Co-dependency

[Keith Henson]

At 10:26 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson at rogers.com>
>To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l at 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