Hadley Freeman on trigger warnings

[WarriorN]

A really interesting article exploring ideas around words, resilience and hurt.

I always feel these new Times articles of hers could go to several more pages...!

x.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1695712541475840251?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

The slides DD were given weren't warning about a practical lesson (she's in an online school for a start, lol).

It was slides about the white blood cells etc.

I remember listening to some news about this last year. I think it was ABC radio (Australian ‘ABC’) and it was this paper they were discussing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366464391_Proceed_with_Caution_The_Trouble_with_Trigger_Warnings

Proceed with Caution: The Trouble with Trigger Warning
Dec 2022*

In looking for it again, there are quite a few papers on the topic.

Here is another.

https://lifeinmind.org.au/a-meta-analysis-of-the-efficacy-of-trigger-warnings-content-warnings-and-content-notes

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Trigger Warnings, Content Warnings, and Content Notes

By Victoria Bridgland, Payton Jones & Benjamin Bellet

Preprint published August 2022

I found it a really interesting topic.

Sorry for your experience and I echo it.

One of my triggers in fluorsecent lighting. I don't expect the world to exist of trigger warnings about this.

The lengthy Covid lockdowns contributed to a massive surge in mental health issues in young people, particularly those in 1st year university when they were suddenly trapped in flats and halls with strangers in a new city, unable to leave except to buy food and unable to attend any lectures in person.

Anyone working in further education will have seen this.

Hadley was making the point that the rise in mental health concerns and trigger warnings predated this.

Oh, well that does sound idiotic.

”As for Hadley Freeman, I don’t believe that she is interested in the world being a better place or she wouldn’t be working for Rupert Murdoch”

Because Murdoch is a capitalist? Because Murdoch is what? I have no love for Murdoch, but I suggest if someone is trying to make declarations about his newspapers, they need to look at his original media stable instead of repeating lazy accusations. He has newspapers targeted towards trade Unionist demographics still within his group. It is an inconvenient fact that he is a capitalist but his media holdings cover a wide range of political views.

The trouble with trigger warnings is that they are 'leading'. As in psychologically they are priming you to 'expect' a certain reaction and therefore behave in a certain way. It means that your reaction isn't normal - it's manufactured and it's constructed.

I don't think they are a good idea for this reason. In pretty much any circumstances.

A prime example is the biology class with the warning about blood. All it does is wind the kids up and leads, particularly the girls, to behave in a stereotyped way which is affected by social contagion. If the warning hadn't been there the kids wouldn't do it so much.

This is an excellent point, yes. It could be argued to be deliberate psychological manipulation, particularly when used for young people.

”As for Hadley Freeman, I don’t believe that she is interested in the world being a better place or she wouldn’t be working for Rupert Murdoch”

Which newspapers are approved acceptable reading? Do they facilitate important topics of conversation such as social contagion. If not, why not?

Why might we need a range of different newspapers with different editorial lines? Do we think a single newspaper can cover all subjects or from all angles? If not, then are we constricting our critical thinking by instantly dismissing anything that comes from the 'wrong' publisher? Surely if you are well educated, you can judge a journalist on merit of an individual story rather than who the journalist is alone or where that article is published?

Or are you incapable of that, and just need to be spoonfed approved ideas by approved publications?

I do wonder about the capacity of some individuals on MN to construct a decent argument.

Im fed up of trigger warnings at each and every turn

Yes mass infantilisation as someone has said its a really good way of describing things.

As someone who has had trauma and CAT therapy I do agree with you @PermanentTemporary. It's a very nuanced area

As for Hadley Freeman, I don’t believe that she is interested in the world being a better place or she wouldn’t be working for Rupert Murdoch

The guardian didn't want her writing.

At least, they did but heavily censored.

There's a documentary on BBC iPlayer ATM called Paranormal: The Girl, the Ghost and the Gravestone. Now it sounds lame. And to a degree it is.

