User:Hkhenson/Talk:Capture bonding

Stockholm syndrome merge request

I suggest this article not be merged. The people who edit the Stockholm syndrome page objected to an evolutionary psychology explaination, so the capture bonding article would just be deleted if moved there. Keith Henson

Basically you're saying this page is about one theory which tries to explain Stockholm syndrome, so is distinct from a page about the effect itself? Ojw 20:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving it to the Stockhome page would result it in being deleted. If you want to delete the page just do it.

Capture-bonding is not worthy of its own article. It should be a section of the article on Stockholm syndrome. If you want to prove me wrong, add enough information to this article to show it's worth being separate from Stockholm syndrome — right now it's just a big quote (which might even be considered a copyvio). —Keenan Pepper 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capture-bonding as an evolutionary psychology explanation was deleted from the Stockholm syndrome page, or worse was garbled by being mixed with silly Fraudian explanations to the point the point was entirely lost. The long quote is not a copyright voliation because the site it comes from has similar policies to Wikimedia about quoting being ok with them. Hkhenson 03:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed page; see human bonding, a collection of all human bonding varieties. --Sadi Carnot 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

John Money additions

Sadi, I see no justification in bringing in John Money to the capture bonding page or the unrelated material you added. I am going to revert the page. But if you have a pointer to where John Money talked about capture bonding, please let me know. Keith Henson [hkhenson@rogers.com] 13 March 2006 (UTC).

Keith, let me give you further justification. From the (already foot-noted in the capture bond article) 1996 book Love Maps [33-34, 46, 91, 156, 296]:

• [pg. 33-34] Stockholm Syndrome: "For the average person it is an enigma that a wife would stay married for 25 years to a husband whose paraphilic sadism was always injuriously abusive; or that an abducted ten year old boy would pass up many opportunities for escape for this pedophilic abductor and stay with him after witnessing the lust murder of another boy his own age … this is referred to as Stockholm syndrome, defined as the bond that in some instances develops between captor and captive, or terrorist and hostage …The Stockholm syndrome, more broadly defined, may be regarded as applying across the board to all of the paraphilias in which one partner exercises paraphilic power and the other becomes collusionally-bonded to the paraphile as an accomplice.”

• [pg. 46] “…from the 1976 Baltimore pedophilic lust murder, Arthur Goode (Waters, 1984): …at the age of twenty, he abducted a newsboy from a professional family and co-opted him as his boy lover. The child had opportunities to escape, even after he was witness to the lust murder of another boy his own age…it was only after the police were notified, that he could disengage himself from the mysterious bond with his abductor.”

• [pg. 91] “A kidnapped sexual partner who foregoes opportunity for escape remains in a strong bond of attachment to the kidnapper. Until the bond is broken by outside intervention, it persists with all the defiant resistance of the phylism of infatuation and the limerent love affair.”

And others...; if these sorts of applications don't go in this article, I don't see where they would go. Furthermore, I have no idea how you could consider this unrelated material.--Sadi Carnot 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the Stockholm Syndrome page. It would fit right in. Money gives examples here, but if there is no theory as to why humans should have these traits. The capture bonding page only incidently uses examples to propose a particular explaination, that of evolutionary psychology, to account for this strange human trait because--in the races hunter gatherer past--it was an essential tool for genetic survival.

Besides, it would freak Dr. Money out to be mentioned on a page supporting evolutionary psychology. Money is one of those who believed in the most extreme form of the Social Science Standard Model, even to saying that *gender* could be socialized into a child. Evolutonary psychology holds that the SSSM is nonsense. Keith Henson 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith, your point has merit and I’m sure we could go either way on this issue; however, my interest with this page is to bring it into alignment with all of the other pages in Wikipedia that have any variety of a human bonding theory. Money’s theory entails that during early childhood development people develop neurological “maps” as they associate to their surroundings. Resultantly, as adults, those who have experienced abnormal development in youth will have the tendency to “bond” stronger in abnormal situations. Hence, if one was made to feel predisposed towards the “captive” lifestyle in youth by their “captor” surrogates, friends, or parents then later in life he or she will have a greater tendency to sink into the captive-bond.

If, however, you want to place content on both pages, I’m sure that will be fine.

