6 ms·

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

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.
- watwut 7y ago
  Yes, but you do that with therapist in setting where potential meltdown has no consequences to you or other people. The therapist is also supposed to decide your progress based on how it is going.
- tekproxy 7y ago
  My dog was afraid of taking a bath. I fixed this by rewarding her for coming into the bathroom. Once she was comfortable, I got her into the tub and rewarded her. After 15 minutes of "exposure therapy" she loves jumping into the tub and it's easier for both of us when she's stinky. I'm pretty sure people work similarly but it's hard to reward them with dog food.
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    People aren't dogs to be trained. To an extent, to be human and to recognize other people's humanity is to accept and accommodate their irrationality where doing so isn't particularly onerous to you.
    - antepodius 7y ago
      Training works on people; people are animals. To a certain extent, this is what therapy is: helping people train parts of their brains to behave differently.
      - bobthepanda 7y ago
        The difference is that we have therapists who are licensed to do this, and who are better at judging progress and when it might be appropriate to progress you. Your average lecturer or teacher is not trained in this way, at least specifically regarding trauma.
        yabadabadoes 7y ago
        The average lecturer was managing a class, but now they need to prescreen individuals for experiences that make them too weak for normal classes? Just about 10 years ago cutting edge therapists were implanting false memories of childhood trauma.. If someone does not seem to need a therapist based on actual behavior then I don't think schools should be inviting lecturers to create pre-screening based on students reactions to trigger warnings, etc. Bad ideas like every lecturer learning pop psychology "safety" and then reading tea leaves to tell people under their authority to get help is how you create a generation with psychological problems.
eej2ya1K 7y ago
"Indifferent towards rape." Seriously? Not being triggered by a depiction of a rape in a novel doesn't mean you're indifferent towards rape. And while "springing" "triggering" "content" on a weak person is a bad idea, encouraging them to seek out triggering content on their own and approach it at their own pace is going to create a stronger, better person. It's not just about the trigger either - learning that you can overcome something like that is extremely empowering. Hiding for the rest of your life is slowly going to turn you into a coward.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Not being triggered by a depiction of a rape in a novel doesn't mean you're indifferent towards rape. That wasn't the point being made. The point is that if depictions of rape are triggering to you, it's not necessarily important to work on not being triggered by rape depictions. Avoidance is generally acceptable there.
  - antepodius 7y ago
    Isn't it better for a person to not be triggerable? Wouldn't you wish, if a friend of yours was chronically vunerable in a way that hindered them that, all else being equal, they would become more resilient- for their own sake?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Sure. That’s what therapy is for. It's still a long, tough road for survivors of trauma. Triggering people in an unsafe, uncontrolled context can make it harder, not easier.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Yes, this !!! Being triggerable is a weakness. It gives others power over you. So why would anyone want that? Also, not being triggerable does not mean being insensitive or cynical or tolerant or whatever. It's just about being able to deal with stuff without freaking out.
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
And what does a desensitzing theraphy do? In ever increasing steps push you into trigger material, be it spiders, heigths or whatever. Nobody has a right to be bubbled. We are all in this together, and not facing the world is a coping strategy that leads to dependencies, dependencies lead to effectively self-imprisonment. Which then is blamed on those people used as shield. Which just generates more conflict, that is then again delegated, in a recursive circle, until basically discurs-controll is archieved, holding oneself as Hikikomorihostage.
mrandish 7y ago
> I really appreciate trigger warnings on content that includes it. This is fine as long as it's kept within reason like certain more commonly occurring traumatic themes such as sexual violence, etc. Conversely, it's also possible to go too far and let this get out of hand. If, for example, we were to let everyone define whatever they feel may personally trigger or offend them, we could end up with half of everything needing various warnings for each one-in-ten-thousand person's particular sensitivity. That could grow unmanageable pretty quickly and become an unreasonable burden on publishers, performers, teachers, comedians, etc. I feel there needs to be a healthy balance between the responsibilities we expect speaker/publisher to bear and the responsibility each individual must bear. It's reasonable to expect individuals choosing to participate in the public sphere possess a modicum of resilience. Otherwise, we risk diminishing the diversity of our robust marketplace of ideas.
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  In my experience, content warnings are usually a product of authorial judgement. For instance, I once wrote an article that discussed some people with extremely racist views. It occurred to me that some people might not want to read quotes containing vile, offensive comments about their race (or even someone else's). So I put a warning at the top so that such people wouldn't read the article if they didn't think they could handle it. No one forced me to do it. No one would have come for my head if I hadn't. As far as I can tell, this is the usual case: people put content warnings on their content for reasonable things when they think it's a good idea. I really don't see anything remotely resembling a problem, and I think people only really get upset about content warnings as a proxy for the greater culture war.

