Trigger Warnings May Hamper Emotional Resilience...

[seer]

No kidding!!!!!

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Trigger warnings increase peoples' perceived emotional vulnerability to trauma.

Trigger warnings increase peoples' belief that trauma survivors are vulnerable.

Trigger warnings increase anxiety to written material perceived as harmful.

Conclusions
Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05791618301137

[Sparko]

You didn't warn me!

[seer]

You didn't warn me!

I like what the authors said: Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead

[Sparko]

I like what the authors said: Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead

Empires are evil!

[One Bad Pig]

Life would be SO much easier without unintended consequences.

[seer]

Empires are evil!

You are such a tart...

[Sparko]

You are such a tart...

But a sweet one.

[Mountain Man]

So people are more likely to find something offensive if they're told that they may find it offensive. Ain't the power of suggestion grand?

[rogue06]

No kidding!!!!!

This thread has triggered me!


TriggeringIntensifies.gif

Okay, okay. So becoming "triggered" means something a little different than it does for SJW snowflakes. So sue me.

[Leonhard]

I'd say the study is greatly limited both by its size, but also its methods. Trigger warnings were always meant to be for traumatised individuals, who could get a heads up whether some material featured - for instance - high graphical descriptions of violence, or rape, or anything that could trigger a traumatic response.

The study included no people like that, and admits it as a limitation of the study. At best this can be used as a look on what trigger warnings does to a neurotypical crowd of people.

[Starlight]

It's funny how much conservatives on this site rant against trigger warnings, when I literally see more trigger warnings posted here than anywhere else (and forum policy often seems to require it). e.g. CP added a trigger warning to the OP in this other current thread. You guys require trigger warnings on any bad-language links.

A liberal / left-wing podcast I watched this week played close-up video footage of two dozen people being slaughtered in a massacre, with no trigger warning, which was quite unexpectedly intense. A few of the commenters suggested there probably should have been a warning for people to stop watching if they didn't want to see a massacre. So I tend to think a little bit of trigger-warnings for the serious things are worthwhile, and the left-wing liberals should occasionally do that rather than just free-wheel it, but you conservatives here take trigger-warnings to a whole other level where language or behavior that wouldn't pass muster in Church gets a trigger warning.

So this is a case of taking the log out of your own eyes before complaining about the twig in liberal eyes.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's funny how much conservatives on this site rant against trigger warnings, when I literally see more trigger warnings posted here than anywhere else (and forum policy often seems to require it). e.g. CP added a trigger warning to the OP in this other current thread. You guys require trigger warnings on any bad-language links.

A liberal / left-wing podcast I watched this week played close-up video footage of two dozen people being slaughtered in a massacre, with no trigger warning, which was quite unexpectedly intense. A few of the commenters suggested there probably should have been a warning for people to stop watching if they didn't want to see a massacre. So I tend to think a little bit of trigger-warnings for the serious things are worthwhile, and the left-wing liberals should occasionally do that rather than just free-wheel it, but you conservatives here take trigger-warnings to a whole other level where language or behavior that wouldn't pass muster in Church gets a trigger warning.

So this is a case of taking the log out of your own eyes before complaining about the twig in liberal eyes.

Or they are trying to be PG friendly because young kids do brouse around here. Hey though, why think the best about others when hatred works better?

[Mountain Man]

Once again, we see Dimbulb criticizing something he doesn't completely understand.

[lilpixieofterror]

Once again, we see Dimbulb criticizing something he doesn't completely understand.

[Sparko]

It's funny how much conservatives on this site rant against trigger warnings, when I literally see more trigger warnings posted here than anywhere else (and forum policy often seems to require it). e.g. CP added a trigger warning to the OP in this other current thread. You guys require trigger warnings on any bad-language links.

A liberal / left-wing podcast I watched this week played close-up video footage of two dozen people being slaughtered in a massacre, with no trigger warning, which was quite unexpectedly intense. A few of the commenters suggested there probably should have been a warning for people to stop watching if they didn't want to see a massacre. So I tend to think a little bit of trigger-warnings for the serious things are worthwhile, and the left-wing liberals should occasionally do that rather than just free-wheel it, but you conservatives here take trigger-warnings to a whole other level where language or behavior that wouldn't pass muster in Church gets a trigger warning.

So this is a case of taking the log out of your own eyes before complaining about the twig in liberal eyes.

Yeah you have a point. Sort of. The "trigger warnings" on external links was a compromise to allow people to post content that had profanity in it that was in the background or in passing, like having a Tshirt with a bad word on it, or such. Or rule used to be much stricter on not allowing anything with profanity at all.