to think trigger warnings are pointless?

[AgnestaVipers]

I have just come across this meta-analysis of the research on the effectiveness of trigger warnings.

twitter.com/paytonjjones/status/1563950340944560128?t=wiSabn0PLlY2d2NEo2TSDQ&s=19

TL;DR: they don't work.

I have been astonished lately that trigger warnings are put on things like books on English Literature degree courses.

Has anyone ever found them useful?

They are useful in mumsnet. I don't want to read posts about suicide or about child abuse so the trigger warning means I don't open those posts by accident.

I find them useful on Mumsnet because people don’t always title a thread appropriately.

so I would open “AIBU about this friend” and have no clue what it’s about but if it says “AIBU about this friend TW:SA” I can go, yup not for me

I've found them useful. I follow a FB group in which sometimes people talking about baby loss and I don't want to read about it, so I ignore the posts that say TW baby loss.

There was a piece in radio 4 about this a few weeks ago, saying the research indicates they are either pointless or harmful. Which in many cases, they probably are.
However, I agree with PP that with things like forum threads when you have little indication of the topic, then it is helpful.

Very useful on Mumsnet - I rarely open a thread with a trigger warning in the subject.

I'm grateful for them with threads about spiders, complete with pictures. As a complete arachnophobe, that's the last thing I want to see.

I was sexually abused as a child. I can watch/read/listen to media that features CSA and be fine but it helps massively if I know it's coming. That way I can mentally prepare myself or avoid it altogether if I'm going through a rough patch emotionally. I went to a stand up comedy gig a few years back and the support act, a bloke I'd never heard of, started talking about being sexually abused as a child in quite graphic detail. I found it very distressing, I felt like I couldn't breath and wanted to walk out but we were near the front so I was worried he would take the piss as some comedians do when people leave. The only reason I found it upsetting was that it took me by surprise. Rightly or wrongly, it didn't enter my head that a stand-up comedy gig would feature that subject matter, certainly not that it would be talked about at length or in detail.

I understand that the existence of TW just irritates some people. But if that's the case then they're not for you, maybe just be grateful that you're not one of the unlucky people they're intended for.

maybe just be grateful that you're not one of the unlucky people they're intended for.

Fair point.

Problem: if you read that Twitter thread, about the meta-analysis, he talks about A/B testing, that between stimulus A and stimulus B, people chose the one that has a trigger warning, so they don’t work. But nearly everyone who has commented has shown real world effect - they don’t choose between two written pieces of material about something traumatizing, one with or without a trigger warning. They choose C - to use the trigger warning and not read an option at all. I would have to know a lot more about the study design of the studies they used for the meta-analysis. And I can think of a very clear reason why, if only given an A/B choice of reading something traumatizing, you’d read the one with the trigger warning - because you might feel the person giving the trigger warning would treat the material more sensitively.

Maybe I’m way off base and the study design of the studies they used were fine, but it sounds like there’s a shitload of margin for error - how in the world could they possibly have tailored double-blind studies about trigger warnings, without knowing each individual’s fears? So they relied on something less than the gold standard, and then mistakes happen. I mean, they may even have relied on self-reporting, which is basically saying, “Random university volunteers who needed good will from their tutor just told us whatever they were feeling on a random Tuesday morning, and that’s what this study is based on.”

I have been astonished lately that trigger warnings are put on things like books on English Literature degree courses.

I don't understand why it's 'astonishing' that some universities feel a sense of responsibility to young people who might be vulnerable? Let's say you're a student who has lost a parent to suicide, for example. Reading a text that contains detailed depictions of suicide is likely to be distressing for you but if you know in advance it's coming you could make sure take care of yourself by, just off the top of my head, making sure you read it when you're house-mates are in rather than when you're alone and plan something nice to do afterwards to distract yourself. If you're already accessing the University wellbeing service you could let the therapist/mental health practitioner you talk to know that you've got to read something that's going to be really tricky for you so you can discuss coping strategies together beforehand. Yes, this will only apply to a small number of students, but that doesn't mean that small number don't deserve some consideration.

I think they have their place if you are posting something upsetting that people may not want to read. I read the most horrific birth story while pregnant, I literally cannot imagine a more upsetting birth, it was absolutely horrific. I really could have done without that.

It's gone too far though. I posted a picture of a spider that I crocheted on a crochet Facebook group. The admin told me to add a trigger warning and to next the photo in the comments. It's a fucking toy spider.

@neverbeenskiing , I find it incredible how fragile this makes people sound. Life is full of this stuff. Letting young people think they have a right to TWs on ever piece of art they might encounter is simply unrealistic.

