Trigger warnings don’t work?
Discussion
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a lefty snowflake etc., but you might be interested in listening to the R4 programme ‘AntiSocial’ broadcast today (available via BBC sounds).
In essence, there’s a lot of research, almost all of which comes to the same conclusion - ‘trigger’ warnings have no effect in anyone, other than on people with severe PTSD (etc), and in that case it actually has a detrimental effect whereby they approach the material with a sense of dread.
Also, trigger warnings can actually encourage people to read/view the material in question (cf. the ‘do not press this button’/‘Channel 4 red triangle’ effect).
Another point made was that in uni’s (for example) the warning is down to the academic/department, and it is *not* a policy.
In essence, there’s a lot of research, almost all of which comes to the same conclusion - ‘trigger’ warnings have no effect in anyone, other than on people with severe PTSD (etc), and in that case it actually has a detrimental effect whereby they approach the material with a sense of dread.
Also, trigger warnings can actually encourage people to read/view the material in question (cf. the ‘do not press this button’/‘Channel 4 red triangle’ effect).
Another point made was that in uni’s (for example) the warning is down to the academic/department, and it is *not* a policy.
ChocolateFrog said:
I listened to that then decided it was too depressing and turned over to Adrian Chiles, that's how bad it was.
If you’re anti ‘trigger warning’ (as am I, other than in some extreme graphic cases), you should’ve stayed listening - the research presented towards the end (as mentioned, almost totally conclusive, very rare in research) comprehensively demolished their use and concluded that they are detrimental to the people they are meant to help.ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see the research. Purely anecdotally but I’ve found stuff that I guess you’d call trigger warnings useful.
We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
I’d give Marley & Me a miss if I were you…We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
Edited by rover 623gsi on Friday 26th August 15:22
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see the research. Purely anecdotally but I’ve found stuff that I guess you’d call trigger warnings useful.
We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
Bambi's gonna be a kick on the teeth for her! We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
rover 623gsi said:
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see the research. Purely anecdotally but I’ve found stuff that I guess you’d call trigger warnings useful.
We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
I’d give Marley & Me a miss if I were you…We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
Edited by rover 623gsi on Friday 26th August 15:22
Thank you OP for the heads-up, On another thread someone asked why anyone pays for the TV licence since when they can easily get away with not doing so. I'm happy to pay for stuff like that.
The phrase "Trigger warnings" is a bit like "woke" has become. I don't see the problem with content descriptions, they have long since been at the start of TV programmes. But the media "culture wars" stuff makes it seem like a really big deal when I just don't think it is. Using the term "Trigger warnings" just adds to that. As the OP says, it's an individual thing and in many/most cases, people take no notice. Perhaps the people that care most are the ones that don't like it.
The phrase "Trigger warnings" is a bit like "woke" has become. I don't see the problem with content descriptions, they have long since been at the start of TV programmes. But the media "culture wars" stuff makes it seem like a really big deal when I just don't think it is. Using the term "Trigger warnings" just adds to that. As the OP says, it's an individual thing and in many/most cases, people take no notice. Perhaps the people that care most are the ones that don't like it.
Randy Winkman said:
Thank you OP for the heads-up, On another thread someone asked why anyone pays for the TV licence since when they can easily get away with not doing so. I'm happy to pay for stuff like that.
The phrase "Trigger warnings" is a bit like "woke" has become. I don't see the problem with content descriptions, they have long since been at the start of TV programmes. But the media "culture wars" stuff makes it seem like a really big deal when I just don't think it is. Using the term "Trigger warnings" just adds to that. As the OP says, it's an individual thing and in many/most cases, people take no notice. Perhaps the people that care most are the ones that don't like it.
Same programme also pointed out that the use of the phrase ‘trigger’ can be a trigger in itself, both for pro and anti. Anyway, some pretty good research shows that it has no use, or even a negative effect. I can understand the underlying intention, but as with many things it has been taken too far and/or misinterpreted.The phrase "Trigger warnings" is a bit like "woke" has become. I don't see the problem with content descriptions, they have long since been at the start of TV programmes. But the media "culture wars" stuff makes it seem like a really big deal when I just don't think it is. Using the term "Trigger warnings" just adds to that. As the OP says, it's an individual thing and in many/most cases, people take no notice. Perhaps the people that care most are the ones that don't like it.
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see the research. Purely anecdotally but I’ve found stuff that I guess you’d call trigger warnings useful.
