Mental Health, Stockholme Syndrome

[JaydeParrot]

Basically I was stood with my sennie doing he best trick where I pick her up, gently throw her across the room, she does a 180 turn, flies back to me and lands on my shoulder.

It got me thinking of Stockholme Syndrome which is basically a mental illness wherein an abused/kidnapped individual begins to feel empathetic towards their abuser or captore, sometimes even to the point of form a strong friend or even romatic bond to that person.

I was thinking if a human was treated like many parrots, kidnapped from the wild/bred for captivity, kept in a cage, fed when and what their 'owner' decides. Can't leave the cage/room unless their 'owner' decides, often never ever gets to leave the house in their lifetime, and yet still wants to cuddle up, interact with and go back to it's 'owner' when called, that would be stockholme syndrome- so isn't it the same for parrots?

I often wonder with parrots where the line is drawn between friend and stockholme syndromed captive.

Bit of a depressive thought, I just wanted to know other people's ideas on this?

Thanks.

[Wolf]

Great question, and I have no answer for it, but will give it some thought.

[Pajarita]

I don't think it's the same... For one thing, when we talk about Stockholm syndrome, we are talking of the same species, man to man, but, when you talk about wild-caught parrots, they KNOW they are birds and that man is the predator. And, although hand-fed birds (not necessarily captive-bred, mind you) do regard humans as part of their family, a severely neglected or abused parrot would 'lose' this bond although it can be just temporary and For another, parrots NEED physical touch while humans don't and that's the reason why parrots are so very forgiving of our mistakes and not the mental 'trick' meant for survival that Stockholm syndrome represents. But this is just my thinking without actually doing any research or taking time to actually think about in any depth... but I will as soon as I have some time for it. Great question and debate subject by the way, thank you for putting it to us!

[Dhraiden]

It's a good topic to think about. By your logic, nearly all pets are deliberately trained to be entirely dependent on their owners, and so would fall into that unfortunate Stockholm category. Pets, by their nature, are an unnatural phenomenon.

The statement, "Parrots don't belong in urban environments in your living room - they belong in jungles, living (and dying) as nature "intended" causes no anxiety, however.

Implicit to owning a pet is the idea that you are modifying its instincts through ongoing behavioral or cognitive habituation to better suit YOU, a human.

It's an ultimately selfish endeavor, that no amount of mental gymnastics would morally excuse or resolve. So I don't.

I accept that this bird was bred to fill a demand (for pets), and that I'm assuming the role someone else who also wants and likes birds would have anyway. It's my responsibility to give this bird a long, happy, fulfilling life. It owes its existence to the satisfaction of that desire. In so far as you would not release a goldfish into the ocean, or a captive rabbit into a wild forest, I don't stay up wondering whether I should make her habitat as 'naturally conure-like' as possible - I try, but her cage will never be a tropical rainforest, and that's just the way it is.

She likes me because I presumably provide food, and shelter, and affection. It's a bond that has artificial roots, and has to be reinforced continuously over time, so it 'sticks'. I am fine with this.

[liz]

I seriously hope not. I know they have to depend on me for everything but I take the rescues and give them as much as possible of freedom. I moved to an older but bigger house so the cockatiels could free fly in their own room. I have never closed my Amazons in a cage. I hope they don't think of me as their jailer. The idea is just heart breaking.

[shiraartain]

This is really interesting!

Liz, going off of the Stockholm Syndrome basis, I don't think they would think of you as their jailor. If they came from worse situations, you're more of a saviour. You gave them better than they had before, so youre someone who is good.

Attaching a wikipedia grab so not the most accurate thing in the world, but it seems Stockholm syndrome involves actually abusing the victim and the victim taken absence of that abuse as affection? So if A kidnapped B and harmed B continuously and then ceased to harm B, or lessened the harm, then A would identify with B while mistaking the absence of harm as a sign of love? When in reality, there should have been no abuse in the first place. Quite a scary concept.

You are not harming/abusing your bird and your bird's psyche is different from yours. With a bird, if you abuse it regularly and then abuse it less, it won't perceive that absence of abuse as a form of love. They're prey animals, you all know how long it takes to rehabilitate a bird from a careless owner, much less one who intentionally abused them.

For dogs and cats, though...perhaps the situation is different? Especially dogs. I think there more likely to take absence of abuse as a sign of affection...but ivwe never had one myself. Thoughts?

Here is the article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[Pajarita]

Well, dogs and cats are not 'purposely trained' to depend entirely on their owner. Cats can do very well on their own if they have to, they choose to stay with us because they much rather have it easy than hard (they are VERY smart animals!). And dogs are not 'trained' to depend on us, either, they don't need to because they were bred to either work alongside man and/or to please us so the dependency is not learned, it's genetic. I also don't think that pets are an unnatural phenomenon because humanity has had them from the beginning of times and the root of the practice is our empathy and natural inclination to nurture babies of any species. As to parrots, they don't love us because we provide food and affection, they love us because we tricked them into imprinting to us instead of their own parents. Of course, our loving and treating them right will deepen the imprint into a bond of trust and love...

[Dhraiden]

As to parrots, they don't love us because we provide food and affection, they love us because we tricked them into imprinting to us instead of their own parents. Of course, our loving and treating them right will deepen the imprint into a bond of trust and love...

That's the crux of it right there, I agree with what you said there. But I disagree that pets are natural - pets are unnatural. Pet ownership is unnatural. Natural = nature. Human beings are the only species on the planet that shapes the environment (including domesticating small animals like parrots) to suit themselves, instead of adapting to the environment. It's not a moral or judgmental statement, though, just stating a fact.

Again, not saying anything is wrong with it. I just acknowledge it's a hobby for our pleasure that incidentally gives the pet (under ideal conditions) a subjectively "nicer" life versus being in the wild (or not being born at all).

Also humans have never (as far as I know), nor should they ever, try to raise lions, tigers, or other large cats, ursines or other large predators- etc. Wolves were the only successful example of that, and the theories suggest that was more because the tamest/least scared wolves allowed humans to be in their proximity because they benefited from shared food (humans were not, as far as I know, stealing wolf cubs or anything).

As other posters have suggested, the analogy fails because SS requires a significant amount of abuse - unless you stretch the definition to say that withholding affection/attention is abuse (even other birds in the wild do not give all their energy towards affection/socialization per the demands and limitations of living that way), I do not think we turn our parrots in SS victims....

[shiraartain]

@dhraiden, actually, people do try to raise tigers and the like. If you like around on the internet for a bit, you'll find filthy rich individuals with pet tigers. It's ridiculous.

[Wolf]

@draiden, I would like you to note that ants keep certain species of aphids in a capacity similar to the way that we keep milk cows. They herd them, they ' milk' them for a nectar, and they defend them.
I would also like to suggest that when we discuss nature or natural that we can't just throw man out of the equation either. The keeping of pets appears to be a natural function in the case of man and has been going on for nearly as long as man has been hanging around, as far as I can tell. One of the problems seems to be that man tries to remove himself from as well as trying to place himself above all the rest of nature. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, no matter how hard we try to deny it we are still a part of nature and there is nothing anyone one can do to change this. We, just like all other animals are bound by the constraints of our nature and do very little that is not in accord with our natural drives. Our denial of our rightful place in the natural world does nothing beneficial and only serves to lesson us as a source of support in the natural world all around us.