A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes • Hacker News Board

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#51

Post by komali2 » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:07 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #24

kadoban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Most people only extend empathy to their in-group. The left just has a different in-group. Your comment weirdly supports this reading. To me it reads as an attack on conservatives. Ending your comment with “…worth empathy to them .” implies conservatives are the out-group to you. Sounds to me like you don’t think this out-group (conservatives) deserve your empathy either! I might be misreading your intent, but as it…

> Most people only extend empathy to their in-group. The left just has a different in-group.

Depends on how you define in-group I guess? Most of my leftist friends are straight and white, yet all of them support LGBT rights as human rights, went to Black Lives Matter protests, etc. Yet similar straight, white conservative former friends of mine do not extend empathy to the black american experience, or will outright say homophobic things.

Considering a tenant of leftism is tolerance regardless of identity I basically have to hard disagree with a blanket "the left just has a different in-group." A core tenant of leftist ideology is universal empathy, as a basis for support for universal human rights, equity, etc.

I don't count authoritarians masquerading as leftists, such as tankies ("Marxist Leninists" my foot) or the hilarious new "MAGA Communists" in this.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#52

Post by komali2 » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:11 PM UTC

all2well wrote: post #10

What about stuff like movie and game ratings? What about things like restricting sexually explicit material to minors? Seems like a weird point to make. What I like about content warnings is that I can choose whether I want to engage with something that might upset me in a more granular fashion than “entire profile.” It’s not like I’d stop avoiding content if there were no CWs anywhere.

Yeah this is where I was always confused, I think "trigger warning" has become one of those ill-defined concepts, especially in american political discourse, that mean so many things that they don't really mean anything anymore. Other examples: "liberal," which I've heard mean everything from anarchism through communism and all the way to its actual definition, "communism" which seems to mean fascism, "fascism" which seems to mean literally anything, "grooming" which seems to mean not being heteronormative or heterosexual, etc.

I always thought a true trigger warning, the kind that I really like, are for example movies warning when there'd be things like gore and etc that I don't like to watch. I like it because I get a physically ill reaction that will ruin my night if i see fictionalized gore. I wish I didn't, but I do, so it goes. But as you've said I've seen "trigger warning" mean literally putting the words "trigger warning" on the top of a text post which seems pointless, or, saying it before telling a story, which also seems pointless.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#53

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:11 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

all2well wrote: post #13

“To many conservatives, trigger warnings are a symptom of a world gone mad: a fragilizing ritual meant to insulate the delicate worldview of a weak-minded generation.” Conservatives routinely get upset about the presence of gay people in media, among many other things. Is that somehow in a different category? (This is in reply to the article linked by the author of the study in that Twitter thread)

I think the overall concern is that people in general seem all too willing to ignore reality. I can't really speak for any particular group in US ( or even in the old country ), because I am sufficiently weird that I do not really fit anywhere. Yay me. That said, trigger warning is already a trigger word and may need to replaced with something else to avoid emotional reaction ( although I admit I do not have a good r…

[deleted]

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#54

Post by all2well » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

all2well wrote: post #13

“To many conservatives, trigger warnings are a symptom of a world gone mad: a fragilizing ritual meant to insulate the delicate worldview of a weak-minded generation.” Conservatives routinely get upset about the presence of gay people in media, among many other things. Is that somehow in a different category? (This is in reply to the article linked by the author of the study in that Twitter thread)

I think the overall concern is that people in general seem all too willing to ignore reality. I can't really speak for any particular group in US ( or even in the old country ), because I am sufficiently weird that I do not really fit anywhere. Yay me. That said, trigger warning is already a trigger word and may need to replaced with something else to avoid emotional reaction ( although I admit I do not have a good r…

The point I was probably trying to make is that I suspect that the author of this study and the accompanying article probably has a particular political axe to grind. That's mostly just conjecture, though.

Moral panics are nothing new, and (self-)censorship is nothing new either.