We use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
Really how many films actually show animal cruelty ffs trigger warnings I suspect are useful for certain audience members but only if they up and leave. So let's say you have Ben shapiro talking about trans people and your a supporer of the trans community probably best to leave. But if you carry on watching well your going to see the dog get kicked to use the animal analogyWe use a site called does the dog die to check movies before we watch them as my partner doesn’t want to see animal cruelty or death.
andy_s said:
A minor concern of mine is that even that extract uses the common parlance "trigger warnings". I guess it includes a definition though. As per the post above, I think that it could well be the case that some things are taken too far and have the reverse effect from what's intended. Of course the science bit at the end was only one part of the programme and I thought the female student/tutor spoke well about more general teaching aims and support for students and even the "free speech" guy acknowledged that he might actually tick "yes" to a question about supporting warnings. So I dont think the conclusion of the programme was a simple one or even if there was a conclusion.However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Randy Winkman said:
A minor concern of mine is that even that extract uses the common parlance "trigger warnings". I guess it includes a definition though. As per the post above, I think that it could well be the case that some things are taken too far and have the reverse effect from what's intended. Of course the science bit at the end was only one part of the programme and I thought the female student/tutor spoke well about more general teaching aims and support for students and even the "free speech" guy acknowledged that he might actually tick "yes" to a question about supporting warnings. So I dont think the conclusion of the programme was a simple one or even if there was a conclusion.
However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Completely agree - it was a very measured programme.However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Randy Winkman said:
A minor concern of mine is that even that extract uses the common parlance "trigger warnings". I guess it includes a definition though. As per the post above, I think that it could well be the case that some things are taken too far and have the reverse effect from what's intended. Of course the science bit at the end was only one part of the programme and I thought the female student/tutor spoke well about more general teaching aims and support for students and even the "free speech" guy acknowledged that he might actually tick "yes" to a question about supporting warnings. So I dont think the conclusion of the programme was a simple one or even if there was a conclusion.
However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Have a look at the linked pre-print; "Trigger warnings, content warnings, or content notes are alerts about upcoming content that may contain themes related to past negative experiences."However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Caveats [always caveats]: It's pre-print so not peer reviewed yet, in psychology there was a replication crisis in the past few years so always be careful irt psych, and of course, a paper could come out tomorrow saying the opposite.
It sorta makes intuitive sense, out in the extremes you have the hyper-sensitive presenting that will be triggered [genuinely or not] by the slightest thing, so warning about that thing is the 'point of contact' rather than that contact being found in the original item. If you faint at the mention of 'rape' you'll already be triggered by being trigger warned about rape content.
Randy Winkman said:
andy_s said:
A minor concern of mine is that even that extract uses the common parlance "trigger warnings". I guess it includes a definition though. As per the post above, I think that it could well be the case that some things are taken too far and have the reverse effect from what's intended. Of course the science bit at the end was only one part of the programme and I thought the female student/tutor spoke well about more general teaching aims and support for students and even the "free speech" guy acknowledged that he might actually tick "yes" to a question about supporting warnings. So I dont think the conclusion of the programme was a simple one or even if there was a conclusion.However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Diderot said:
Randy Winkman said:
andy_s said:
A minor concern of mine is that even that extract uses the common parlance "trigger warnings". I guess it includes a definition though. As per the post above, I think that it could well be the case that some things are taken too far and have the reverse effect from what's intended. Of course the science bit at the end was only one part of the programme and I thought the female student/tutor spoke well about more general teaching aims and support for students and even the "free speech" guy acknowledged that he might actually tick "yes" to a question about supporting warnings. So I dont think the conclusion of the programme was a simple one or even if there was a conclusion.However, I do think it should be compulsory listening for anyone that dismisses the BBC as entirely woke/lefty/liberal.
Yes, trigger warnings don't 'work'. As I understand it, they actually just reinforce the anxiety related to the trigger and ultimately reduce resilience. I believe the use of them is in direct opposition to the methodology of cognitive behavioural therapy for the management of anxiety (which seeks to expose, explore, understand and reframe).
I'd suggest anyone who is interested in the subject to have a read of this article from the authors of The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt: How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus. The book itself is excellent and well worth a read as well IMO.
Another interesting article re TWs from Scientific American here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-min...
I'd suggest anyone who is interested in the subject to have a read of this article from the authors of The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt: How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus. The book itself is excellent and well worth a read as well IMO.
Another interesting article re TWs from Scientific American here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-min...
Edited by g3org3y on Friday 26th August 19:21
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff