Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:11 AM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 10:26 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Sure. There are a number of things that don't support this. First, there is a pattern of repeatedly finding spouses that are abusive. After divorcing an abusive spouse, an abused woman is more likely than the average woman to find another abuser. With the Stockhome syndrome, getting the woman out of the position where the man has power over her should lead to as low a level of still supporting the kidnapper months after being freed. Are there instances of them asking to be reunited with the kidnappers months after they are free? This happens quite frequently with abusers. I think that family dynamics and a co-dependant family of origin are much better explainations for this behavior. Have you read the original story of the bank robbery where the syndrome got its name? Indeed, one of the women broke her engagement and tried to marry one of the bank robbers. OK, there are instances, so the event rate isn't zero. But, if we look at a number of places where the syndrome is said to take place, such as in concentration camps, hijackings, prisons, I don't think we would see it anywhere near as prevalant as we do with battered spouses. About half of the battered spouses return to the abuser as they leave the shelter. Incidentally, none of your examples provides an alternate theory of how such psychological traits evolved. Co-dependant just does not have biological/evolutionary roots where you can understand the origin of the behavior. Well, it depends on what you you want. If you start with the idea that you must explain everything by expressing it in terms of the behavior of proto-humans as they evolve into humans, and how certain traits were genetically selected for, then no. But, that isn't science. Science simply provides models and predictions for observables. It does not require that biology make intuative sense when one is thinking about electromagnetic potential. It's not that there isn't a tie; it's that it is complex enough so simple general rules of thumb obtained at the atomic level need not apply at the level of organisms. If you want an explaination in terms of biologically selected traits; I think the answer is fairly simple, but it leads to complex systems. Humans have been selected for a tremendous ability to learn and adapt. In particular, humans learn a great deal during their childhood. If this were right, family of origin issues are crucial when understanding human behavior. And, we find this is true, that almost everyone's behavior, especially in their own initmate surroundings, is tied to the norm of their family of origin. Evolutionary psychology, by considering the environment of primitive people where women were captured back and forth between tribes for millions of years cleanly accounts for capture-bonding as an essential survival trait. That is speculation. We don't know what proto-human societies were like. We have some extremely limited knowledge of present day hunter-gatherer societies (but those societies are so small, it's hard to understand if they are anomolies or normative. Native American societies might have provides some examples, but since there were a wide range of types of societies in North America (including farmer/hunter hybrids) and since vast organized civilizations had existed here, and since good studies were not done before the societies were changed through interaction with Europeans, we can only gather some information here. In terms of Western European society, the furthest back that I can see, in terms of the development from pre-humans to human hunter/gatherer to nomad/animal herders to agricultural civilizations the rules of the second society given in contrast to what may have applied to the first society. As a result, the nature of older societies is somewhat of a blank slate...and people tend to put on it what they expect; not what the data lead them to believe. Going back in history, we can piece together a good deal about the nature of Greek and Roman societies. We can gain a great deal of understanding about
Re: Co-dependency
At 10:26 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Sure. There are a number of things that don't support this. First, there is a pattern of repeatedly finding spouses that are abusive. After divorcing an abusive spouse, an abused woman is more likely than the average woman to find another abuser. With the Stockhome syndrome, getting the woman out of the position where the man has power over her should lead to as low a level of still supporting the kidnapper months after being freed. Are there instances of them asking to be reunited with the kidnappers months after they are free? This happens quite frequently with abusers. I think that family dynamics and a co-dependant family of origin are much better explainations for this behavior. Have you read the original story of the bank robbery where the syndrome got its name? Indeed, one of the women broke her engagement and tried to marry one of the bank robbers. Incidentally, none of your examples provides an alternate theory of how such psychological traits evolved. Co-dependant just does not have biological/evolutionary roots where you can understand the origin of the behavior. Evolutionary psychology, by considering the environment of primitive people where women were captured back and forth between tribes for millions of years cleanly accounts for capture-bonding as an essential survival trait. Those who didn't have it were for the most part killed, perhaps 10% per generation were subjected to this filter if you take studied primitive people as typical. Do this for several million years and the trait becomes well fixed. I wrote a paper that covers this and other topics. Put sex drugs cults (no quotes) in Google and take the first link. Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Actually, my wife did her master's thesis on the issue of relative power and the probability that an abused women returns to her abuser. That's not an experiment where the experimental procedure induces capture-bonding by confinement and abusive treatment. Fortunately. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 12:35 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Keith Henson wrote: At 10:13 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:59 PM Sunday 5/1/2005, Keith Henson wrote: At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Huh? Even I have heard of the so-called psychology experiments where one group is assigned the role of prison guards and the other group is assigned the role of prisoners and ae within a few days at most the researchers see the second group develop Stockholm syndrome toward the first group, who generally don't take long at all to become abusive toward the members of the second group . . . It's here: http://www.prisonexp.org/ and very worthwhile to read. The experiment was done in August of 1971. They would not have described any effects as Stockholm syndrome since the event that gave this psychological phenomena it's name didn't happen until two years later in August of 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome It is generally agreed that experiments like the prison experiment and those of Stanley Milgram obedience experiments would not get past an ethics committee today. The point is, however, that such experimental studies have done and that the results showed what was later named the Stockholm syndrome. And, as I believe has been discussed at length in this forum, ethics is a term whose meaning is quite variable in both space and time. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 03:11 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Keith Henson wrote: [snipped for brevity] That's not an experiment where the experimental procedure induces capture-bonding by confinement and abusive treatment. Fortunately. And as I pointed out, and you confirmed, such experiments have been done, even if they were done by those unfamiliar with today's standards of terminology or ethics. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 03:29 AM 02/05/05 -0500, you wrote: At 03:11 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Keith Henson wrote: [snipped for brevity] That's not an experiment where the experimental procedure induces capture-bonding by confinement and abusive treatment. Fortunately. And as I pointed out, and you confirmed, such experiments have been done, even if they were done by those unfamiliar with today's standards of terminology or ethics. Not exactly. The prison experiment was to get raw data relating to a prison situation. Prisons are *not* in our evolutionary background, pre agricultural people either rapidly bonded their captives into the local group or killed them. The experimental procedures were not designed to bring out this behavior. At best the prison experiment demonstrated part of the evolved behavioral sequence but aborted the resolution stage where the captive became a member of the band or tribe. Normally experiments are done to test theory. Theory was sadly lacking in those days, and even today there is not a widely accepted theory for why humans act the way they do, though I think evolutionary psychology will become the accepted base for that theory. Reinterpreting Zimbardo's experiment, it demonstrated that abuse of captives is an instinct, i.e., an evolved psychological trait of humans. As more of an informed guess than being able to cite studies, abuse probably causes the brain to release a flood of vasopressin http://nootropics.com/vasopressin/ and perhaps other brain reorganizing hormones including oxytocin. So the instinct or evolved psychological trait of responding as the captives did in the Stockholm bank robbery has a corresponding instinct to abuse captives to turn on capture-bonding in them. (Though I am sure that the bank robbers had no intent of socially bonding their captives! :-) ) Capture-bonding as an powerful evolved psychological trait in humans may account for the bonding in military basic training (training is a mildly traumatic experience intended to produce a bond), sexual bondage practices and fraternity hazing as well as battered wife syndrome, where beatings and abuse are observed to generate seemingly paradoxical bonds between the victim and the abuser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome If someone has an alternate explanation for these varied but (I think) related human psychological traits I would love to hear it. Evolutionary psychology has got to be the most depressing way to think about our species. