of John Money, in the article. He has reverted added references, reverted clean up tags, and toyed with merge tags. He has stated that he will continue to revert these types of additions until the admins rule against him. Interested Wikipedians should comment below. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 07:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a longer history. There was a short note on capture-bonding in the Stockholm page that mentioned evolutionary psychology. It was distorted with the addition of freudian concepts beyond making any sense. That led to an article discussing capture bonding as an evolutionary psychology mechanism. I purposely made the article mostly quotes so the sense of it could not be easily wrecked by editors clueless about the field.

Second, Sadi is making an unjustified personal attack.

I admire John Tooby and Leda Cosmides for their hugely successful work in establishing EP but I don't talk to them weekly or consider them good friends. Not that Sadi is making a slur against me, they are highly respected academics, far above my station and I would be delighted to have such status.

It is, however, a lie being used as an attack. I believe it is unsupportable from anything I have written. (If not, please cite.)

I have talked a few times with Dr. Cosmides over the phone, exchanges a half dozen emails over the last 5 years, have never met her in person, have never talked to Dr. Tooby on the phone or in email and met him in person last week for the first and only time at a conference where we did briefly discuss capture-bonding.

This is not the first time Sadi has made unsupportable attacks against me; he has previously accused me (on this page) of using a sock puppet.

Abnormal psychology and John Money's views are simply not compatible with an evolutionary psychology view. The evolved psychological mechanism is a completely sensible, normal part of our mental equipment. Whatever Money meant by a capture bond was not related to any EP explanation since Money's entire life was devoted (disastrously) toward trying to prove the human "blank state."

What Sadi is doing may be correct in some Wikipedia sense, but he makes a useless hash of the sense of the article in an evolutionary psychology context. It is like someone shoving astrology to a planetary science article. Ask yourself if such an article improves the reputation of Wikipedia. Keith Henson 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith, I hardly think that the version to which you keep reverting "improves the reputation of Wikipedia". Far worse, your actions are such as to prevent anyone from improving this article. The "alternative" version isn't wonderful either, but I am not going to reward your disruptive behaviour by protecting that version. Both you and Sadi have now said that you would prefer the article to be deleted rather than have the other version! I would suggest a request at the Mediation Cabal before things get even worse. Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added astrology and planetary science to the article? I must have missed that one? I agree the current article is in need of work, but at least someone is trying to clean and improve it. Anyway, you keep talking about the theories that John Tooby and Leda Cosmides have on capture bonding, even though they have never published. At Wikipedia, we require published verifiable sources, not word of mouth. I have a copy of their 1992 book and there is no capture bonding theory in it. Please either bring verifiable sources to this discussion, other than personal conversation foot-notes from your article, or let's move on. --Sadi Carnot 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Sadi's statement above, "I added astrology and planetary science to the article?"

Henson's statement, "It is like someone shoving astrology to a planetary science article."

Are you familliar with the concept of analogy? I can't believe this level of misunderstanding is typical of Wikipedia editors. If it is, it bodes poorly for the future and not just Wikipedia. Keith Henson 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be clear for you as a native English speaker, but not necesarily for non-native speakers.

