[cstejerean]

> One of the hostages even became engaged to one of her captors

Was that also because of distrusting the police?

[makeitdouble]

> She had criticized the police for pointing guns at the convicts while the hostages were in the line of fire and she had told news outlets that one of the captors tried to protect the hostages from being caught in the crossfire

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...

[throwaway290]

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

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

People can be thankful to someone who improves things even if that someone creates the horrible situation in the first place. It's a problem and in politics too. Give people more comfortable life and they praise you even if your bad policies are the reason they famished previously. We remember good stuff and forget stuff that bums us out. Your comment exemplified that mistake.

[sparky_z]

It may be a mistake, but does it that make it a "syndrome"?

[throwaway290]

where did I call it a syndrome?

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)

[cwmma]

According to Wikipedia:

> 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.

[meigwilym]

As I said, I'm no expert. I read somewhere that it was a sexist response to this woman's criticisms.

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.