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Co-dependency * [WINDOWS-1252?]A stressful learned behavior associated with an unhealthy focus on the needs of others and/or attempting to take responsibility for the behavior of [WINDOWS-1252?]others (Brian DesRoches); Not bad. Addiction to self-righteousness, I like to call it sometimes. I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how is a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the abuser's world. Bush's attack on Iraq may be faulted, but not as co-dependant. Those who's immediate response to 9-11 was asking how did the US provoke this exhibited behavior that could be labeled co-dependant. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 03:35 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how is a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the abuser's world. Battered wife syndrome is closely related to Stockholm syndrome, more descriptively capture-bonding. Capture-bonding lies behind a frat hazing and military basic training among other things. It accounts for events like Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.pdf During an awful lot of human history you died if you didn't have the ability to bond to the people who had captured you and were abusing you. That why it is so hard for women to leave abusive situations, there capture bonding psychological mechanism has been activated. Bush's attack on Iraq may be faulted, but not as co-dependant. Those who's immediate response to 9-11 was asking how did the US provoke this exhibited behavior that could be labeled co-dependant. This is going to sound weird but 9/11 was gene based, rooted in human evolution during the stone age. Hunter gatherer bands and tribes would build up in population until they were facing starvation. At that point even a small weak band or tribe was better off attacking a larger one than doing nothing because if they lost (likely) and the men were killed, the larger tribe usually absorbed the smaller tribes women as wives or extra wives. This resulted in more of the warriors genes surviving than the whole of the little tribe dying of starvation. On the other hand, the personal downside for this path was extreme (very likely death). So genes built brains that in circumstances of facing a bleak future were insanely optimistic about their chances of wining a war against a larger tribe and taking *their* women. This is the source of the irrational thinking you see so often in people involved in wars (both sides). Of course most of the overpopulated Islamic world is facing a bleak future, much more so than a generation or two ago. So the US provoked 9/11 by simply existing. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 03:35 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how is a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the abuser's world. Battered wife syndrome is closely related to Stockholm syndrome, more descriptively capture-bonding. Capture-bonding lies behind a frat hazing and military basic training among other things. It accounts for events like Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.pdf During an awful lot of human history you died if you didn't have the ability to bond to the people who had captured you and were abusing you. That why it is so hard for women to leave abusive situations, there capture bonding psychological mechanism has been activated. With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency - Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 03:35 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how is a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the abuser's world. Battered wife syndrome is closely related to Stockholm syndrome, more descriptively capture-bonding. Capture-bonding lies behind a frat hazing and military basic training among other things. It accounts for events like Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.pdf During an awful lot of human history you died if you didn't have the ability to bond to the people who had captured you and were abusing you. That why it is so hard for women to leave abusive situations, there capture bonding psychological mechanism has been activated. With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? ^ abused spouses returning to their abusers? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 09:59 PM Sunday 5/1/2005, Keith Henson wrote: At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Huh? Even I have heard of the so-called psychology experiments where one group is assigned the role of prison guards and the other group is assigned the role of prisoners and ae within a few days at most the researchers see the second group develop Stockholm syndrome toward the first group, who generally don't take long at all to become abusive toward the members of the second group . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Sure. There are a number of things that don't support this. First, there is a pattern of repeatedly finding spouses that are abusive. After divorcing an abusive spouse, an abused woman is more likely than the average woman to find another abuser. With the Stockhome syndrome, getting the woman out of the position where the man has power over her should lead to as low a level of still supporting the kidnapper months after being freed. Are there instances of them asking to be reunited with the kidnappers months after they are free? This happens quite frequently with abusers. I think that family dynamics and a co-dependant family of origin are much better explainations for this behavior. Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Actually, my wife did her master's thesis on the issue of relative power and the probability that an abused women returns to her abuser. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