But there's an section in it where the reporter explores social conditioning and whether this is to blame for people seeing ghosts.

She talks about one known story which has been completely debunked and it a known urban legend about a road being haunted. This primes our minds to literally 'see things' that don't exist and to create our own fear of something that doesn't exist.

Trigger warnings are doing exactly this. Priming responses and reactions.

It was actually interesting in terms of a situation close to me. Someone was told to expect X, y and z reaction from family. They didn't perform to expectations, yet this person still reacted in a certain way because they were so primed for a certain reaction. They were unable to assess the situation by what actually happened because of the priming.

This is why I don't support them on MN. I think they are counter productive and actually often MORE likely to cause distress. It also allows people to avoid reasonable and rational discussion of difficult subject matter, because they are 'switched off' to being open to that discussion BEFORE it even starts.

It removes free thought from debate, because a thought has been imposed over the conversation before it begins and that's the problem. It is a very dark and powerful propaganda technique that has no place in so many of the situations it's being used in.

@Chipsahoy I'm sorry to hear about your experience and hope you can continue healing. You make a really good point: lots of things are unpleasant but what really triggers a trauma response for me is a smell. You can't put a trigger warning on smells.

Yes smells are a major trigger. Or music.
The way in which some people move or particular aspects of someone’s personality. Triggers for trauma survivors are rarely black and white. Also I don’t need to be protected from details of rape or other upsetting scenes, I’ve already survived that. I already have that resilience or I wouldn’t be alive.
Trigger warnings serve no purpose as far as I’m concerned but I know that I am privileged enough to be in recovery. And I cannot speak for all.

Well... I had to go out of my biology class at school once for fresh air, as I felt like I was going to faint after reading about blood circulating round the body. (Yes, I'm a wimp!)

I disagree with Hadley on this.

A decent society should watch out for the vulnerable. Trigger warnings are there to help people who are traumatised live the least unhappy life.

I have name changed for this because it deals with suicide so I have given a warning. I have given a few details.

My dad killed himself. My mum found him and 999 told her to cut him down and revive him doing cpr. He had been dead for some time but she was told to do this until the paramedics arrived (took about 30 minutes) as their policy is to try and help the patient. I had to go through the police statement with her and there are lots of incredibly horrendous details physical details that I am leaving out. I had to deal with some of the physical cleanup the police didn’t do. Then she had to be investigated to make sure she did not murder him and we couldn’t have a funeral for months. Which added a whole farcical admin level to it.

She came and lived with us for a couple of months. My DSs had to ‘deal’ with her screams in her sleep in the night. They were young but there was no other way. This was 3 years ago.

What we wanted to do is switch off. Impossible at first but then you want to watch something to take your mind off it. We nipped to London to walk along the southbank and my youngest saw the entrance to London Dungeons with a man hanging as an entrance display. He was desperately trying to not let me see it but broke down later. When watching films and tv series I use Common Sense media but stuff got through.

Its wearing. Trigger warnings about suicide before a programme just mean I can chose to decide whether I want to watch something. I feel I deserve to not have my time invested in a programme ruined and have to have memories coming back when I have to switch off. Ironically I can deal with any other type of suicide - I agree the devil is in the specifics - so I have missed out on a lot of such I could cope with. But it’s just too much to watch for us at the moment.

Lots of friends have avoided me. But a couple of strangers who found out how he died have come up to me and given me advice. Always ones who have been through similar. Don’t let it ruin your life. It will get easier but it is not the same as any other ‘normal’ death. When it’s raining, go for a walk as no one can see you crying in the rain. Also I would add don’t let your children give too many details out as bullies will use it against them. My Ds had to read out Noughts and Crosses in school and got upset and were teased.

Also any journalists out there - don’t use this. It’s personal but I am writing it so you see it from the side of someone who is thankful for trigger warnings. Just so I can be. And let my nerves rest for a bit from being on alert.