My interest is to maintain content on this page for those interested in finding any related and sourced capture bonding theory, from whoever it may come from. --Sadi Carnot 11:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I see that you are biased in this discussion in that your article, including a theory on capture-bonding, is a large basis of this page. This of course is an action not incouraged by Wikipedia. I read your article, however, and it seems reasonable.

The only flaw in your whole arguement, is that according to evolutionary psychology, from chimps to man, when tribes war the men are killed and the women are incorporated into the winning band. Hence, your meme theory falls short when it comes to boys or men who fall victim to the capture bond tendency?

I will add some of the above content to the capture bond article so that it is better represented. Again, no one branch of study has "rights" to the use of the capture-bond concept.--Sadi Carnot 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This might or might not be true, but capture bonding as understood by evolutionary psychology is unrelated to childhood development. Regardless of the person's history it is an evolved mechanism that is activated when appropriate (capture, fear, pain). I can't find any evidence with Google that Money was associated with "capture-bond" or "capture-bonding." His name is associated with Stockholm syndrome.

I would not propagate Money's theories since I consider them dangerous nonsense. Have you *read* the Wikipedia page on him? What he did to David Reimer trying to mash the poor kid into his "religious-like" SSSM view of the world is absolutely inexcusable. Criminal even.

Which article?

Capture-bonding is not a meme theory, at least not a theory about memes.

I think you are stirring up various postings I have made or you have a copy of my unpublished war paper. Capture-bonding was a rather minor part of the sex drugs and cults article. True, women would have capture-bonding activated when their tribe was defeated since those who didn't bond to their captors would probably be killed.

But that has nothing to do with men or boys having the capture-bonding psychological mechanism "installed." Men don't lactate, so by this measure, they should not have nipples. It takes divergent evolutionary pressures to make the psychological traits in males and females different. Even if men don't lactate, it is less "expensive" in evolutionary terms for them to have nipples. Likewise even if they are always killed on capture, it doesn't cost for men to have the capture-bonding brain mechanism where it was essential for women to have it.

If concepts were not used consistently the Wikipedia would be useless. I am sure you would object to this lovely shade of green being called "pink."

The famous evolutionary psychologist John Tooby figured out capture-bonding about 1980. He considered it so obvious he never published since it is a trivial application of evolutionary psychology. It occurred to Kennita Watson and me about 15 years later. It is unrelated to the kind of childhood neurological "love maps" Money proposes. If you can find support for Money using the term, I would like to see it. If he didn't use it, the term "capture-bonding" should remain in an evolutionary psychology context where it came from. Keith Henson 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please don’t break up discussions. It reduces reading efficiency and retention. We all use the same agreed upon format here at Wikipedia. Second, I get the feeling that you think you have the say-all on this term, i.e. in that you own it in some esoteric way? Third, my contributions are sourced: from what I have added, Money discusses the bonding that occurs between various “captor” / “captive” scenarios. Fourth, working on articles is a joint process; we are not to assume the mindset of the perceptual encyclopedia researcher by supposing that people who are doing research on “capture bonding” are only interested in the evolutionary psychology perspective; they may be interested in an abnormal psychology perspective; they may be solely researching about different types of bonding between humans, etc. Fifth, encyclopedias are not biased towards anyone’s activities in life they simple present the facts as they are. Lastly, you are drawing this conversation out much longer than it needs to be: I have added a reasonable contribution to this page being well-referenced.--Sadi Carnot 02:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

More reverting

• Sources don't matter when the substance is not relative. I see the information to the John Money book and POV relative to introduce reasoning (in different bonding definitions) why individuals become captivated based on 'neurological love maps.' This prediction does not fit the criteria for capture bonding in the general sense that this should be argued and consensually decided under the Stockholm Syndrome, and if proven to have any merit, be placed there.

"they may be interested in an abnormal psychology perspective;" - if they are, and if it refers to bonding - that discussion, consensus and categorization is elsewhere. Reverted article. Maureen D

I feel that there is some sort of religious, i.e. Scientology, bias afoot here? Hence, I have reported you both to the Administrator notice board. I await their response.--Sadi Carnot 17:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • You have shifted the text I wrote into one paragraph. I have changed that back. Do not alter other contributers text by shifting it around.

Please address the issues raised in my comments rather than rearranging text on the discussion page. You made numerous changes on the discussion page, why? Discussion of material is the reason for this page, before making changes on the article page. Maureen D