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.
The concept of Stockholm syndrome accurately describes these “capitalist” workers. Stockholm syndrome passing scientific rigor has no relevancy to this discussion.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.