Variation of capture bonding used in business

From the 2006 book the Challenge of Affluence by Avner Offer, page 94, we find that “bonding for sales purposes is known as relationship selling" and that “A year long participant-observer of a Xerox sales office in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1990s describes how intensely corporations rely on bonding to capture and hold their business customers.” Again, Henson should we make a separate Wikipedia page for capture-bonding (business)? --Sadi Carnot 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in my non-specialist opinion, many modern management techniques make use of capture-bonding! But then my views on the evolutionary basis seem to be different from other authors'.... Physchim62 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, could you describe what Xerox sales or management techniques have in common with what the SLA did to Patty Hearst to induce capture-bonding? (". . . blindfolded, imprisoned in a narrow closet, and physically and sexually abused.") To the best of my knowledge there are none, but I have not been a customer of Xerox for a long time. Keith Henson 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually! Both depend on controlling the social interactions of the individual concerned. Only an explanation of this type will explain all of the phenomena which people try to associate with "capture-bonding". Physchim62 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being as strange as Sadi to have such an odd take on human psychology. Would you also make a claim that a massage is the same social interactions as beating someone to a pulp with a baseball bat? After all, "only an explanation of this type will explain all of the phenomena which people try to associate with" physical contact. Keith Henson 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that, although the theory of capture bonding has it's origins in trying to explain the strange attachment behaviors of kidnapped people at a 1973 Stockholm bank robbery, it has since branched off into other areas of application. Hence, for example, Xerox may use a sort of “reverse capture bonding” technique, i.e. sales people are taught to first "bond" with a customer, then to "capture" their buy or capture them into a purchase that they can’t get out of. Do we agree that this a reasonable reference that we can put in the article? --Sadi Carnot 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Keith Henson 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Hi, I'm proposing this page should be merged with Stockholm syndrome. They seem to describe the same topic (if from somewhat different perspectives). This article even says, "This behavior came to be called Stockholm syndrome". And the Stockholm syndrome article links back to this one as "an interpretation of the syndrome from the perspective of evolutionary psychology." Thoughts? --Gpollock 19:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this contentious discussion, I second the idea of a merge with Stockholm Syndrome. The article on Stockholm syndrome is in very bad shape and would benefit from moving this information into it. Furthermore, a merge might help to address some of the conflicts that have been troubling people here, since the Stockholm Syndrome page could allow the rival explanations of Evolutionary Psychology, and those of Dr. Moody to be explained on the same page, along perhaps with any other (Freudian?) historically or presently influential explanations for this sort of bonding. So, by merging, Wikipedia could both improve a lousy article on Stockholm syndrome, and resolve some of the dissension here about what types of explanations can fit into the article, by moving capture-bonding to an article that permits the expression of a greater number of viewpoints. ThaddeusFrye 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject though I disagree. If you want to improve SS just rewrite it. This article started as a section in the Stockholm syndrome article where the concept was immediately conflated to the point it was lost. The same thing has happened last spring by incorporating John Money concepts into an article that should be from an EP viewpoint since Money never used capture-bonding in an EP context. Indeed, Money was of the blank state view to the point he thought he could make a girl out of a boy! Incidentally, greater numbers of viewpoints don't always make for a clear article. Keith Henson 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

"If this is correct, then the psychological traits behind capture-bonding should be expected to be nearly universal."

If this is original research then 1+2=3 is original. This is just the expected consequence of evolution. Keith Henson 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's one opinion. —Tamfang 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of an example where a highly selected trait didn't become more common? Keith Henson 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not it's true, in my fallible judgement or yours, but whether or not it is recognized as true by the scientific community. —Tamfang 04:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to consult WP:SYN. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Selection article: "When selection is intense and persistent, adaptive traits become universal to the population or species . . ." This quote could replace the above wording; it's the same thing as far as I am concerned. If it's not legit to use it here, then it should be taken out in the Selection article. Keith Henson 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

More. Googling for "adaptive traits become universal" locates:

"In this way the genes for more adaptive traits come to outnumber the genes for less adaptive ones until the more adaptive traits become universal." in a chapter by Ruth Hubbard (Professor of Biology at Harvard) "The political nature of "Human Nature." in _Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference_ (1992) Yale University Press By Deborah L. Rhode " . . . the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law and ... She is past editor of Social Psychology Quarterly . . . "

There are similar statements about evolution in any scientifically acceptable biology textbook. This is not my "fallible judgement." It amazes me that is this obvious consequence of evolution is not considered common knowledge even outside the scientific community Keith Henson 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Capture-bonding as an EP subject is an entirely different concept from John Money's "love maps," and "capture bond"

Unless there is objection, I intend to split the two within the article and may split out the Money concepts into a different article. Keith Henson 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing flags

The tone flag was put on the article by Mattisse who seems to object to "particularly our female ancestors".

I don't see this as being objectionable since darn few males are abducted in raids on other groups (present day and presumably in the past). The assumption is that virtually all of them were killed rather than being abducted. If someone wants to suggest other ways to put this that is still true and less objectionable to Mattisse, please make a suggestion. Otherwise I intend to remove this flag and probably the other ones in a few days, original research because it isn't original (I wish it was) and the dispute flag because the material objected to has been split out into another article. Keith Henson 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

If some other editor wants to clean the duplicated material out, please do. This is also a glitch that got in that makes it look like I wrote an article with a title about capture-bonding theory. Never wrote such an article as you can see if you follow the link on the last reference Keith Henson 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The few people who might wonder what happened might want to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgi_Gladyshev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Human_chemistry