I think it's naive to think that conservatives have "gotten over" gay marriage, or gay rights more broadly, especially given how recent progress has been in those areas, and how much opposition remains to things like trans rights. I personally have a number of queer friends who are estranged from their families because they're queer, and those families usually aren't particularly progressive, as far as I know.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#55

Post by Mezzie » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:24 PM UTC

I struggle with trigger/content warnings as someone with PTSD stemming from severe childhood neglect/abuse (e.g. I was allowed to just rot in the basement for a week with a fever of 104+ as a child).

The reason is because there seems to be a standardized list of 'real' triggers that people agree on, and I'm often triggered by depictions of loving families. Which nobody is ever going to warn for. I also have major disassociation and emotional blunting, so I have no idea what makes violence or sexual related cross the line into needing a warning. So ironically, spaces that insist heavily on trigger warnings are hard for me to exist in as a person with PTSD without breaking the norms. It's hard not to feel there are 'right' and 'wrong' triggers.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#56

Post by romwell » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:26 PM UTC

igorbark wrote: post #45

kulahan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He explains this in the thread - it appears as though trigger warnings only serve to increase anxiety until the trigger is experienced, and at no point does it improve or worsen the experience. So he analogizes this by saying "Imagine a doctor prescribed you a pill and you asked if it was going to help". If "Oh no, it won't help, but it might cause some very minor harm." was the response, you'd probably find a new do…

this analogy breaks down on a number of levels. 1. patients invented and self-prescribed the pill originally 2. the doctor has concluded that the pills are harmful by studying what happens who do not have the illness the pills are meant to treat take the pills 3. the doctor didn't really keep track of what doses were given to different patients i.e. 1. trigger warnings were not originally forced on people, they were…

Don't forget:

4. The doctor didn't keep track of of how many patients ditched him, forever, because the doc doesn't understand the above

-----

Thank you for a thorough reply and debunking of the argument by broken analogy.

The whole idea of content warnings is giving the audience a choice; it's about informed consent — a concept that both HN and the researcher seem to struggle with.

No shit Sherlock that a content warning of the form "some thing you won't like will happen, BUT I WON'T TELL YOU WHICH THING NOR WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN is anxiety inducing!

For fuck's sake, that's a bad faith thing to say.

How about:

>"Warning: I'm going to talk about rape, about 15 minutes into the talk, for about 5 minutes. I'll give you a heads-up, so you don't have to worry. If you don't want to hear about rape today, you can skip this part and stay with us for the rest."

This is a trigger warning.

It enables informed consent to consume any/all parts of the content.

Similarly, "what follows in 10 seconds is a depiction of rape" is a warning.

A trigger "warning" without the option to opt out of consuming the content warned about isn't a "warning", it's a threat.

And a "warning" that isn't specific about either content or time is torture.

>"Somewhere in this talk, we'll show something that we know you asked us not to show you out of the blue. We'll still show it out of the blue, but we're warning you about it now. No, you can't leave"

— apparently, we need a research article to tell HN that this is fucking bullshit.

The cherry on the pie remains what I said in the first place: that the natural outcome of such "warning" (i.e. lack of warning) is that affected people won't choose to interact with you again — and that's exactly what this study doesn't measure.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#57

Post by lazide » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

roughly wrote: post #26

sbf501 wrote: post #2

"Overall, we found that warnings have no effect on affective responses to negative material nor on educational outcomes (i.e., comprehension). However, warnings reliably increase anticipatory affect. Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material, or that they increase engagement with negative material under specific circumstances. Limitations and implicat…

From the discussion, this stuck out: > One possibility is that most people are not skilled at emotional preparation (e.g., reappraising emotional content or using coping strategies). Thus, the uncomfortable anticipatory period is unlikely to reflect any form of helpful action. This conclusion is supported by Bridgland et al. (2021) who asked participants to explain what they would do when they came across a trigger w…

Eh, NSFL type warnings (and experience) might provide an alternative explanation?

The warnings don’t help when people’s curiosity (morbid, compulsive, or otherwise) has not been counteracted by learned experience (or tools via therapy) that they don’t like it or it doesn’t help them.

The warnings are generally not generic (aka ‘bad stuff here’), they’re usually quite descriptive of what category it covers. Far more than a NSFL warning for sure!

