10 ms·

Yeah, that's because they had to watch the content anyway. Trigger warnings allow people to avoid triggering content, or to delay consuming the content until th

Yeah, that's because they had to watch the content anyway. Trigger warnings allow people to avoid triggering content, or to delay consuming the content until they're in a better frame of mind. If you say "This content has X, Y, and Z, and you have to consume it right now" the fact that you warned them isn't going to do much.

fenwick67 7y ago
The article does mention... > Consider a meta-analysis of 39 studies in 2007 by Sam Houston State University in Texas that found a ‘clear, consistent association’ between using avoidance-based coping strategies (that is, staying away from upsetting stressors or avoiding thinking about them) and increased psychological distress. ... BUT the operative word is "associated" not "caused"
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  How does it compare with not being able to avoid upsetting stressors? We're not comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "coping mechanisms that allow you to face the stressor". We're comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "being exposed to a stressor with no warning and no way to avoid it, regardless of if you do or dont have a coping mechanism in place at all".
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Avoidance-based coping covers a broad variety of behavior beyond just 'don't expose yourself to a stressor', so a one-sentence reference without citation or further details is basically useless anyway.
- lilyball 7y ago
  People who can be expected to experience increased distress from the topic are much more likely to choose to avoid it, so I'm not surprised in the least by that association. Also from the article: > critics argue that the avoidance of potentially upsetting material is actually a counterproductive approach because it offers no chance to learn to manage one’s emotional reactions. This is wrong. You don't learn to manage emotional reactions by being forced to consume triggering content. If you have a problem with emotional reactions that needs adjustment, that's what therapy is for. Or using delaying tactics such that you don't consume the content until you're more prepared to handle it. Anyone who thinks springing triggering content on people without warning is good because it forces them to react to it is literally abusive. And many times avoiding triggering content forever is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be managed. Personally, I don't have any trauma around rape but I would really prefer to avoid reading about it, so I really appreciate trigger warnings on content that includes it. This isn't something that needs to be "fixed", there's no reason why I must work towards being indifferent towards rape.
  - ghostpepper 7y ago
    I am no expert but it was my understanding that therapy for trauma often includes exposure to triggering stimuli precisely because it's not a realistic option to just hope you don't run into something triggering "in the wild" for the rest of your life.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Yes, it may, particularly if it's an unavoidable trigger. That should be done safely and consensually within the context of a therapy session/plan with a professional guiding it. It's like surgery. Entirely acceptable in certain scenarios, but you'd object if your English lit prof decided to DIY it during class.
      - lmm 7y ago
        Aren't the trigger warnings a DIY treatment themselves? In the absence of specific professional advice, I'd think the default would be to treat people normally. Why are we so eager to put trigger warnings on things without any evidence that they're doing more good than harm?
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        No, they’re not a treatment. They may aid someone who is in treatment, though. I know an abuse survivor who has been in therapy for many years working on the impact of it. We avoid movies with abuse depictions as it causes severe disassociation and setbacks in that treatment. Someone for whom it’s triggering but less severely so might just opt to watch said movies with a trusted friend on a day they’re feeling emotionally sound. They allow folks to choose the level of exposure to optional, potentially damaging things. Just like an R rating on a film might make you pause before bringing an 8 year old to the theater.