I might do some additional clean up on this article over the next few days if someone else doesn't do it first. Keith Henson 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

"There are strong biological reasons to expect that war and abductions (capture) were typical of human pre history at least back to the time our ancestors escaped predation (at least to the taming of fire and perhaps as far back as chipped rocks).[citation needed]"

Published in Anthropological Quarterly, 73.2 (2000), 74-88. THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING Azar Gat Part II: Proximate, Subordinate, and Derivative Causes

(Page 16)

The hunter-gatherer way of life, while, of course, also evolving a great deal over the genus Homo's two million year history, covers 99.5 percent of that history, and more than 90 percent of the history of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. It represents at least 70 percent of the history of anatomically fully-modern Homo sapiens sapiens, depending on the particular timing of the adoption of agriculture by each group of our species, a development which in some of them, of course, never happened. For agriculture is a recent cultural invention, starting in the most pioneering groups of our species only some 10,000 years ago, and having little effect on human biology. Thus, in the light of modern scientific understanding, to speak in a meaningful manner about the human state of nature is to address human adaptations to the human natural habitats, which are responsible for the human biological inheritance. Our concept, therefore, is the evolutionary human state of nature. Primitive agriculturalists, particularly those who, like hunter-gatherers, live in relatively small and dispersed groups, rely heavily on hunting for subsistence, do not experience arable land shortage as a main somatic stress, and have weak political structures, may exhibit significant continuities with the hunter-gatherer way of life, which in many respects can make them useful for the study of the human state of nature. However, such an extension must be done with discrimination, and the similarity certainly cannot be assumed automatically.

Conflict and fighting in the human state of nature, as in the state of nature in general, was fundamentally caused by competition. While violence is evoked, and suppressed, by powerful emotional stimuli (that, like other stimuli, can sometimes take over), it is not a primary, 'irresistible' drive; it is a highly tuned, both innate and optional, evolution-shaped tactic, turned on and off in response to changes in the calculus of survival and reproduction. It can be activated by competition over scarce resources; what resources were scarce and were the cause of resource stress in any particular society varied, but mostly it had to do with highly nutritious meat. At any rate, scarcity and competition are the norm in nature because of organisms' tendency to propagate rapidly when resources are abundant. Deadly violence is also regularly activated in competition over women. Although human males are less polygynous than those of some other species, they still compete over the quality and number of women that they can have. Abduction of women, rape, accusations of adultery, and broken promises of marriage are widespread direct causes of reproductive conflict, while resource competition in order to . . .

On line at http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1a.pdf

This is copyrighted material and while it is probably a fair use quote, I don't want to insert it in the article.

I am reluctant to touch the article at the moment, so if someone examines this cite vs the sentence needing a citation and decides it is a fair supporting cite they could insert this cite and I would appreciate it. If you don't think it's good enough, let me know and I will try to find another. Keith Henson 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged

I completed the merge of the material from capture bond and redirected it per its AfD. I placed the material from Keith Henson under "Evolutionary psychology" in a section called "Origins" with the following tags:

• Original research: because the material is solely authored by the editor who added it without support from sources meeting the reliable source criteria;
• Speculation: because the material tries to argue its point in the absence of reliable sources, and does not appear to be supported by any mainstream researchers, established theories, or ongoing research;
• Unreliable: because all of the sources are based on self-published sources and work in the Human Nature Review which is neither listed in Index Medicus or peer-reviewed. I can not tell whether it has any established editorial review process or any reputation for accuracy as required by the reliable source criteria.

I invite other editors to further improve the article. I am not interested in working on this topic any further, but I will watchlist the pertinent pages. Publicola 06:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tags pending determination of whether or not Human Nature Review meets the reliable source criteria. I have inquired at WP:RSN#Human Nature Review and on Keith's talk page. Publicola 07:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree

And will delete any material I contributed.

You might want to rename the article "capture bond" to avoid confusion with the term for the evolved psychological mechanism which is widely discussed elsewhere. The remaining material is essentially that Sadi introduced. Keith Henson 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I am very confused. First, it turns out that for technical reasons only an administrator can rename the article to "capture bond" (apparently because it has had more than just the redirect leading here in its history.)

Now, I don't understand how "capture bond" is not just the noun describing what is formed by "capture bonding" -- what is the difference here? The abnormal psych term is related to Stockholm syndrome, and so is the discussion of evolutionary psychology. I am no expert in these fields.

