
Trigger warnings do not work, new study finds - pseudolus
https://psmag.com/education/trigger-warnings-do-not-work-new-study-finds
======
cirgue
> It's worth noting that the study participants did not include people with
> diagnosed psychological ailments such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
> It's possible these warnings could be helpful to that subset of the
> population.

This caveat is large enough to drive a truck through. Trigger warnings aren't
for people who prefer to avoid unpleasant experiences, they're meant for
people who have involuntary and debilitating reactions to some kinds of
stimulus.

~~~
ineedasername
Yes, considering they're expressly used to address this particular
subpopulation, it's pretty much a waste of time to study these without
including them. The "normal" population is pretty much the control group.

~~~
belorn
General trigger warnings are not used to address this particular
subpopulation. There are medical approved techniques for people with diagnosed
psychological ailments, like PTSD, but they are individualized. Psychological
ailments are a very diverse set of problems with a even more diverse set of
causes.

If we still try to do some general treatment for PTSD it generally comes down
to reducing stress. Things like bright lights, loud noise and sudden actions
are all things which are known to cause stress, which is why doctors treating
PTSD patients recommend against fireworks during New Year's Eve and other
national holidays. A bit different from the trigger warnings that the study
explored.

------
sevensor
> "College students are increasingly anxious," they write. "Widespread
> adoption of trigger warnings in syllabi may promote this trend, tacitly
> encouraging students to turn to avoidance

Sounds like they're working exactly as intended.

~~~
b1r6
My experience in college was that these simply apply a "chilling effect" to
any and all discourse. I tended to stay more silent, lest I find retribution
for voicing my opinions. I think that is pretty sad. But I guess for its
proponents, this is the intended effect.

~~~
salawat
Please don't remain silent.

Look, I realize that conflict aversion is becoming increasingly mainstream
these days, but the single most valuable lesson you can take away from higher
education is that everyone (including you) can be wrong, and that's completely
okay. The thing that makes what we academically "know" so special is we've
refined our understandings such that as many inconsistencies have fallen off
through intellectual challenge and empirical proof that what is left has some
modicum of predictive power.

That can't happen without speaking out. It's okay to disagree. There is no
more demonstrative state of our own capacity for ignorance than being in
disagreement with someone else. In that state, two people have individual sets
of data that lead them to their own conclusions, which if bridged in spite of
being in opposition, either through evidence-based empirical reasoning, or
rhetorical exchange enriches everyone witness to the exchange. You're quite
literally bringing everyone around you closer together by building bridges
capable of reconciling seemingly divergent worldviews. This is one of the key
skills needed everyday as an adult.

Don't look at it like you're doing something shameful, or inviting yourself to
get hurt. Living the unexamined life does far more harm than any degree of
existential crisis caused on the journey to acquire understanding.

Sorry if it's a bit off topic, but hey, it's a trigger.

More on topic, if the use of trigger warnings is actually causing students who
don't have a direct need to avoid something to also avoid certain topics, that
is highly problemmatic.

~~~
core-questions
> Please don't remain silent. > It's okay to disagree.

This may not be the case, anymore, for every subject. There are narratives one
may not question; there are things you can say that, while legal, can result
in illegal action against you.

Some people are not functioning as the idealized "adult" you describe. They
have loud voices.

------
Grustaf
Isn’t the ostensible goal of trigger warnings to make it possible for people
to avoid the content? How could reading a trigger warning possible lessen the
effect of the content? If you can’t handle Ben Shapiro, how does reading a
trigger warning before listening to him “destroy a feminist” help?

~~~
core-questions
I'm against anything that prevents honest discourse or over-protects people
from learning experiences.

That said, it's easy to see that if you have had a traumatic incident in your
past, you may want to avoid things that make you think about it. Rape is a
particularly visceral example - the memories are in the back of your head, and
you try to not think about them, but they can be brought up because of
conversational topics, news articles, etc.

Ideally one is psychologically strong enough that this is just a moment of
pain before moving on; but for some people it's clearly not so minimal. Being
empathetic, I can see that it would be nice to enable these people to get
through most days without having to re-experience this sort of thing.

