Do you know what it really is, its usage, whether it's legit or not? Or do you use it as shorthand for "captive and/or abused character starts to be nice to the captor/ abuser"? Asking because when phrases like these have different meanings to different people they think differently about stories containing that tag. So if someone knows the reality of it they'll likely ignore the tag and someone who only learned it from fandom will think it's some kind of evil psychological manipulation thing. Hope I'm clear.
It’s an actual psychological phenomenon. It’s named that because there was a bank robbery in Sweden and people were held hostage for 6 days, and at the end, the hostages developed genuine affection for their kidnappers.
It’s an actual psychological phenomenon. It’s named that because there was a bank robbery in Sweden and people were held hostage for 6 days, and at the end, the hostages developed genuine affection for thei... Pesky33
They refused to testify against them because they saw the situation from the robber’s side
Imo I don't think stockholm syndrome is bad. A captive saw the reason why the captor did what he did and sympathize with it. It's basically just social awareness
The one thing that made it look bad is because its usually written as a trope where the captor is extremely abusive and they made the captive like them despite that.
Nobody knows what happen in the real stockholm incident, cause they don't wanna testify. But media just sticked the to captor(bad) manipulated the captive(victim) idea, cause it's more interesting that way.
It was debunked by the psychology/psychiatry community years ago, and it doesn't exist in the DSM (a manual book for diagnosing diseases by doctors).
It exists as a trope explored in media, but you can't go to a serious doctor and be diagnosed with it or find a recent scientific article that proves it, as there isn't enough data and research on this to be an actual syndrome.
Nowadays, doctors prefer to call it a trauma response of fawning as self-preservation/survival.
Most avoid using this term because it was created to discredit and re-victimise the people involved in that episode in Stockholm, and see the term as sexist against the female victim for blaming her for "falling in love" with a violent man (who never actually spoke to her).
It was debunked by the psychology/psychiatry community years ago, and it doesn't exist in the DSM (a manual book for diagnosing diseases by doctors).It exists as a trope explored in media, but you can't go to a... waepjm
You're correct. It's seen more as a copaganda thing among those who know, and it's like many other pop psychology pseudoscience things floating around in fiction spaces. We've seen even in recent times how captors did treat their abductees humanely, and freed captives speaking positively about them got mass media and bad faith actors saying they're suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Just because a fiction writer uses the trope of captive falling for captor doesn't mean it's a legitimate phenomenon, we have to remember that writers make up plenty of things for entertainment. Like A/B/O hierarchy doesn't exist among wild woves either. It also doesn't mean that every media tagged with such tropes actually contains what the trope "is supposed to be" according to readers, there's often actual heart-to-heart communication and character redemption arc etc. But overall, you're exactly right that this thing is simply not real.
You're correct. It's seen more as a copaganda thing among those who know, and it's like many other pop psychology pseudoscience things floating around in fiction spaces. We've seen even in recent times how capt... nymphaea7
Exactly, as much as I understand it as a writing/narrative device to justify "happy endings" in dark romance, I also dislike that it spreads misinformation and how the readers will perceive real life situations through romantic lenses.
It is damaging for real victims to be judged socially or by the media for sympathising or empathising with someone who kidnapped them. As long as people can keep those separated I think most people read it as falling in love with someone violent that you should leave (although it ticks me that it is being labelled wrongly, like in Roses and Champagne that is actually an abusive relationship with a honeymoon/violence cycle rather than "Stockholm Syndrome").
With omegaverses, I am less inclined to complain because it is an alternative universe in a way with its own rules and don't have a direct impact on how people perceive real life events.
Do you know what it really is, its usage, whether it's legit or not? Or do you use it as shorthand for "captive and/or abused character starts to be nice to the captor/ abuser"?
Asking because when phrases like these have different meanings to different people they think differently about stories containing that tag. So if someone knows the reality of it they'll likely ignore the tag and someone who only learned it from fandom will think it's some kind of evil psychological manipulation thing. Hope I'm clear.
It’s an actual psychological phenomenon. It’s named that because there was a bank robbery in Sweden and people were held hostage for 6 days, and at the end, the hostages developed genuine affection for their kidnappers.
They refused to testify against them because they saw the situation from the robber’s side
Imo I don't think stockholm syndrome is bad. A captive saw the reason why the captor did what he did and sympathize with it. It's basically just social awareness
The one thing that made it look bad is because its usually written as a trope where the captor is extremely abusive and they made the captive like them despite that.
Nobody knows what happen in the real stockholm incident, cause they don't wanna testify. But media just sticked the to captor(bad) manipulated the captive(victim) idea, cause it's more interesting that way.
It was debunked by the psychology/psychiatry community years ago, and it doesn't exist in the DSM (a manual book for diagnosing diseases by doctors).
It exists as a trope explored in media, but you can't go to a serious doctor and be diagnosed with it or find a recent scientific article that proves it, as there isn't enough data and research on this to be an actual syndrome.
Nowadays, doctors prefer to call it a trauma response of fawning as self-preservation/survival.
Most avoid using this term because it was created to discredit and re-victimise the people involved in that episode in Stockholm, and see the term as sexist against the female victim for blaming her for "falling in love" with a violent man (who never actually spoke to her).
You're correct. It's seen more as a copaganda thing among those who know, and it's like many other pop psychology pseudoscience things floating around in fiction spaces. We've seen even in recent times how captors did treat their abductees humanely, and freed captives speaking positively about them got mass media and bad faith actors saying they're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Just because a fiction writer uses the trope of captive falling for captor doesn't mean it's a legitimate phenomenon, we have to remember that writers make up plenty of things for entertainment. Like A/B/O hierarchy doesn't exist among wild woves either. It also doesn't mean that every media tagged with such tropes actually contains what the trope "is supposed to be" according to readers, there's often actual heart-to-heart communication and character redemption arc etc. But overall, you're exactly right that this thing is simply not real.
Exactly, as much as I understand it as a writing/narrative device to justify "happy endings" in dark romance, I also dislike that it spreads misinformation and how the readers will perceive real life situations through romantic lenses.
It is damaging for real victims to be judged socially or by the media for sympathising or empathising with someone who kidnapped them. As long as people can keep those separated I think most people read it as falling in love with someone violent that you should leave (although it ticks me that it is being labelled wrongly, like in Roses and Champagne that is actually an abusive relationship with a honeymoon/violence cycle rather than "Stockholm Syndrome").
With omegaverses, I am less inclined to complain because it is an alternative universe in a way with its own rules and don't have a direct impact on how people perceive real life events.