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.
watwut 7y ago
Yes, but you do that with therapist in setting where potential meltdown has no consequences to you or other people. The therapist is also supposed to decide your progress based on how it is going.
tekproxy 7y ago
My dog was afraid of taking a bath. I fixed this by rewarding her for coming into the bathroom. Once she was comfortable, I got her into the tub and rewarded her. After 15 minutes of "exposure therapy" she loves jumping into the tub and it's easier for both of us when she's stinky. I'm pretty sure people work similarly but it's hard to reward them with dog food.
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  People aren't dogs to be trained. To an extent, to be human and to recognize other people's humanity is to accept and accommodate their irrationality where doing so isn't particularly onerous to you.
  - antepodius 7y ago
    Training works on people; people are animals. To a certain extent, this is what therapy is: helping people train parts of their brains to behave differently.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      The difference is that we have therapists who are licensed to do this, and who are better at judging progress and when it might be appropriate to progress you. Your average lecturer or teacher is not trained in this way, at least specifically regarding trauma.
      - yabadabadoes 7y ago
        The average lecturer was managing a class, but now they need to prescreen individuals for experiences that make them too weak for normal classes? Just about 10 years ago cutting edge therapists were implanting false memories of childhood trauma.. If someone does not seem to need a therapist based on actual behavior then I don't think schools should be inviting lecturers to create pre-screening based on students reactions to trigger warnings, etc. Bad ideas like every lecturer learning pop psychology "safety" and then reading tea leaves to tell people under their authority to get help is how you create a generation with psychological problems.

eej2ya1K 7y ago

"Indifferent towards rape." Seriously? Not being triggered by a depiction of a rape in a novel doesn't mean you're indifferent towards rape. And while "springing" "triggering" "content" on a weak person is a bad idea, encouraging them to seek out triggering content on their own and approach it at their own pace is going to create a stronger, better person. It's not just about the trigger either - learning that you can overcome something like that is extremely empowering. Hiding for the rest of your life is slowly going to turn you into a coward.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Not being triggered by a depiction of a rape in a novel doesn't mean you're indifferent towards rape. That wasn't the point being made. The point is that if depictions of rape are triggering to you, it's not necessarily important to work on not being triggered by rape depictions. Avoidance is generally acceptable there.
- antepodius 7y ago
  Isn't it better for a person to not be triggerable? Wouldn't you wish, if a friend of yours was chronically vunerable in a way that hindered them that, all else being equal, they would become more resilient- for their own sake?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Sure. That’s what therapy is for. It's still a long, tough road for survivors of trauma. Triggering people in an unsafe, uncontrolled context can make it harder, not easier.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Yes, this !!! Being triggerable is a weakness. It gives others power over you. So why would anyone want that? Also, not being triggerable does not mean being insensitive or cynical or tolerant or whatever. It's just about being able to deal with stuff without freaking out.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago

And what does a desensitzing theraphy do? In ever increasing steps push you into trigger material, be it spiders, heigths or whatever. Nobody has a right to be bubbled. We are all in this together, and not facing the world is a coping strategy that leads to dependencies, dependencies lead to effectively self-imprisonment. Which then is blamed on those people used as shield. Which just generates more conflict, that is then again delegated, in a recursive circle, until basically discurs-controll is archieved, holding oneself as Hikikomorihostage.

mrandish 7y ago

> I really appreciate trigger warnings on content that includes it. This is fine as long as it's kept within reason like certain more commonly occurring traumatic themes such as sexual violence, etc. Conversely, it's also possible to go too far and let this get out of hand. If, for example, we were to let everyone define whatever they feel may personally trigger or offend them, we could end up with half of everything needing various warnings for each one-in-ten-thousand person's particular sensitivity. That could grow unmanageable pretty quickly and become an unreasonable burden on publishers, performers, teachers, comedians, etc. I feel there needs to be a healthy balance between the responsibilities we expect speaker/publisher to bear and the responsibility each individual must bear. It's reasonable to expect individuals choosing to participate in the public sphere possess a modicum of resilience. Otherwise, we risk diminishing the diversity of our robust marketplace of ideas.

pgcj_poster 7y ago
In my experience, content warnings are usually a product of authorial judgement. For instance, I once wrote an article that discussed some people with extremely racist views. It occurred to me that some people might not want to read quotes containing vile, offensive comments about their race (or even someone else's). So I put a warning at the top so that such people wouldn't read the article if they didn't think they could handle it. No one forced me to do it. No one would have come for my head if I hadn't. As far as I can tell, this is the usual case: people put content warnings on their content for reasonable things when they think it's a good idea. I really don't see anything remotely resembling a problem, and I think people only really get upset about content warnings as a proxy for the greater culture war.