I can't see how a trigger warning would accomplish this. Putting "TRIGGER
WARNING: RAPE" at the top of an article is just as likely to serve as the
trigger itself. Even just putting "TRIGGER WARNING" on its own will eventually
do that, through association. If anything, one is more likely to have the
memories brought up more often when this kind of headline / disclaimer
abounds.

~~~
Grustaf
What i meant was that even if you like the concept oftrigger warning, surely
you wouldn’t think that they will make reading the content less painful? I
always assumed that the idea is that people should be able to avoid reading it
altogether, I can’t see how it could possibly help reading the works “Trigger
warning: rape” before reading about a rape, it would still remind you of the
traumatic experience.

~~~
core-questions
Yeah, that's basically my point. The only way it could possibly work is if you
had some client-side thing to filter out anything with the warning so you
didn't see it at all.

------
fzeroracer
So, the researchers didn't study the people whom trigger warnings are designed
for?

The entire point is for people with severe trauma/PTSD to elect out of
watching films or material that might bring up painful memories.

~~~
malvosenior
Thorough study of many fields is going to involve contact with uncomfortable
material. Without that contact and exposure it's impossible to fully become
immersed and study in depth. That is to say if you have PTSD and you study
humanities you must go in to that program _knowing_ you will be exposed to
material that makes you uncomfortable. Individual content need not be labeled
as potentially triggering.

I'll also add that people can get PTSD from any bad experience. It's pointless
to add trigger warnings because you'd have to add them to everything. Hit by a
car? Now you need trigger warnings on anything about car accidents. Parent
died from diabetes? Willy Wonka now needs a trigger warning. Victim of a
robbery...

~~~
fzeroracer
We've already had prototypical trigger warnings in that shows with flashing
lights carry epilepsy warnings. We accept that certain things can trigger
nasty responses in people, therefore it's better to add a brief disclaimer so
that people with said issues can avoid it.

That said, in any sort of discussion people usually preface links to videos
with violent and disturbing content with some sort of warning. If I for
example, decided to drop a video of something gruesome without context I would
rightfully be lambasted for doing so.

Also, your attempt at downplaying the seriousness of PTSD is really not
needed. You're essentially saying that anything can cause PTSD, therefore PTSD
is worthless to worry about.

~~~
DanBC
Sure, but we've ended up in a place where lawyers can't be taught about rape,
or sociologists can't be taught about suicide.

[https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/12/almost-half-of-law-
studen...](https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/12/almost-half-of-law-students-
want-trigger-warnings-before-being-taught-hard-subjects-like-rape/)

[https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-
ra...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law)

> One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word
> “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the
> word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should
> not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.

[https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/09/04/dr...](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/09/04/dropping-
suicide-a-level-syllabus-sensitive-pedagogy/)

> AQA’s decision to ban references of suicide from textbooks has been met with
> criticism from the sociology community. Anaïs Duong-Pedica argues it is
> naïve to assume that young people will never have encountered the idea of
> suicide prior to their A-levels. Refusing to engage with suicide in the
> classroom also marginalises students’ own experiences of suicide. Rather,
> measures should be put in place with and for students to accommodate the
> teaching and learning of sensitive topics such as suicide.

\---

> If I for example, decided to drop a video of something gruesome without
> context I would rightfully be lambasted for doing so.

I completely agree with this use of trigger warnings, if they're given in
enough time for students to actually do anything with it.

But even then, a better option would be for the person to get treatment for
their PTSD, and not engage in anxiety driven safety behaviours which usually
make the problem worse not better, even if they feel comforting in the short
term.

------
who-knows95
what a waste of time, the idea behind a trigger warning is to allow people who
are triggered by it, can avoid it!

~~~
ralusek
to their longterm detriment

~~~
ineedasername
Why to their long term detriment? If someone is in an online depression
support group, for example, and has issues with suicide, how is it detrimental
to warn them about a post that contains talk of such things? There is plenty
of research about the "contagious" nature of suicide for at-risk populations
being exposed to stories and details about it. Allowing someone to make an
informed choice about such content can literally save their life.

------
ralusek
The immune system is the best analog. Lack of exposure to the things with the
potential to harm you makes you far more susceptible to legitimate harm. But a
compromised system is a compromised system, and should be treated as such; the
healthy dose of exposure is not the same for everyone.

I would say that the problem with the current milieu is a matter of magnitude,
or lack thereof, as it puts very little value in the utility of any exposure
whatsoever, and far under-qualifies the necessary criteria for a compromised
system.

