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?

Instead of being astonished that there are people who need trigger warnings maybe you should be appalled at WHY they need those warnings. Child rape, sexual assault, suicide, domestic violence, war, etc. That's what's shocking but instead there are those who think it's more important to focus on the use of the word trigger rather than the causes of those triggers.

I can get triggered from the trigger warning.

A lot of my triggers don’t tend to get TWs attached anyway.

Avoiding the triggers can be a double edged sword and make things worse anyway.

So on the whole they don’t help me personally.

Often on the back of DVDs it has a little box for violence, nudity, language etc. which will tell you exactly what to expect in the film. e.g. language - infrequent, mild in a PG or language - frequent, strong in an 18.

There was an episode of Antisocial on BBC four called “trigger warnings” recently. It was interesting listening. Available on BBC sounds. I think a lot of people don’t understand what being triggered actually is in a similar way that they don’t understand narcissism or gaslighting.

I do get annoyed on here when people post titles like "Am I Wrong - trigger warning" without saying what the warning is for, it's useless.

Is there a link to the study itself- I couldn’t see one. I’d like to know how they defined TWs. Here many people are talking about TW on MN threads (which seem a good idea- just a way of titling your thread carefully so people know what it’s about). OP is talking about TWs on things like literary texts, which is a slightly different question.

I don't think people/women finding TW on certain things makes them seem fragile.

TW v CN - there's no difference. Dimwits who think TW, makes people seem fragile will think the same of CN.

those of us fortunate not to 'benefit from TW can just ignore either and act like grown ups. It doesn't matter if it's on a lot of threads or if it's on things YOU can't see the benefit of, if it helps someone it's all good.

@Oysterbabe I can understand why you didn't think to put it on your post about your crochet S, but that will trigger some people - I'm just grateful I'm not one of them. As long as you were just asked to change the title & werent 'told off' I think it's fine.

That was really interesting in the study that it said that the trigger warning can actually make it more likely for people to read the material in some cases. That is definitely true for me some times. Once I see the trigger in the title and I am triggered by it I often then feel I NEED to read the content to process what this is about and find some relief that way. I may or may not regret that afterwards. I’ve never heard anyone talk about this.

I agree that the word 'trigger' is itself over-used to the point that it can now be mocked. I feel people are, to a large extent, responsible for due diligence (i.e looking the story up) when seeing a play or film, or not reading further into a thread entitled 'bf raped me' if they are feeling very vulnerable.

In the context of a university degree, it would let me know that I might need to arrange some extra support, like a counselling session, or a phone call with a friend, or that I should sit by the door in case I need to leave halfway through to have a quick cry in the loo.

Over a book or a play? I honestly find this baffling. Especially in terms of literature, where reading a quick synopsis ahead of time gives you that sort of information. Everyone knows that art is full of sex and death. And that it is there to challenge or make us think. I cry quite frequently at art, and I don't go to the loo to do it. It's part of the experience.

I also find myself wondering whether the preponderance of trigger warnings are partly to do with a culture now where people seek out or dwell upon the ways in which they might be fragile. Their 'trauma' (another grossly over-used word) has become part of their personality.

I found this discussion about disability - but specifically autism spectrum disorder - absolutely fascinating. Freddie deBoer is a man with Bipolar disorder who is frank about his experience and hugely intelligent in analysing this recent form of identity politics.
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000569731362

No, but I cut and paste the title and the study comes up.

I linked to the twitter thread because I assumed it would be easily digestible😕 for the majority of busy MN readers...

Trigger warnings could be great if well executed. Most of the time the sentence is a mere: "trigger warner" but it doesn't actually say what it is about.

Ans sometimes it is just a bit too much really
But yeah I think it could be great

The news should have it

@AgnestaVipers
The due diligence bit is tripping me up. I get that in some cases it is clear what the content will include, and people are largely responsible for choosing to view media that clearly contains things that may upset them. But that is sort if the point- the information is only sometimes available and when it is not, TWs are useful.
So for example I would not go and see a film where the main point of the story is about SA but lots of films and TV have a SA secondary storyline and so it is not mentioned in the description. And if it is a new film there may be nowhere to do this due diligence of finding out everything about what the story will entail.

