Huh? It’s the notion of captives forming a bond with their captors. People are using it to convey that simple psychological concept. It’s “usually” used for that purpose.
I think it appears you’ve missed the point of my response, wherein the existence of “scientific evidence” for Stockholm Syndrome is unimportant; The phrase “Stockholm Syndrome” being a part of vernacular meant to convey the notion of captives forming bonds with their captors is helpful for communication irrespective of the existence or veracity of a psychological diagnosis related to the phrase. The point of their response was defeatism through judgment and their own superiority.
Even in that context, it’s not really a thing. It’s something that happened once and had a name attached to it. That’s it. The rest is pop science garbage.
The concept of Stockholm syndrome accurately describes these “capitalist” workers. Stockholm syndrome passing scientific rigor has no relevancy to this discussion.
Let me phrase it this way. All black people are thieves. < - incorrect statement. Now, if someone says my calculator was stolen, it has to be a black man, we would call that racist. Your argument says it doesn’t matter if all black people are thieves is scientifically proven, just so long as the concept that enough people believe it to be true, we should continue to use the terminology. “It doesn’t have to be right, so long as we all understand what they were trying to say”
Sure that’s fine in a casual conversation sometimes, but when you’re trying to convince the majority of the world they are living most every facit of their life in a way they shouldn’t, it discredits the foundation of your statement.
Huh? It’s the notion of captives forming a bond with their captors. People are using it to convey that simple psychological concept. It’s “usually” used for that purpose.
I think you missed the point of the response and should look into the scientific evidence for Stockholm syndrome.
I think it appears you’ve missed the point of my response, wherein the existence of “scientific evidence” for Stockholm Syndrome is unimportant; The phrase “Stockholm Syndrome” being a part of vernacular meant to convey the notion of captives forming bonds with their captors is helpful for communication irrespective of the existence or veracity of a psychological diagnosis related to the phrase. The point of their response was defeatism through judgment and their own superiority.
Even in that context, it’s not really a thing. It’s something that happened once and had a name attached to it. That’s it. The rest is pop science garbage.
and i was thinking we’d left all the armchair psychiatrists behind in reddit. it was only a matter of time i guess
The concept of Stockholm syndrome accurately describes these “capitalist” workers. Stockholm syndrome passing scientific rigor has no relevancy to this discussion.
You really don’t get it, do you?
Nope, I don’t. Feel free to explain your relevant point at any time.
Let me phrase it this way. All black people are thieves. < - incorrect statement. Now, if someone says my calculator was stolen, it has to be a black man, we would call that racist. Your argument says it doesn’t matter if all black people are thieves is scientifically proven, just so long as the concept that enough people believe it to be true, we should continue to use the terminology. “It doesn’t have to be right, so long as we all understand what they were trying to say”
Sure that’s fine in a casual conversation sometimes, but when you’re trying to convince the majority of the world they are living most every facit of their life in a way they shouldn’t, it discredits the foundation of your statement.
LGTM.
Just grouping symptoms. Not implying the assumption of any cause.
The problem arises when people start considering this one name to be good enough as a diagnosis.