Stockholm Syndrome......could this be a factor?

[tryingmybest]

I feel your pain Happy, and I agree at this point of your life you need to take care of you.

[Keys Girl]

more loyal to something that is difficult, uncomfortable and even humiliating.

I loved my son with my heart and soul and never once gave up on him.  He was a drunken mess.  I was the only one that cared.  She wasn't there!!  In all the moments of unhappiness for him, I was there.  His father was a drunk, too.  Promising him the moon and the stars to only beat the poor kid in a drunken rage.  I got him away from all that.  And now, I am the bad one and the bio-dad is great!  Idontneedit.Hurtstoomuchtogoback!! 
   
Shame on them all!  But if the junk hits the fan and she has had enough he better never stop foot on my property.  I have disowned him and will call the police.  (He can go live with HER mom. 

Al Anon can help, they understand that just because other people have scapegoated you to be the "bad" one, doesn't make it so.  My son had that type of experience with his bio-dad and is still seeking his approval (and probably will till his grave, he's just as stubborn as his dad).  I suspect that my son indirectly blames me for the cruelty his father subjected him to. 

Whatever, he's into his 30's and I'm getting older and I'm not letting him or his father (indirectly via my son) negatively impact my health and life any longer. 

Recently someone told me "Do you know how you got to where you are today from where you came from?", his answer was "Your attitude".  I wouldn't waste a minute reading any more nonsense written by others.  They aren't writing the script of your life, you are.  There may have been chapters that weren't "written" the way you expected but how they are written going forward is only up to you.  The good people of Al Anon can help you ease some of the pain, they have been there too, as I have.




 

[forever spring]

Never heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, why Stockholm because the winter is so long there?

The post by Happy was truly heartbreaking. I do feel for you.  hope that you can walk away from this damaging situation and realise that you have done your utmost for your son. It must be galling to think that you have primed him to be able to have a relationship with someone so hostile against you. We have to accept our fate, however cruel it seems to be. We must have hope in the future and pray that our Grandchildren will discover us and then we will be victorious!

(While FB can be a good happy meeting place, it also has its downside because we get to know what people say about ourselves that in the past we did not. I chose my friends carefully and would never have a member of my immediate family.)

I do agree with Louise, that it is important to for us keep our dignity intact even in the face of failure, and that is entirely up to each of us individually. The problem is while we perceive ourselves as acting dignified; other people take this as an opportunity 'to walk right over us'.

Each day I write down one thing which has been particularly joyful. It can be small, it may be totally earth-shaking. When I'm down, I read about all the things that have been happening to me which were good and I'm grateful for them. 

[Pooh]

HappyDays, you have the right attitude.  It is painful and uncalled for that we get put in that mode, but it is necessary for our own well-being.  I look at my OS as I would look at a friend in my life.  Would I accept the same behavior from a friend?  No, so just because he is my son, I will not accept the behavior from him.  It's his choice how he is behaving, and it is my choice on how to react to his behavior.  I choose living.

[forever spring]

Just had a look on Wikipedia for Stockholm Syndrome, amazing phenomenon but I know that I displayed some of these behavior patterns myself - mind you in a very weak form but nevertheless. The urge to please regardless of how I was treated falls into this category I think.
We live and learn.

[justus]

Actually, DH, Mr. Psychologist calls the Stockholm Syndrome BS. I will ask him again tonight because it has been a while since we talked about it so my memory my not be accurate. Essentially, there isn't any research to back it up its existence. It is just a phrase coined to try to explain why hostages sympathize with their captors, specifically a captive situation in Stockholm in which the captives tried to intervene on their captor's behalf. And it was thrown around a lot when that heiress was kidnapped in the 60s(?) and became part of the captor's movement. Patty Hearse, that was her name.

There is, however research about loyalty and attachment. The harder we have to work at something the more attached we are to it. This is why hazing was allowed for so long. If you go willingly through horrible humiliation in order to be a member of something it must be something amazing and totally worth it, right? People who experience hazing or are forced to jump through impossible hoops to become a member are more loyal to an institution than those who do not. And this works for relationships, too. Someone who has been married for 15 years and has children with their spouse is less likely to leave when cheated on than those who have been together a relatively short time or have no children with the spouse.

I will try to find the research if anyone is interested.

[holliberri]

I think that while Stockholm Syndome may not be an appropriate term for someone who willingly commits to a marriage and makes some investment at first, it is probably very accurate in describing situations where someone has no choice but to commit to survival. After all, decisions often don't really count once we made them, it's the commitment after the fact that mostly determines whether a decision is good or bad. I think there are a lot of people out there that are very committed to having a successful marriage, and thus they will put up with controlling behavior. Then, on the extreme end, are spouses afraid to leave because they fear they will be killed or injured; I believe Stockholm Syndrome describes their level of commitment to those that abuse them, because these people have gone into survival mode. 

I can think of two women held captive for a few decades in Vienna, Austria, who regarded their captors, despite the despicable things their captors had done, with love and affection, and were even defensive of the assault and violence they received. The only way they would have survived any situation like that is to reconcile what was happening to them and side with their captors. I think it is pretty ill conceived that they would have survived otherwise. Jaycee Dugard also comes to mind; her own personal diary, kept hidden from her captor says that she would never, ever leave him, and she wishes he would understand that; she developed an attachment simply b/c she had no other choice. Considering what she went through, it took a lot of real changes in her to start identifying with him and not the outside world.

Psychology is a soft science, and while I'm no Psychologist myself, I think that there is probably much debate about this subject. It's probably a 50/50 thing, much like Global Warming among scientists or stock price predictions among Economic experts.