And you removed all of that discussion, not just the part that hinges on whether Human Nature Review meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. I do not know whether you remove the undisputed section by mistake, but I'll restore that and I have no problem restoring the rest if the people on the reliable source noticeboard think it's okay. Publicola 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Capture bond" as Sadi stuffed into the article is unrelated to "capture-bonding" as an evolved psychological mechanism to socially reorient to people who have captured you. Sadi's "capture bond" is pre evolutionary psychology and by that standard, nonsense. It's an unfortunate and obscure name collision.

It may sound like a fine point, but it's not. EP and pre EP views of psychology are radically different. They are so different that they don't belong in the same article; it's like an article that gave similar weight to planetary science and astrology. There is nothing wrong with articles on each subject but not combined.

You don't have to be an expert to appreciate this, but you should be somewhat up on the field. Read [1] and Standard_social_science_model to get a hint of how much ink has been spilled over this issue.

The EP capture-bonding mechanism is not abnormal, nor is it animal psychology. I don't have an objection to these topics, but they just confuse an evolutionary psychology article.

I am really tired of trying to explain this. It would be less trouble to just leave it out and let people who want to know about capture-bonding look it up some of the thousands of references on Google. Keith Henson 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what's left in the section on evolutionary psychology must be removed under WP:SYN (did it). As for the rest of the article, those references were put in by Sadi. Unless you have *personally* checked them in the original, don't count on them saying what is implied by their reference. Check with Jehochman about this.

Even though I claim Dr. John Tooby coined the term capture-bonding, virtually all instances that show up on Google can be traced to me. It is probably best to just boot the whole thing from Wikipedia until someone can pull out Dr. Tooby's unpublished papers on capture-bonding and get them published in a qualifing journal. Keith Henson 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was the remainder a synthesis? I was able to verify the last reference, and it looked fine. Publicola 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Policy shortcut: WP:SYN

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The words "capture-bonding" do not appear in these references. I originally cited these references to support the case for there being forces to select an evolved psychological mechanism that would account for such observed phenomena as Stockholm syndrome, battered wife, hazing, army basic training, even BDSM sex. But as I have learned more about Wikipedia rules, I realize this is original research (or more like an original realization) and therefore not permitted even if I don't claim to be the originator (and I don't).

If you put "capture-bonding" -Wikipedia in Google and follow a dozen or two dozen links, you will find there is a well established meaning for the term. But it is established in a way that is not acceptable here. [[2]]

Wikipedia rules

There seems to me to be a problem with the Wikipedia rules.

If a person has no knowledge about a subject, then what are they doing making substantive edits to an article about it?

If they *do* have a lot of knowledge about something, then they get jumped on for original research or WP:COI for having publications on the subject. The exception being articles nobody cares about.

I could, for example, write an excellent article about non-linear function modules, a largely abandoned segment of electronics engineering. But if I did, I would be attacked because I have a patent in the area (never mind that it ran out more than a decade ago). On the other hand, the article might be accepted just because so few people care about the subject.

I don't have a solution. There are no policies I can find such as WP:Sensible. There is WP:Useful, but it is specifically overruled by WP:NOR. Instead you have social status games such as the ongoing bickering over Sadi Carnot's sabotage. If there were WP:Vetted by expert I might be able to get an article on capture-bonding vetted by one or more of the highly regarded evolutionary psychology researchers. There must be a dozen of them who were around when John Tooby was expounding on capture-bonding at Harvard back in the early 80s.

Then again, perhaps not. Wikipedia isn't high on their list of concerns. Keith Henson 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Experts are most certainly welcome to edit in their own fields, so long as they aren't trying to promote themselves. You seem to understand that it's not a good idea to cite your own work when editing Wikipedia. You can cite other experts. Within my own field, I publish papers, but when I worked on search engine optimization , none of the cites I added include my work. If you think one of your papers would be a good source, make a recommendation on the article talk page, and let somebody add it. If nobody sees your comment, you can go to the conflict of interest noticeboard to get attention. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything I do on Wikipedia isn't going to make a significant difference even if I did feel a need to promote myself. Capture-bonding is a weird corner case. My discussion about capture-bonding was only used as an example in 'Sex, Drugs and Cults." It was 637 words out of a 6700 word article. And, it's not my work! All I did was write about it. I have never run a survey, created a model or did anything related. And I acknowledged a real researcher in that article.