For example a show like Casualty, or silent witness where there are multiple story lines and an episode when it is shown initially will not have an available synopsis anywhere. Unless you ask someone else to pre watch shows for you (ridiculous) or wait and hope somebody mentions it online, (does not always happen). There is nothing you can do. This is fixed by a line of white text at the top of the screen for 5 seconds that says TW- Sexual Assault and Graphic Violence.

It helps- and its a bit weird that you could read this whole thread and still come to the conclusion that people who are 'feeling fragile' are just not trying hard enough to not be upset by sudden, unexpected and incredibly realistic depictions of the worst things that have ever happened to them.

Most people who like trigger warnings being put in those scenes are not asking for it to annoy other people or to revel in their snowflakery, expecting the world to pander to us because we are feeling delicate. Its because trauma is hard, PTSD is hard, flashbacks and the realities of dealing with the aftermath of horrific events is hard and TWs on media can be useful.

Exactly!
Character dies in film/ book / play = I have a cry just like anyone else if I was invested, more so if it's done well, no harm done.
Character is intently suicidal/ kills themself/ has vivid flashbacks to child abuse = I have flashbacks and nightmares that stop me eating, sleeping, plus ocd flares up sometimes to point of not being able to leave the house.
Not the same fucking thing is it.

Please, you're not interested in anything. You're just being goady and superior.

Yes, this.

I'm with @neverbeenskiing that they are sometimes necessary. After family loss, I find depictions of suicide in the way my family me never died and offensive options very distressing.

But trigger warning as a phrase has negative connotations with 'snowflakes' who can't cope, which is why many people automatically are 'against' it.

@AgnestaVipers

I don't rage against studies, I generally find that they are not conclusive and MAY form PART of an argument for or against something. We live in a time with many studies. Subjective data can be manipulated and any study (on it's own) is just an idea that at that time gained backing. As you didn't actually provide a link to the study, I can't be arsed finding it, because it does not interest me.

Please take my rudeness in the manner it was intended. I will tell you what you could be doing. A study why people trawl spaces like mumsnet intentionally goading and pissing off people who are trying to be part of something good. You have the perfect data starting point. Yourself.

Don't bother replying (You aren't very good at it - Your last reply to me was a bloody mess - You highlighted someone else's comment for a start). It Baffled me!

Nice name btw. Very clever. If you think tediousness is clever I mean. (It's clear you do)

Perhaps you should take responsibility for the fact you read a thread where trigger warnings were being discussed?

It's there to make you think.

It's not there for me to re-live in front of everyone exactly how it felt at the moment of attempting suicide. To go into gruesome details that would probably put them off their lunch. To make the session about me, in a very public, embarrassing way. My trauma is not there for classmates to dissect academically - it is mine, and I deal with it privately. So yes, I would discuss that with a friend or professional.

The analysis was really interesting op.

"Don't bother replying" - on my own thread?😀

I responded to you, then quoted someone else and replied to that point. Sorry if it baffled you.

Their 'trauma' (another grossly over-used word) has become part of their personality.

So you disagree with trauma on the basis of perceived wokeness. Yes, there are people, many teenagers, who misuse psychological terms like trauma. What does this have to do with trigger warnings for serious topics like infant loss, childhood abuse, suicide?

So you disagree with trauma on the basis of perceived wokeness.

No, I think trauma is a word used when other words might be more appropriate.

I have also found this book interesting, as it unpacks the issue in a direction I hadn't thought of before:
news.columbia.edu/news/george-bonnano-new-book-the-end-of-trauma

What does this have to do with trigger warnings for serious topics like infant loss, childhood abuse, suicide?

I'm exploring, broadly, the idea of people seeming to be very fragile in our culture, and that can co-exist with the idea that there are people who have genuinely had very painful and upsetting experiences that they are recovering from.

I am sorry if there are individuals here who feel these ideas somehow personally attack them. That is not the intention.