What's the Opposite of Stockholm Syndrome?

The common thoery that seeks to predict behavior surrounding a crisis is that one never knows how one will react unless it ceases to be discussed in the hypothetical. Meaning, you can talk all you want, but you have no idea what you'll do in any given situation unless you're actually in its midst. Fortunately, the crises in my life have been so diminutive discussing them is futile; instead, I'll discuss one in the hypothetical.

Over the past several weeks, I have watched a few documentaries recounting different hostage situations.

The first was the four-part Guests of the Ayatollah - based on the book by Mark Bowden and was marvellously produced. I was drawn to it for a variety of reasons. First, whether writing about Pablo Escobar or the Battle of Mogadishu, Bowden is an excellent writer and adds instant credibility. Second, I find the history of the Middle East absolutely fascinating; regardless of religion affiliation, this area is in the cradle of civilization where all of our common ancestors came from. Last, my first political memory was formulated when the Ayatolla seized power from the exiled Shah in 1979. This was the first domino that eventually led to the Beirut barracks bombing in '83, the Achille Lauro incident in '85, the WTC bombing in '93, the embassy bombings in Africa in '98, and then You-Know-What in '01. And there are many more dominoes lined up.

Over the weekend, I watched a different documentary about three civilian workers contracted to fly over coca fields in Colombia and spray them with crop-destroying chemicals. During a routine fly-over, their airplane's motor failed mid-flight. Upon landing, they were unable to escape and were held hostage. As they were civilian contractors (working for private companies under government contracts), the U.S. government was allowed to deny all previous knowledge and negotiate as a third party; their immediate hiring company did not have the resources to negotiate and were left essentially helpless. Although the story was neat, the production was lousy as the outcome of the situation was never resolved on camera.

During the four episodes during Guests of the Ayatollah, Melissa and I began discussing our likely behavior were we to find ourselves held hostage almost fifteen months, or any time period, for that matter.

I'm not sure whether this is a redeeming quality or not, but I am able to admit to being one of the most stubborn persons I know. I'm told I get it from my mother.

As much as I've tried, I cannot begin to imagine my behavior caused by my personal freedom being restricted. I guess the easiest way to say it is that if you put a gun to my head (literal or figurative) and demand something of me against my strongest resolve, you might as well pull the trigger. It'll be that much easier on both of us.

As I watched the show, I really began to like one of the hostages, Michael Metrinko. He had studied in Iran previously and was the only hostage fluent in Farsi. He was also the most stubborn of the group, absolutely refusing to do anything his captors told him. For this, he was rewarded with beatings and long bouts of isolation. While the rest of the group were eventually moved to beds, received regular meals, and celebrated holidays, Metrinko stayed behind in a dark cell with bread and water.

That would be me.

I would really like to think my survival instict would kick in and I'd do almost anything within the limits of honor to stay alive for my wife and family. It's certainly the rational thing to do, but I know my personality. From what I know about myself, I'd be like Metrinko.