Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Physchim62 (talk | contribs) at 09:50, 18 April 2007 (→Illogical--to the attention of the admins: reply to Hkhenson, warning for multiple policy violations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

I don't see the two pages being the same. Stockholm syndrome is about learning to love your captors. Social reorientation is about gaining the characteristics of your captors in order to survive. I think two separate pages are legitimate here.

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 13 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

• • 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

I see that Sadi Carnot who previously stated on the talk page

"11:44, 12 April 2006 Sadi Carnot (Talk | contribs) (Removed my comments (I am withdrawing from this article))"

Has now reverted to a version a year old.

I am reverting it back and requesting that nobody delete text from the talk page again. Also, if you have problems with the article, don't just stick a tag on it without making notes in the talk page. Keith Henson 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki formatting

Someone should format this article. --jeffrey elliot 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the current version is horrible. I have been wikify, but only to get reverted? --Sadi Carnot 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maureen D and Keith Henson

Please stop monopolizing this page! I’m trying wikify this page, e.g. headers, grammar, proper citing methods, sources, etc., and to make this into an encyclopedia article; yet I am getting reverted by Maureen and Keith who revert back to the horrible version? Keith Henson is mentioned in the article and he is also edits the article, which creates WP:COI issues and I don’t know what Maureen D’s problems are? I am going to request for help on the various related project pages and then get administers involved if this doesn’t remedy the problem.

I’ve written or contributed to the majority of the bonding-related articles in, e.g. human bonding, interpersonal ties, affectional bonding, female bonding, maternal bond, pair bonding etc., and the capture bonding is a sore thumb on all levels. For one, it has a 255 word copyvio in it. It a copyright violation to site more than 50 words per source. Second, the whole article needs to be wikified; I notice another user put clean-up tags on the article, which User:Keith Henson has reverted? Third, as to sources, if someone has a theory on capture bonding and they are notable, e.g. they have a preexisting Misplaced Pages entry, and they have published books on the subject, then they have a right to have their views represented in the article. I really don’t know what issues the two of you have with John Money, I own about 30-40 books on various human bonding theories, e.g. sociological-views, psychological-views, neurological-views, and evolutionary-wise views, etc., and I don’t bias myself with debates about a person’s background, only their theories.

Also, User:Drw25 added clean-up tags on 08 Sept. 2006 (but got reverted?), User:Bobryuu added clean-up tags on 04 Apr 2007 (but got reverted?) and User:jeffrey elliot on 2 Jan 2007 on the talk page suggests the page be wikified, but that went mute?

In short, please stop reverting me. I’m going back to the good version, i.e. one that is wikified and not biased with bulky quotes over-representing certain individuals. I will try to search the internet to find more related articles. Let us start with this version and build from there. I will be making request for comments on many talk pages about this issue. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadi, I agree with you, there is absolutely no reason to revert back to an unwikified version. If people have an issue with the new content, then they need to first discuss and then change the content within a proper structure. I don't know much about the actualy theory, so I will leave that issue aside, but if the identified users again revert back to an unwikified version, I think it is fine to report them at WP:3RR even though it is not with 24 hours (the policy says it does not actually have to be). JenLouise 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jen, thanks I agree with you. I will likely follow your suggestions in this regard. --Sadi Carnot 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Search results

I’ve been searching the internet, and most of the capture bonding articles are by Keith Henson, where he promotes his views:

• Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War, Keith Henson, 2006
• The Savage Solution, Keith Henson, 2004
• Privation as a particular memetic replication control mechanism, Keith Henson, 2003
• Thoughts on John Walker and the Taliban, Keith Henson, 2001
• Random Report (Scientology), 2001 (here Keith claims that he coined the word?)

This is all great, but we need to write a NPOV article. I'll try searching again in a few days. --Sadi Carnot 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadi, there is no copyright violation since the source has a copy policy vitually identical to Misplaced Pages. I don't care what you do with articles about bonding in other places, but capture-bonding is a term out of evolutionary psychology. The concept was originally discussed by John Tooby one of the leading lights of EP when he was a graduate student. You just can't abuse the concept by shoveling in John Money's unrelated "love map" SSSM concepts. Money *never* used the term in this sense. It is like mixing astrology into an article on planetary science, i.e., abuse. The NPOV does *NOT* include butchering the concept. If one person is mostly responsible for a concept, such as Freud, then you stick to his concepts in an encyclopedia article. I am incidentally sticking up more for John Tooby's concepts than my own efforts at popularizing.

Incidentally, you seriously misread the "random report," "Proposed capture-bonding" was explaining it to the person who was trying to make since of his bad experiences, not generating the concept on the spot. Keith Henson 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby's 1992 The Adapted Mind and Buss' 1999 Evolutionary Psychology textbook. I can't find capture bonding in the index of either of these? If you know the page number where this is located please tell me? In regards to John Money, I will add 3 quoted references to the article where he uses the concept of capture bonding. That will now be 8 total references I have added; please do not revert. Thank you. --Sadi Carnot 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article you keep trying to paint over with this confusing mish mash, Tooby's discussion of this was when he was a graduate student and he didn't publish, partly because the concept is completely obvious. Do you want a statement from him? I was just talking to him today at a conference. Sadi, Money is dead, so we can't consult him, but given what he was widely known for, he would be extremely upset with you to be associated in any way with evolutionary psychology. I am going to revert the article, and I *strongly* suggest that you take it up with the Misplaced Pages administration. Capture-bonding is a *simple* concept. You have complicated it beyond reason and dragged in massive amounts of unrelated material--all of which either is in other locations on the Misplaced Pages or can be placed elsewhere. Keith Henson 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia article. We represent all points of view as per WP:NPOV, not just the views you are partial to. I have already asked two Admins to watch over this page. I am also guessing that User:Maureen D is your sock puppet based on the curious edit history of Maureen D and the timing of the following page revert and following talk page comment by you:

