Was that also because of distrusting the police?

So yes, she became engaged to someone who tried to save her life from the police.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome#Stockholm_b...

Uhm, after that "someone" joined a heist and took her hostage in order to steal money? That sounds like a problem, whether theory is shoddy science or not the thing seems real if even you, not victim, fall into that delusion.

People tend to be thankful to someone who makes things better even if that someone creates a horrible situation in the first place. It's a problem in politics especially, because it is more long term. Give people more comfortable life and they praise you even if your bad policies are the reason they famished previously.

If you justify her marrying the guy because he saved her from police, and you completely sideline that he needed to save her from police because he took her hostage during robbery and police came for that criminal, sorry that's just idiotic.

You can justify marrying the person who put you in direct danger of death for whatever irrational things like emotion, sexual attraction whatever, but you must acknowledge that it's highly illogical and quite worthy of a close look, if the original stockholm syndrome study is complete bullshit then someone else should do a better job at describing this bias.

Edit: thankfully, it turns out all that about marrying the hostage taker is false. (The logic in comment I replied to remains stupid though)

Wikipedia states:

"He later got engaged to a woman who was not, despite what some state, one of the former hostages."

I think the whole article can be viewed with a healthy scepticism.

> He (Olsson) later got engaged to a woman who was not, despite what some state, one of the former hostages

that being said the other hostage taker, Olofsson:

> He went on to meet the hostage Kristin Enmark several times, and their families became friends.

https://www.stadafa.com/2020/12/stockholm-syndrome-discredit...

Reportedly the syndrome "occurs in 8% of kidnap victims", by FBI stats. Not sure how they measure that, but seems plausible. Of course when forced to act against your will, you're defiant. Fight or flight. That's what happens most of the time. Except it's not so simple.

There's a fuller description of the strategies known as "Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fawn" (I guess it was super important to to keep the F-s, hehe).

We see the Freeze response in nature, deer stuck in headlights, animals pretending to be dead when attacked, and so on. We can see this response in children with violent parents. They can't run and hide, nor fight. They freeze.

Fawn is basically the "Stockholm syndrome":

- Over-agreement

- Trying to be overly helpful

- Primary concern with making the abuser happy

This 8% figure with kidnapping seems to be low because the "Fawn" adaptation takes time to develop. A kidnapping is sudden and unexpected. No time to adapt. But there are abusive situations when there is plenty of time to adapt.

We can see this in cults, in abusive families, autocratic companies, it's pervasive in fascist regimes, i.e. Jews policing, hating and attacking Jews, etc.

Fawn is the default adaptation when an abuser is abusive over a long period of time, gradually going from non-abusive to abusive, like in an abusive marriage, from honeymoon to everyday scandals. The victims seek to align to an increasingly lopsided point of balance by changing themselves. And over time, it can become absurd.

To wit, the second most prominent supposed case of Stockholm Syndrome was the kidnapping of Patty Hearst, who was supposedly held captive by the SLA terrorists and abused for a protracted period of time before she started helping them rob banks.

Kapos, collaborators or hostages joining the cause of their captors are not a "syndrome" of people "falling in love" or "bonding" with their captors. Patty Hearst was just convinced of the cause of the SLA - and she tried to get out of jail by using that card. She was just neither bright not honest - a spoiled brat jumping on an adventure that turned bad.

I wasn't a bank executive, it was the the social democratic prime minister Olof Palme.

During a phone call he asked one of the hostages: "wouldn′t it be nice to die at your post?"

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/591659

(https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2021/03/the-murder-of-swedish-prim...)

"The psychiatrist who invented it, Nils Bejerot, never spoke to the woman he based it on, never bothered to ask her why she trusted her captors more than the authorities. More to the point, during the Swedish bank heist that inspired the syndrome, Bejerot was the psychiatrist leading the police response. He was the authority that Kristin Enmark – the first woman diagnosed with Stockholm syndrome – distrusted."

"On the radio, Enmark criticized the police, and singled out Bejerot. In response, and without once speaking to her, Bejerot dismissed her comments as the product of a syndrome he made up: ‘Norrmalmstorg syndrome’ (later renamed Stockholm syndrome). The fear Enmark felt towards the police was irrational, Bejerot explained, caused by the emotional or sexual attachment she had with her captors. Bejerot’s snap diagnosis suited the Swedish media; they were suspicious of Enmark, who ‘did not appear as traumatized as she ought to be.’ "

At best,this syndrome was described based on one situation, not scientific research.

This is where an “expert” impugns the intellect or morality of the people who disagree with them instead of trying to understand the very real reasons why.

Knowing that the person who came up with Stockholm Syndrome was the very same person who the hostages sided with the bank robbers against makes it look a lot like drapetomania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania).

Oh well, Stockholm Syndrome is catchier.

Also combine with perhaps a little change in their stomach biome from drinking different water and/or eating different dairy products, making them more easily dehydrated.

With the twist that the bank robbing that gave name to the phrase was made by someone psychotic and the friendly bank robber got called in by the prime minister to negotiate.