I don't think I'm "fragile" for finding it helpful to know in advance if I'm going to see something that might bring on flashbacks to my experience of being sexually abused as a child so I can then manage the situation better. I don't think the posters on this thread who have their own reasons for finding it helpful to know if they're about to see something related to baby loss or suicide are necessarily "fragile" either. Nor do I think anyone has a "right" to a trigger warning, I'm just saying I personally find it helpful and clearly some others do too. No one is saying that every piece of art has to come with a trigger warning, but there will always be some who resent any sort of reasonable adjustments for people who have experienced trauma and bang on about "slippery slopes" and "its gone too far".

I feel like trigger warnings have a place but they are starting to be over used and used in some ridiculous situations.

The examples given above (Tw for baby loss and CSA) make sense if they are being discussed in depth or detail. Tw for violence on the news etc make sense.

However I do think they’re being overused and I don’t think TW should be necessary for something briefly being mentioned or in places where it is obvious there will be mention of a subject.

I heard about TW for human remains on an archeology text. That kind of feels like putting “may contain nuts” on a pack of nuts.

I appreciate a trigger warning on mumsnet. They also come in handy on tv shows and movies. I've been in horrible situations where a trigger warning was an obvious need (graphic discussions and images of bombings I experienced) and it wasn't provided. The fall out for me was really terrible so was a waste of my time and my employers money.

I don't feel I or any other participants had a 'right' to a warning necessarily, but had there been one the outcome would have been better for everyone involved. Warnings on University content is very sensible, it means people can make an informed decision and prepare.

You say 'life is full of this stuff' but why have you got an issue with the people who want to minimise some of the 'stuff' when they have the power too?

I find them helpful,
I know that what happened to me is fairly common, and something that people often like to portray in films and TV and I know that they often like to start it with a jumpscare. I know that when those depictions are intense, graphic and so incredibly similar to my experiences it feels awful. Its never nice to be happily watching a nice TV show or reading a book in my safe and secure house and then be ripped right back to the worst time in my life.
I like that TWs are around more, and websites like doesthedogdie, it lets me control what I am exposed to and minimise how often it happens.
They are not perfect and I don't expect to be warned about everything and I know I will still stumble across things that show SA and DV etc but I would never choose to see it and the TWs mean I get to choose and thats nice.

Why wouldn't you want help people to decide for themselves whether to watch / read something potentially traumatising? In what world is surprising people with rape / sexual assault / death / pregnancy loss material a good thing!

trigger warnings are just good manners and only abusive weirdos are against them

I'm glad not to need them. But I'd do hate the term 'trigger warning'. I prefer 'content note' which is starting to be used. I think trigger warning is quite a stressful couple of words in itself. Also people mock the word triggered.
Content note is much more neutral, while still getting the message across to those who need it.

I find them very helpful. I suffered from PTSD due to being gang raped as a teenager, so yes maybe that made me “fragile”. I accidentally went to a theatre show that featured a very intense monologue from the point of view of a rapist and the resulting flashback and panic attack was one of the worst of my life. Like a pp, I can often manage media about rape if I prepare myself, but sometimes it’s just too much and I really appreciate the option to opt out. Especially when it’s in an unexpected place.

I don’t understand why some people are so aggressively anti trigger warning. It barely affects your life at all if you don’t need it, and can be really helpful to those who do.

Its never nice to be happily watching a nice TV show or reading a book in my safe and secure house and then be ripped right back to the worst time in my life.

This is exactly what I was trying to say but you've articulated it much better. Many people don't understand that trauma isn't something you ever get over, it follows you throughout your life and you have to find ways to live with it. Even once it's over and you're safe, you can be plunged right back to that feeling of complete terror and helplessness in an instant. TW's can give you a modicum of control over it, and I'd like to think that even if I hadn't experienced it myself I'd have enough empathy not to begrudge others who have.

I suffered from PTSD due to being gang raped as a teenager, so yes maybe that made me “fragile”.

We are not "fragile", the men that did these things to us are the fragile ones and don't let anyone tell you different 💐

I think instead of trigger warnings which suggest you should find something upsetting people should title threads appropriately, provide short summaries of texts detailing potentially distressing points etc to ensure no surprises.

The term trigger has been used for decades by HCP's to describe anything that can bring on or exacerbate symptoms of distress in people with MH issues. Unfortunately, the tabloids love to stoke division and their "war on woke" nonsense has led to the word being misused, mocked and sneered at. As if people with MH issues aren't stigmatised enough, even attempts to manage their condition sensibly by knowing their triggers planning for them effectively is open to ridicule. If 'content note' feels more palatable to some people and leaves those who need one less open to ridicule or accusations of being a "snowflake" then I'm all for it.

For some reason, those threads seem to attract arachnophobes.