• 03:36, 15 April 2007 Maureen D (Talk | contribs) (rv; see discussion page)
• 03:43, 15 April 2007 Hkhenson (Talk | contribs) (talk page comment)

Also, as to Tooby having used the concept of capture bonding at all, let alone in the 1880s, the only source in the article substantiating this claim is: “(source: Leda Cosmides)”. This does not meet the requirements as a usable reference according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, where "verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Money, on the other had has two published books on the subject: his 1980 Love Sickness and Pair-Bonding, and his 1986 Lovemaps, where he specifically discusses the sexual aspects of capture bonding as well as Stockholm syndrome. Thanks for the comments: --Sadi Carnot 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And again you are violating the most basic principles of an article, to make it clear, accurate and useful. There is no NPOV that includes anything of John Money in an article about a descriptive term from evolutionary psychology because CB is a concept that originated in evolutionary psychology, a area Money bitterly opposed all his life. If the administrators want expert opinion on this, it would be easy to obtain.

Re your acusation, I have never used a sock puppet in my life. Do you wish to withdraw this personal attack?

Re John Tooby it is ultimately from Dr. Cosmides, but it was published in _Human Nature Review_. Footnote 4 here: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html If that is not a reliable source, then *all* content and references from that source should be deleted.

If you want to do this, or better, delete the entire article, I will not revert it. Please point me to the title and page where Money used "capture-bonding." If you can find this, I will sppologize and do my best to globally remove uses in the EP sense of the term. It is not useful for human knowledge to call pink "green." Keith Henson 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop breaking up comments. Again, add to the article but do not revert. I will be filing a report at WP:3RR if you keep this up. Five people now have requested that this article be cleaned. Please stop your negative efforts. --Sadi Carnot 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned article

I merged everything into one page, added three direct quotes, as references, to support Money’s 1986 theories on capture bonding, and put all of remaining quotes into supporting references. If anyone wants to re-add those quotes back into the article please do so in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. not just as a paste of 250 words. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

John Money the first to publish theories on capture bonding

As to a futher redundant request for John Money’s 1986 published descriptions of the capture bond even though it is already cited 3 times in the article, from page 34 of the 1986 book Lovemaps:

By way of this published reference, Money is the first person to have published views and theories on the subject of capture bonding. In sum, to Keith Henson, this is not your article and your theory, nor did Tooby originate the concept, as he did not publish, nor can his views be substantiated, but only via personal communications according to the article that you wrote. Thank-you. --Sadi Carnot 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Money did not use the term capture-bonding, he did not use it in the evolutionary psychology sense, and he certainly did not explain it in evolutionary psychology terms. As a matter of fact, I don't see where he proposes any deep theory at all. It is just description terms such as "collusionally bonded," a common situation back before EP put a foundation under psychology. I am reverting it again. I suggest you seek a ruling rather than continuing this ping pong. If you get support for for term "capture-bonding" belonging to John Money, that's ok by me, I am not hung up on terms and can figure out another name for the unrelated evolutionary psychology explanation. Keith Henson 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Illogical--to the attention of the admins

Sadi wrote:

"Capture-bonding is a bond that in some instances develops between captor and captive, and is sometimes referred to as Stockholm syndrome."

This isn't even good grammar. It should be capture-bond or "is a bonding." Stockholm syndrome is a state someone like Patty Hearst was in, this sentence makes "capture-bonding" into a synonym for Stockholm syndrome.

Keith supports (I don't remember who wrote it):

"Capture-bonding is a descriptive evolutionary psychology term for the evolved psychological mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome."

Both of these conflicting statements are in the version Sadi is pushing.

This isn't as clear as it perhaps could be, but in the second section we are talking about an evolved mental mechanism that (activated by the stress of capture) is the cause of the Stockholm syndrome.

To put it another way, capture/abuse acts on the capture-bonding mental mechanism(s) in a person to produce the state we see as Stockholm syndrome.

Sadi's rewrite confuses an internal mental mechanism (and/or its process) with the end result of the process. Thus I revert. Keith Henson 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith, let's get a couple of things straight right now.

Capture-bonding is not "the cause" of Stockholm Syndrome. It is your proposition of a cause. It is not the only description of evolutionary events which could lead to the survival of Stockholm Syndrome as an adapted trait, nor even the simplest. Your edits have not given any indication of the acceptance of your theory among other practitioners: it is only Sadi's efforts which have given any indication that others may share your views. In effect, you have simply posed an unfalsifiable hypothesis which you then present as accepted science, both here and in other places on Misplaced Pages.

If you cannot stand other people writing about your views, you should not even be reading this article, let alone editing it. Please note that Misplaced Pages has evolved a number of different methods for bringing about debonding of editors towards certain articles. Relevant policies and guidelines include: WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:EW. If you continue to prevent other editors from improving this article, I shall not hesitate you apply one or more of these debonding methods to you. Physchim62 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and, in this thread reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.