I'm a member of a FB parenting group where the members use trigger warnings for practically everything, and then follow them with lots of dots so that the triggering content isn't visible unless you choose to expand the post.

Things I've seen warned about include:

• all talk of weight loss/gain
• losing your job
• a horse (just being a horse, nothing traumatic occured)
• snakes
• pregnancy tests
• doctors appointments (for non-traumatic things)
• child with minor injury (no blood)
• growth scan photos
• divorce
• using a food bank

The list could go on and on. It's bizarre. I don't dare post anything!

Since no-one knows the past experience of someone in a classroom or lecture theatre, it seems wise to give ongoing reminders that 'you may be triggered by something here, if you are, do what you have to do to manage that, and then after the lecture/lesson COME AND TELL ME so that I can make sure you haven't missed anything vital - handout - information - reading recommendation'.

My worst triggering was completely unpredictable, lecture on early Irish churches, very good, lots of aerial shots of lesser known sites which, most unexpectedly, included the one where I'd buried three family members in the previous twelve months. No way the speaker could have predicted that, or any reason why he should. Even if I'd known in advance I don't think I'd have known just how visceral my reaction would be. But it wasn't actually harmful, and I did what we all have to do, moved on.

Content warnings are different to trigger warnings, the word 'trigger' is loaded.

And whilst content warnings for suicide is IMO ok, for other things not so much. Like blood in a biology less or law students asking not to learn about rape laws. It's all in the nuance.

I suffered from infertility and miscarriage and pregnant women 'triggered' me for a while but shutting myself away from life wasn't going to help. It was important I was exposed to pregnant women / children / other people having babies because, although painful, feeling that and acknowledging that life moved on for everyone else was part of the healing process. Had I not been exposed to that pain my life would have become very small and very sad.

Completely agree. Saying something 'contains content relating to suicide' is fair because we also know that it has a social contagion element in its own right too. It's perhaps the one area I think it's reasonable to make a point - but I also highlight that the term isn't saying 'trigger' either. It's a neutral term which is effectively empowering a viewer to make an informed decision.

The term 'trigger warning' however is loaded. It's emotional in tone and suggesting that a viewer may get upset.

One primes, one informs. And the power of informing is not to lead and needs to be limited in its scope. If you over use it, you are liable to do more harm than good by creating a culture of guilt and anxiety across everything. It is the leading, emotional projection that is the problematic bit - it tells you to have a certain reaction. Saying something has certain content just tells you the content not the reaction.

Perhaps you are right that content is different in context to trigger.

Trigger is very much an emotive word. Whereas content is neutral.

I think context is very important. I’m a survivor of SA and CSA and all these years later I’m still receiving therapy for PTSD.

In the first example, if I couldn’t learn about rape law then I wouldn’t think of studying law at all. I’ll be honest I don’t know much about law but if there was an option to do property or civil law instead, maybe I’d do that. Or if it was simple as “I can learn about this topic, I just want an advanced warning so that I can manage my reaction or prepare some coping strategies or even literally just not be taken by surprise by it” then that’s a lot more reasonable.

Another example I can think of where a trigger warning should have been used was when Jordan Grey got his/her penis out on Channel 4 without the usual nudity warning. For me, nudity is not triggering on its own… but a male penis suddenly, when you don’t expect it is a trigger. While I’m trying my best to cope with the trauma, I would also say that actually in that specific context a therapist teaching me that I’m supposed to be cool with a penis appearing at literally any moment is the opposite of helpful! It just reinforces what happened.

So context is important. Sometimes they are vital, sometimes they are overused, but we shouldn’t be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

(I think Victoria Smith also writes very well about this: how sometimes coping strategies for sexual trauma are treated as if they are a bigger burden to society than they are to the person who is jumping at shadows).

'Scenes of full frontal male nudity' is different to 'trigger warning: flappy penis dances'.

And tbh the problem with Jordan Gray's flappy bits wasnt just the nudity but the ill judged misogynistic lyrics that accompanied them.