Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 154 posts

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

#91

Post by Mezzie »

lanyard-textile wrote: post #74
Mezzie wrote: post #55

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 dis…

TW, possible depictions of loving families & depictions of unwanted contact: Nobody should be arguing against any kind of trigger warning in those spaces. If someone is pushing back, they should be removed from the space -- They're actively working against the point of the space. >Which nobody is ever going to warn for. I will now in those kinds of spaces. Anecdotally I've also seen trigger warnings for father's day…

I appreciate that, but I don't think it's necessary. It's more a commentary on the fact that trigger warnings are so varied and personal that accurately making them for all of us PTSD sufferers puts a huge mental burden on people. Sometimes, that's appropriate - I have no problem asking my friends, remaining family members, or therapist/other medical providers to accommodate my desires, but I think asking strangers on the Internet to do so in public spaces is placing an undue burden on them. And for healthy people, that might not not a big deal, but a lot of people without PTSD might still be depressed, anxious, bipolar, ADHD, etc. or just plain exhausted and it may represent a prohibitively difficult thing to ask of them. Never mind once we get into things like cultural differences.

In my experience, the people who are most zealous about enforcing content warnings are people who like the social power it gives them over others and who lash out when they're made uncomfortable, and that's not acceptable. Being uncomfortable or triggered is obviously fine and you can't control that, but that doesn't give us the right to lash out at others or expect people to just 'know' what might set us off.

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

#92

Post by Mezzie »

maxbond wrote: post #67
Mezzie wrote: post #55

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 dis…

Maybe a more generic tagging/metadata system would help people with more idiosyncratic/unanticipated trauma. Something I find promising in this is that it has the hallmark of many great accessibility solutions, it's useful for everyone even if it's more important to a specific group of people (eg, screen readers and sign language are just great tools, but are much more profound for people with sensory disabilities).…

It's possible, but I doubt that would come to pass for two logistical reasons (putting on my librarian hat):

1.) Nobody would want to pay for a central organization/group to make the ontology or labeling system. That would be a complex undertaking that would require a substantial amount of domain knowledge, not something that could be thrown together by volunteers.

2.) Keeping it up to date would require disclosure from people with PTSD to said central group and for various reasons a lot of us wouldn't be comfortable with that.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

acoustics wrote: post #81
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Lately, it seems, it is not conservatives are not the ones calling for boycots, bans, deplatforming and demonetization. Without getting too far into the weeds of partisan politics, I’m not sure how you got this impression. Ask your local school board or your local library which political side spends more time trying to get media banned.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by avar »

everforward wrote: post #11
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.

I typically see content flagged NSFL when it's generally repulsive regardless of background (excepting those seeking out the content). Stuff like graphic videos of beheadings or people set on fire that's upsetting even to people with no traumatic background. It's kind of like a trigger warning for an average person; background doesn't matter if the content is bad enough.

Typically, but it's also watered down to the point of being synonymous with "icky" in some contexts.

E.g. you'll see posts of the inside of wasp nests and the like being marked NSFL on Reddit.

NSFW has also evolved to mean "disable preview", among other things. E.g. it's used to hide the punchline of visual jokes on Reddit.

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

#95

Post by sbf501 »

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…

> if you don’t have the means or experience to prepare for it.

This is where they therapy side would be interesting to understand. Everyone is going to need a different response plan. Granted, many will be similar, but how do you teach someone to prepare?

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

#96

Post by Spivak »

catiopatio wrote: post #88
kayodelycaon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely use content warnings to avoid stuff. If I see suicide, "that's a nope from me dawg". I feel like I'm not asking for much here. :(

Lots of overly fragile people have hang-ups, and lots more will claim them — or wallow in them — if there’s an advantage to do so, and even if that advantage is merely a boost to their ego: you’re special, you’re unique, your problems and inability to control them are not a failing, but a genuine disability society should accommodate. We can’t possibly account for every possible form of extreme emotional fragility, n…

Good lord, who shit in your Cheerios? This is not the kind of thing someone weighing societal costs says, this is resentment and it runs deep.

You do not have to stoic. Feeling emotions is good for your mental health and is not a sign of weakness.

You are allowed to want attention. You are even allowed to ask for it. It is a normal part of being a social creature. You deserve to be loved, cared for, and have your needs attended to.

When you are deprived of the attention you need it is normal to feel resentment towards people who get it and come up with reasons they must be undeserving. It’s a defense mechanism. Because if they are getting attention because they deserve it then your brain tells you that because you’re not getting attention it must mean you’re not deserving. Pushing past this is a sign of emotional maturity.

Different responses pto emotion get different reactions from people. If your response is something visible but non-threatening like tears, curling up, shaking people will be sympathetic and help you. This is healthy. This is good. It’s not an act it’s a release and a signal to others of your needs. You are allowed to ask for help.

You are allowed to be vulnerable, and being vulnerable around people can establish trust and mutual respect. Someone who you see as gaining status probably did so because they opened up, shared their feelings, and asked for what they needed. That kind thing makes you more human and naturally makes people like you.

You are allowed to set boundaries for yourself. Saying you can’t do violence when picking a movie to watch is a boundary not control. It’s your responsibility to try to not cause others harm or distress and in turn it is others’ responsibility do the same to you.

Nobody is forcing you to add trigger warnings. No one will beat down your door and string you up for not adding them, but then you have to read the room which might be harder. Asking “hey I know suicide is a sensitive topic, is everyone good to talk about it?” is a good way to not accidentally bring up sore topics around people whose lives you don’t know.

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

#97

Post by maxbond »

Mezzie wrote: post #92
maxbond wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a more generic tagging/metadata system would help people with more idiosyncratic/unanticipated trauma. Something I find promising in this is that it has the hallmark of many great accessibility solutions, it's useful for everyone even if it's more important to a specific group of people (eg, screen readers and sign language are just great tools, but are much more profound for people with sensory disabilities).…

It's possible, but I doubt that would come to pass for two logistical reasons (putting on my librarian hat): 1.) Nobody would want to pay for a central organization/group to make the ontology or labeling system. That would be a complex undertaking that would require a substantial amount of domain knowledge, not something that could be thrown together by volunteers. 2.) Keeping it up to date would require disclosure f…

What would you think about a casual/emergent ontology, like the way fan fiction is tagged, or like Wikidata? I realize these are very different approaches, but people are already putting in huge effort to categorize content just out of their own passion, and I'm curious what you would think of a user-generated approach.

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

#98

Post by dang »

lanyard-textile wrote: post #63
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#99

Post by dang »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #72
lanyard-textile wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

In addition, please edit out swipes (like "calm down"), and don't cross into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#100

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #72
lanyard-textile wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

edit: change 'for' to 'from'. I also think was able to track the potential origin of the source meme ( see comments section ).

[1]https://imgur.com/gallery/6GiX1OX

Post reply on HN