At 10:13 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:59 PM Sunday 5/1/2005, Keith Henson wrote: At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Huh? Even I have heard of the so-called psychology experiments where one group is assigned the role of prison guards and the other group is assigned the role of prisoners and ae within a few days at most the researchers see the second group develop Stockholm syndrome toward the first group, who generally don't take long at all to become abusive toward the members of the second group . . . It's here: http://www.prisonexp.org/ and very worthwhile to read. The experiment was done in August of 1971. They would not have described any effects as Stockholm syndrome since the event that gave this psychological phenomena it's name didn't happen until two years later in August of 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome It is generally agreed that experiments like the prison experiment and those of Stanley Milgram obedience experiments would not get past an ethics committee today. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:25:14 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote This article was pointed out to me by a friend: http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?ObjectId=2275Function=DETAILBROWSEObjectType=COL http://tinyurl.com/98hsz There are four definitions listed for codependency: * [WINDOWS-1252?]An emotional, psychological, and behavioral condition that develops as a result of an [WINDOWS-1252?]individuals prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of oppressive [WINDOWS-1252?]rules (Robert Subby); That's not a definition so much as causality. And not very complete. * [WINDOWS-1252?]A set of maladaptive, compulsive behaviors learned by family members to survive in a family experiencing great emotional [WINDOWS-1252?]pain (The Johnson Institute); Ditto. * [WINDOWS-1252?]A stressful learned behavior associated with an unhealthy focus on the needs of others and/or attempting to take responsibility for the behavior of [WINDOWS-1252?]others (Brian DesRoches); Not bad. Addiction to self-righteousness, I like to call it sometimes. * [WINDOWS-1252?]We begin tolerating abnormal, unhealthy, and inappropriate behaviors. Then we go one step further, we convince ourselves these behaviors are [WINDOWS-1252?]normal (Melody Beattie). Sympton, not definition. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:17:08 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote Not bad. Addiction to self-righteousness, I like to call it sometimes. Inspired by David Brin, I should add. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:25 PM Subject: Co-dependency This article was pointed out to me by a friend: http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?ObjectId=2275Function=DETAILBROWSEObjectType=COL http://tinyurl.com/98hsz There are four definitions listed for codependency: * An emotional, psychological, and behavioral condition that develops as a result of an individuals prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of oppressive rules (Robert Subby); * A set of maladaptive, compulsive behaviors learned by family members to survive in a family experiencing great emotional pain (The Johnson Institute); * A stressful learned behavior associated with an unhealthy focus on the needs of others and/or attempting to take responsibility for the behavior of others (Brian DesRoches); * We begin tolerating abnormal, unhealthy, and inappropriate behaviors. Then we go one step further, we convince ourselves these behaviors are normal (Melody Beattie). Those more in the know than I, how good are these definitions? (The article was about software testing, BTW, and testers responding to their work environment with codependent behavior. I'd be interested in anything anyone has to say about *that* aspect of the article.) These statements are not false, but Teri says that the essential definition of co-dependency is an enabling behavior. With drug addiction, co-dependants would deny the effects of the addition and cover for the addict. With spousal abuse, the abused person would blame themselves for the abuse, citing something they did wrong to cause the abuse. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Co-dependency
This article was pointed out to me by a friend: http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?ObjectId=2275Function=DETAILBROWSEObjectType=COL http://tinyurl.com/98hsz There are four definitions listed for codependency: * An emotional, psychological, and behavioral condition that develops as a result of an individuals prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of oppressive rules (Robert Subby); * A set of maladaptive, compulsive behaviors learned by family members to survive in a family experiencing great emotional pain (The Johnson Institute); * A stressful learned behavior associated with an unhealthy focus on the needs of others and/or attempting to take responsibility for the behavior of others (Brian DesRoches); * We begin tolerating abnormal, unhealthy, and inappropriate behaviors. Then we go one step further, we convince ourselves these behaviors are normal (Melody Beattie). Those more in the know than I, how good are these definitions? (The article was about software testing, BTW, and testers responding to their work environment with codependent behavior. I'd be interested in anything anyone has to say about *that* aspect of the article.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