If someone keeps going, it’s not because they did so accidentally. They either thought it was going to be fine and they could handle it (and most can), or couldn’t stop themselves even if they knew it was going to be bad.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#58

Post by lazide » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #21

civilized wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the things people consider NSFL depend on their personality and background. These studies seem like they'd be more illuminating if they looked at e.g. rape content warnings for rape survivors. Effects on the rest of us matter as well, but shouldn't be considered the whole story.

Exactly. If I'm going to warn people about content, it's because of what those specific people might struggle with. It was something I understood better once I found a piece of pretty ordinary media traumatic. And here I should say: content warning for cancer and death. Some years back my mom was getting treated for a brain tumor. It was a glioblastoma, and as one of her surgeons explained, "This is the thing you wil…

Sorry to hear about your loss and experience. It does sound really terrible.

The challenge society wide is, of course, where is the line, and when is it useful to do at all?

Which the study seems to be saying, it isn’t generally useful for the ‘less common horrors’, at least not with a somewhat generic warning.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#59

Post by anonymouskimmer » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

all2well wrote: post #13

“To many conservatives, trigger warnings are a symptom of a world gone mad: a fragilizing ritual meant to insulate the delicate worldview of a weak-minded generation.” Conservatives routinely get upset about the presence of gay people in media, among many other things. Is that somehow in a different category? (This is in reply to the article linked by the author of the study in that Twitter thread)

I think the overall concern is that people in general seem all too willing to ignore reality. I can't really speak for any particular group in US ( or even in the old country ), because I am sufficiently weird that I do not really fit anywhere. Yay me. That said, trigger warning is already a trigger word and may need to replaced with something else to avoid emotional reaction ( although I admit I do not have a good r…

"because I am sufficiently weird that I do not really fit anywhere"

Do you want to fit somewhere but haven't yet found a place to fit, or do you not care about fitting anywhere? If it's the latter you may have a social-variant blindspot (halfway down this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/kx0wfa/russ_huds... ). If it's the former you're probably just looking in the wrong places, or aren't engaging enough with the right people to find their similarities to you (or find out if they know of someone else similar to you).

"where I send an email in corporate settings with various tags to allow other people to ignore it in time and corporate code of conduct"

My employer uses a system called "Bucketlist" for kudos or something of the sort. I don't really know because the moment I saw it I created a filter that autodeletes every single email with that word in it. I can handle being reminded of death, but I don't want it popping into my work inbox.

"Please correct if I am wrong ( I have done my best to limit my news intake lately ), but conservatives being angry over gays does not ring true to my ears."

It depends. Media talking points should never be taken at face value. The Log Cabin Republicans continue to be denied a booth at the Texas Republican state convention: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/24/texas-log-cabin-repu...

But, as you indicate, conflation of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, transsexual, and a variety of other groups make it difficult at times to figure out what people are actually in favor of or opposed to.

"Lately, it seems, it is not conservatives are not the ones calling for boycots, bans, deplatforming and demonetization. It is actually their opponents, which, in itself, is already interesting."

It's all sides. If you're noticing one side and not the other it's because of the bias of the media you're consuming. Examples:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/why-half-...

https://theoutline.com/post/6140/a-brief-history-of-batshit-...

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#60

Post by slothtrop » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 9:33 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #57

roughly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the discussion, this stuck out: > One possibility is that most people are not skilled at emotional preparation (e.g., reappraising emotional content or using coping strategies). Thus, the uncomfortable anticipatory period is unlikely to reflect any form of helpful action. This conclusion is supported by Bridgland et al. (2021) who asked participants to explain what they would do when they came across a trigger w…

Eh, NSFL type warnings (and experience) might provide an alternative explanation? The warnings don’t help when people’s curiosity (morbid, compulsive, or otherwise) has not been counteracted by learned experience (or tools via therapy) that they don’t like it or it doesn’t help them. The warnings are generally not generic (aka ‘bad stuff here’), they’re usually quite descriptive of what category it covers. Far more t…

Makes me wonder what the overlap is between those demanding trigger warnings and those habitually stumbling upon NSFL material. I'd venture very little. Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings. However, I think content should be described when rating media.. for instance, R/M ratings could have "rape" in its description when depicted which would make trigger warnings redundant. When it comes to mere conversation (on yt or whatever), it's already redundant.