"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."

As far as I know, "Sex, Drugs and Cults" is still the only publication that has mentioned this corner of evolutionary psychology. So if you want any cites at all, this is it. Keith Henson 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the opinion on WP:RSN#Human_Nature_Review suggests that HNR is reliable I re-added the questioned material. I'm also not comfortable having it out of plain sight as the arbitration case is opening. Publicola 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What arbitration case? The only one I know about is over Sadi Carnot. What he did here isn't even a notable example and however that arbitration goes it isn't going to change anything in this article. I would really appreciate your taking the EP section out. Mixed in with unrelated abnormal and animal psychology it's not a useful presentation of a simple concept from evolutionary psychology. (Perhaps I shouldn't say simple because so few people understand basic evolutionary psychology.) Keith Henson 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could identify the relevant WikiProjects and ask for other editors to comment on this article. It is a good idea to get a variety of qualified people interested in working on the article. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts to provide a mechanism for experts to legitimately write about and cite their own works. Perhaps with a process like this, we will have fewer repetitions of this unfortunate incident. - Jehochman ^Boo! 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Will comment there. Keith Henson 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is, if the meaning of the terms in evolutionary and abnormal psychology is so "radically different," then what is the problem with the current structure of the article where they are both described in separate sections? If there are nuances, they should be added to the article instead of removing valid information to segregate. When I read the above, "'Capture bond'... is unrelated to 'capture-bonding' as an evolved psychological mechanism to socially reorient to people who have captured you.... 'capture bond' is pre evolutionary psychology and by that standard, nonsense." I wonder: is there a source that supports the idea that the abnormal psychology and its description of capture bonds in the context of Stockholm syndrome is nonsense? If so, then the nonsense should be removed, not the superior EP description. It seems that since both purport to describe the mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome, they are tied at the root. I hope an expert in the field can take a critical look at this and sort it out. Publicola 18:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re "radically different." Someone trying to understand the concept is going to come to this article and read that it is about abnormal psychology. That is simply not true for capture-bonding as an EP term. The evolved brain mechanisms we have for this trait are completely normal. Would you be annoyed by an article that said walking or talking was abnormal?

As for "describe the mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome," nothing previous to this application of evolutionary psychology proposed why humans came to have it or even a rough idea of how it works. The EP explanation still doesn't go into the chemical level details (which probably involves a witches brew of neurochemicals). What it does is propose that *whatever* brain mechanisms are behind this effect, the mechanisms makes sense in evolutionary terms.

Re Animal psychology, capture-bonding has no really close cognates in the animal kingdom, not even in chimps.

As far as "an expert in the field," see the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts Keith Henson 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

As far as I can tell Sexual Paradox: Complementarity, Reproductive Conflict and Human Emergence By Chris King, Christine Fielder is a self published book by the vanity press Lulu.com. As such, it can't be used as a scholarly source. futurebird (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked this book up and it doesn't seem to use the term. If some reference is still in the article, it's a left over from Sadi Carnot. Please point out where or just remove it. Thanks, Keith Henson (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The novel by Linda McJunkins is also self-published. Since the article is at AfD it might be better to mention that the article is relying on some self-published sources, rather than removing them while the AfD is ongoing. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that self published books should not be used as a source, but I think they and the web can be mentioned as places where the term is being used. Google turns up about 3000 uses of the term that do not include mention of my name (and 343 that do). I have not looked at more than a sample of them, but in the sample, most people were using the term correctly (in the evolutionary psychology sense). Keith Henson (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on McJunkins. I don't see the need to mention self-published works at all. Since the article claims that "capture bonding" is a term in evolutionary psychology, the appropriate place to search for its use is in peer-reviewed literature. A search on Google Scholar for "'capture bonding'" psychology turns up 3 results that use "capture bonding", two of which are by Keith Henson (only one is peer reviewed, and that's in the high-quality journal Mankind Quarterly); the third result is [3], and it's clear that this article isn't using "capture bonding" as a term--the quote is "We focus on a set of constructs—team cohesion; team efficacy and group potency; affect, mood, and emotion; and team conflict—that capture bonding to the team and its task; ..." In this quote, "capture" is used as a verb, "bonding" a gerund, rather than the noun + gerund compound that's the subject of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh man that's awful English. I suspect this was a typo and they meant "bond." Keith Henson (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)