    - eej2ya1K 7y ago
      It includes exposure, yes, but the idea is to encourage the patient/client to decide to seek out triggering stimuli themselves.
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  Right, avoidance may not be a good coping strategy at large, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be extended the courtesy of being able to choose to avoid exposure in certain contexts. Ideally exposure therapy for trauma should be done in a controlled setting, like therapy. Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. From my point of view, trigger warnings are courteous. Its not my job to tell people how to live their lives. If someone asks me in good faith to let them know before I talk about something that might disturb them, I take that seriously because I'm not a jerk. The idea that trigger warnings constitute some kind of creeping Orwellian thing is nuts to me. The whole point of them is "I'm going to say this!" try not to be one.
  - nimblegorilla 7y ago
    > Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. Related to that, a lot of people prefer watching certain genres such as action, romance, sports, sci-fi, comedy, etc... If it's ok to inform people they're about to watch an Adam Sandler romcom then I don't see what's so bad about informing people they're about to encounter triggering content.
crooked-v 7y ago
I also find the attempt at equating trigger warnings and avoidance coping pretty disingenuous, given that 'avoidance coping' as a concept includes both positive behaviors (meditating, reasonable exercise) and negative behaviors (binge eating, drug use).
2804t3qwp 7y ago
It feels like wasted effort in this context then. The article talks a lot about the university setting specifically, you can't just not engage with your course material and expect to have the same educational outcomes as someone who did. It seems like it'd be more effective for majors to list their trigger warnings before the course even starts with the understanding that if you can't handle the content then you should probably choose a difference major. Likewise, it limits the teacher's options because suddenly material that is meant to capitalize on surprise elements becomes a liability since it's unvetted.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  I feel like even with courses taken as a given, there's still some measure of common courtesy there in stuff like "in week 2 you're going to see a pretty gross safety video, don't eat lunch beforehand".
- lilyball 7y ago
  Yes you can. You can choose to skip a particular lecture if it's covering particularly triggering topics. If the lecture is particularly important, you can approach the professor about dealing with the lecture content in a more sensitive one-on-one context, or see if the lecture is recorded such that you can watch it later when you have more mental spoons to deal with it. > it limits the teacher's options because suddenly material that is meant to capitalize on surprise elements becomes a liability since it's unvetted Teachers should not be making their students uncomfortable (let alone triggering trauma) by surprise. This is a consent issue.
  - 2804t3qwp 7y ago
    Why is this a consent issue? Lots of intro to sociology classes do a lesson on the Nacirema, race and violence are massive components of studying mid 20th century literature, and plenty of other fields of study have lessons that are meant to convey an emotional context and not just an informational one and they do this often with surprise elements. Labeling that as traumatic and non-consensual glosses over the part where the main people who seem to be reporting trauma from these lessons are people who already had trauma and are clearly still influenced heavily by it or they wouldn't need trigger warnings. Calling it a consent issue frankly is just a dog whistle. And if skipping the lecture is a valid choice for learning then why does the professor need to be contacted afterwards? The professor already selected the information they felt was relevant and presented it in the fashion they felt was the most useful to the class. Your viewpoint only seems to make sense if the default assumption is that emotional information isn't a priority for the instructor but that doesn't jive with how a large swathe of the humanities and social sciences are often taught.