[overwhelmed123]

Would I accept the same behavior from a friend?  No, so just because he is my son, I will not accept the behavior from him.  It's his choice how he is behaving, and it is my choice on how to react to his behavior.  I choose living.

One of the many reasons I love you, Pooh!!!

And holli, I agree with you- there's debate in psychology just as there is debate about everything else.  It's subject to opinion.  One psychologist might think it's BS and the other might be completely convinced because of their personal experience with clients.  It's all based on interpretation.  Personally, I think Stockholm Syndrome makes too much sense to be made up.  But again...just opinion here.

[justus]

A. Psychology is not a "soft" science. DH is a cognitive psychologist. He studies the brain. He can tell you more about the brain than any medical doctor. The science he does is hard. I have a Biology minor and I can tell that the biology studies I read were less stringent than the psychology studies because psychology does not want to be considered "soft" science. Their criteria for publication is very much more stringent that for biology. I was embarrassed at the studies I read. As an undergrad, the studies I did in psychology were more complex.

B. Your assertion that the Stockholm Syndrome is real despite the many studies that show it to be false is exactly why Psychology is considered to be "soft." These sorts of things get press, and become "real" before the science can get caught up and so become entrenched in the way we thing about things and accepted as "truth" despite the very good science that proves it to be false. For instance, learning styles is a false construct. People have a tendency to learn in preferred ways, however, it is better to teach them in different ways so they become able to learn in multiple ways, because the real world doesn't draw someone a picture because their learning style is visual, or so the rigorous research has proven, however, learning styles has become entrenched and people believe it, so they are resistant to the idea that it is BS and harmful to teach to someone's "learning style."

Another bit of "soft" science for you, it has been proven in study after study that children who have graduated from the DARE program are more likely to do drugs, yet any suggestion to drop the program is met with anger and hostility. The DARE program is harmful to our kids, yet we insist on keeping it despite many other programs that have been proven effective. Why? Because psychology is a "soft" science and easily dismissed.

I suggest you educate yourself before making such judgements.

[holliberri]

I see then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I never said I was a doctor. Maybe I failed to mention that my B.S. is in Psychology. So, I do believe I did educate myself.  Still working on it actually. I've been in school for 27 years, thanks; and I plan to be pursuing a couple more degrees after this. So, thanks, I do plan on continuing to educate myself. Maybe I'll have to pick a more prestigious school or a more expensive education before my education meets your standards, but I'm just some young mother, with a full time job and a full time school schedule, trying to make ends meet while educating myself with my own out of pocket money, so I apologize if I am never able to achieve what clearly are very high expectations for an education. 

Most of my professors, with doctorates in Psychology, referred to their own study as "soft" meaning malleable and changing, and although observed, not always able to be graphed quantitatively. I didn't say "pseudo." There's a big difference between those two words.

I'm looking at a few peer reviewed articles that discuss actual positive correlations between the level of "friendly" encounters a hostage has with their captor and the feelings of attachment one has towards their captor. It also seems that there is evidence that the more "in control" a hostage perceives the captor to be, the more likely they are to garner feelings of attachment. I could research this further, but I'd rather write my term paper, on the PSYCHOLOGICAL impact bureaucracy has on a group of subordinates. Gotta keep getting edumacated.   I

[holliberri]

I will also add that I spent 1 year in law school, so if it is one thing I know how to research, it's evidence. I'm quite adept at authenticating and verifying sources.

So I'm not reading fluff.

[justus]

Well, then, maybe you should actually do the research before stating an opinion. When you get to grad school, you will learn that this is necessary. I notice you don't mention those articles are about the Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe they are about cognitive dissonance instead. Frankly I hope that whatever "edumacation" you get is much better than you have demonstrated. "Soft" science indeed. Obviously you have not taken Experimental, or Physiological, or Learning and Memory, or Stats yet. You need better Profs. who appreciate the rigorous requirements for publication even in secondary journals. Reproducibility is necessary for publications in journals that are not even close to primary. Cognitive Psychologists are the scientists of this profession and they are not "soft" about their research. The people who practice it may be "soft" and not current with the research, but the scientists and what they publish are not "soft". As I said, they are more rigorous than many of the biology research because of this erroneous attitude that psychology is "soft." They are very careful about what they claim and how they interpret it. I have taken experimental in both biology and psychology and I learned much more about experimental design and the scientific approach from the psychology class than I did the biology class. There were actually written standards for the psychology research I did rather than general approbation or disapproval in the biology class. If you label psychology "soft" then you must also consider that the rest of science must be "soft." Seriously, after reading psychology research and biology research in comparable journals, i was embarrassed by the lack of standards in the biology research.

[holliberri]

See...you stated your opinion on Stockholm Syndrome without citing any references, so I kept it at that level. I wasn't willing to up the ante.

I'm also a year into my grad school program, with a 4.0....and I guess 2 years in if you count my law credits.

Now, yes, I certainly did state an opinion as did you. That is what this site is...none of us are experts here.  I've taken ALL of those classes you've mentioned, and actually have an A.S. in Actuarial Science, so I'm quite familiar with Stats.

Go on, keep nullifying the hard work I've put towards my education. It is perfectly okay to disagree with one another without making it personal. To be honest, I'm not even sure if I disagree with you. All I said was there is evidence out there to support both theories, and one simple database search has proven that for me.

I didn't make it personal when I said psychology was soft. There are many women on this site with no college degree, and I hold them in higher esteem than I do some of the Ivy League grads I know. Education isn't everything, and it isn't always necessary.

[luise.volta]

Whoa, Justus! We can write without being unkind, condescending or pompus. No "shoulds," please. When in doubt use "I statements"...they seldome sting like "you statements can."

My Web-site...my call.

[overwhelmed123]

Didn't realize we were in the presence of such an esteemed, superior being.  My bad.