fenwick67 7y ago

The article does mention... > Consider a meta-analysis of 39 studies in 2007 by Sam Houston State University in Texas that found a ‘clear, consistent association’ between using avoidance-based coping strategies (that is, staying away from upsetting stressors or avoiding thinking about them) and increased psychological distress. ... BUT the operative word is "associated" not "caused"

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
How does it compare with not being able to avoid upsetting stressors? We're not comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "coping mechanisms that allow you to face the stressor". We're comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "being exposed to a stressor with no warning and no way to avoid it, regardless of if you do or dont have a coping mechanism in place at all".
crooked-v 7y ago
Avoidance-based coping covers a broad variety of behavior beyond just 'don't expose yourself to a stressor', so a one-sentence reference without citation or further details is basically useless anyway.
lilyball 7y ago
People who can be expected to experience increased distress from the topic are much more likely to choose to avoid it, so I'm not surprised in the least by that association. Also from the article: > critics argue that the avoidance of potentially upsetting material is actually a counterproductive approach because it offers no chance to learn to manage one’s emotional reactions. This is wrong. You don't learn to manage emotional reactions by being forced to consume triggering content. If you have a problem with emotional reactions that needs adjustment, that's what therapy is for. Or using delaying tactics such that you don't consume the content until you're more prepared to handle it. Anyone who thinks springing triggering content on people without warning is good because it forces them to react to it is literally abusive. And many times avoiding triggering content forever is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be managed. Personally, I don't have any trauma around rape but I would really prefer to avoid reading about it, so I really appreciate trigger warnings on content that includes it. This isn't something that needs to be "fixed", there's no reason why I must work towards being indifferent towards rape.
- ghostpepper 7y ago
  I am no expert but it was my understanding that therapy for trauma often includes exposure to triggering stimuli precisely because it's not a realistic option to just hope you don't run into something triggering "in the wild" for the rest of your life.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Yes, it may, particularly if it's an unavoidable trigger. That should be done safely and consensually within the context of a therapy session/plan with a professional guiding it. It's like surgery. Entirely acceptable in certain scenarios, but you'd object if your English lit prof decided to DIY it during class.
    - lmm 7y ago
      Aren't the trigger warnings a DIY treatment themselves? In the absence of specific professional advice, I'd think the default would be to treat people normally. Why are we so eager to put trigger warnings on things without any evidence that they're doing more good than harm?
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        No, they’re not a treatment. They may aid someone who is in treatment, though. I know an abuse survivor who has been in therapy for many years working on the impact of it. We avoid movies with abuse depictions as it causes severe disassociation and setbacks in that treatment. Someone for whom it’s triggering but less severely so might just opt to watch said movies with a trusted friend on a day they’re feeling emotionally sound. They allow folks to choose the level of exposure to optional, potentially damaging things. Just like an R rating on a film might make you pause before bringing an 8 year old to the theater.
  - eej2ya1K 7y ago
    It includes exposure, yes, but the idea is to encourage the patient/client to decide to seek out triggering stimuli themselves.
vincent-toups 7y ago
Right, avoidance may not be a good coping strategy at large, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be extended the courtesy of being able to choose to avoid exposure in certain contexts. Ideally exposure therapy for trauma should be done in a controlled setting, like therapy. Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. From my point of view, trigger warnings are courteous. Its not my job to tell people how to live their lives. If someone asks me in good faith to let them know before I talk about something that might disturb them, I take that seriously because I'm not a jerk. The idea that trigger warnings constitute some kind of creeping Orwellian thing is nuts to me. The whole point of them is "I'm going to say this!" try not to be one.
- nimblegorilla 7y ago
  > Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. Related to that, a lot of people prefer watching certain genres such as action, romance, sports, sci-fi, comedy, etc... If it's ok to inform people they're about to watch an Adam Sandler romcom then I don't see what's so bad about informing people they're about to encounter triggering content.

crooked-v 7y ago

I also find the attempt at equating trigger warnings and avoidance coping pretty disingenuous, given that 'avoidance coping' as a concept includes both positive behaviors (meditating, reasonable exercise) and negative behaviors (binge eating, drug use).

2804t3qwp 7y ago

It feels like wasted effort in this context then. The article talks a lot about the university setting specifically, you can't just not engage with your course material and expect to have the same educational outcomes as someone who did. It seems like it'd be more effective for majors to list their trigger warnings before the course even starts with the understanding that if you can't handle the content then you should probably choose a difference major. Likewise, it limits the teacher's options because suddenly material that is meant to capitalize on surprise elements becomes a liability since it's unvetted.

crooked-v 7y ago
I feel like even with courses taken as a given, there's still some measure of common courtesy there in stuff like "in week 2 you're going to see a pretty gross safety video, don't eat lunch beforehand".
lilyball 7y ago
Yes you can. You can choose to skip a particular lecture if it's covering particularly triggering topics. If the lecture is particularly important, you can approach the professor about dealing with the lecture content in a more sensitive one-on-one context, or see if the lecture is recorded such that you can watch it later when you have more mental spoons to deal with it. > it limits the teacher's options because suddenly material that is meant to capitalize on surprise elements becomes a liability since it's unvetted Teachers should not be making their students uncomfortable (let alone triggering trauma) by surprise. This is a consent issue.
- 2804t3qwp 7y ago
  Why is this a consent issue? Lots of intro to sociology classes do a lesson on the Nacirema, race and violence are massive components of studying mid 20th century literature, and plenty of other fields of study have lessons that are meant to convey an emotional context and not just an informational one and they do this often with surprise elements. Labeling that as traumatic and non-consensual glosses over the part where the main people who seem to be reporting trauma from these lessons are people who already had trauma and are clearly still influenced heavily by it or they wouldn't need trigger warnings. Calling it a consent issue frankly is just a dog whistle. And if skipping the lecture is a valid choice for learning then why does the professor need to be contacted afterwards? The professor already selected the information they felt was relevant and presented it in the fashion they felt was the most useful to the class. Your viewpoint only seems to make sense if the default assumption is that emotional information isn't a priority for the instructor but that doesn't jive with how a large swathe of the humanities and social sciences are often taught.