How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus

[soup]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Thoughts? I know some here are fond of "trigger warnings" and others not so much. I'm of the not so fond camp. I don't think they are at all effective or helpful, even for people with actual anxiety and stress disorders their seems to be much more effective ways to deal with these issues.

[Sinister Intents]

Trigger warnings are best when it's something extremely serious, to use a content note might be best for say spiders and what not. I've used them stupidly in the past but I use them when I think it's proper to use them such as with rape and gore.

[RedWorker]

Not having given the article a look, I think the premise that these trigger warnings may very well be counterproductive is reasonable. Training people to avoid facing their fears even further, thus making whatever anxiety they may feel worse. If you have a trauma from being raped and feel anxiety every time rape is mentioned, then perhaps it's better to just get used to it and get over with it than have triggers confirm your need to not expose yourself to it.

[soup]

I don't see why content notices shouldn't suffice for everything.

I really hate the term trigger warning, by the way. "Trigger" just implies such a lack of agency on part of the subject in my view. I really despise that..

[VivalaCuarta]

I don't know anything about psychology and don't have an opinion on trigger warnings in general. But this piece is not psychological research, it's reactionary ranting.

[Hermes]

Not having given the article a look, I think the premise that these trigger warnings may very well be counterproductive is reasonable. Training people to avoid facing their fears even further, thus making whatever anxiety they may feel worse. If you have a trauma from being raped and feel anxiety every time rape is mentioned, then perhaps it's better to just get used to it and get over with it than have triggers confirm your need to not expose yourself to it.

I'm sorry, is 'just get over it' common treatment for people who have experienced trauma? I was unaware of that.

The article conflates trigger warnings with censorship/'shielding from words/ideas/people,' and I think that in most cases this is false. Trigger warnings never remove content, they simply alert the consumer that such content exists.

[soup]

I'm sorry, is 'just get over it' common treatment for people who have experienced trauma? I was unaware of that.

The article conflates trigger warnings with censorship/'shielding from words/ideas/people,' and I think that in most cases this is false. Trigger warnings never remove content, they simply alert the consumer that such content exists.

His post was crude.

Anyone who's struggled with anxiety knows that you can't "just get over it," even if it's over something which really is quite trivial. Of course, they'll also usually tell you that avoiding whatever is causing you issues isn't exactly going to help either.

Various forms of exposure therapy seem to be the best way for people to confront anxiety/stress disorders

[Redistribute the Rep]

I guess I'm a bit skeptical as to their effectiveness, but is it really that big of deal that it warrants all these articles? I mean I saw them for years and never really thought about them until I started seeing all these rants, it seems like such a trivial thing to get upset over

[soup]

I mean, if it's legitimately harmful and counterproductive for those with serious issues than it absolutely deserves to be called out.

[soup]

I don't know anything about psychology and don't have an opinion on trigger warnings in general. But this piece is not psychological research, it's reactionary ranting.Here's an article written by an actual psychology professor at Harvard:

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/hazards-ahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946


Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. According to a rigorous analysis by the Institute of Medicine, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment for PTSD, especially in civilians who have suffered trauma such as sexual assault. For example, prolonged exposure therapy, the cognitive behavioral treatment pioneered by clinical psychologists Edna B. Foa and Barbara O. Rothbaum, entails having clients close their eyes and recount their trauma in the first-person present tense. After repeated imaginal relivings, most clients experience significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, as traumatic memories lose their capacity to cause emotional distress. Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD.

[RedWorker]

I'm sorry, is 'just get over it' common treatment for people who have experienced trauma? I was unaware of that.

No, it's not, because I never said that people with anxiety should "just get over it". What I meant was that creating layers and layers to hide even further from one's fears is often counter-productive, and that sometimes facing them can help.

But exposure to "triggers" and things that cause anxiety or fear is a common concept in psychology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_desensitization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolonged_exposure_therapy


Anyone who's struggled with anxiety knows that you can't "just get over it," even if it's over something which really is quite trivial. Of course, they'll also usually tell you that avoiding whatever is causing you issues isn't exactly going to help either.

Look, I know this very well, because I've had the exact same thing myself. I dislike the fact that nearly anything that is said on this site needs to have a thousand justifications and explanations, else you're going to get messages like: "you're hurting disabled people/women/people suffering from mental disorders". Except the fact that you could be into one of these groups. Many times I have struggled with anxiety. Obviously you can't "just get over it". And to claim that is as stupid as claiming that "depression means always feeling sadness".

In a sentence: there may be good intentions, other times it may be for the purpose of feeling the need to impose oneself over other people, but people in this site need to stop assuming things. And stop feeling that they are the protectors of weak people.

Just like the chivalrious men in some circles who treat some "feminists" like the holy virgin and engage as the protectors of these "little" women who supposedly need a "strong man" to protect them. A behaviour many times informed by sexism.

If anything hurts people with mental disorders, it's when they make others "sympathize" too much with them, and the other people starts justifying their inaction to fight the disorder and encouraging it rather than saying what they should really do.

None of this contradicts what I said about trigger warnings possibly being counterproductive, so it stands.

[Hermes]

No, it's not, because I never said that people with anxiety should "just get over it". What I meant was that creating layers and layers to hide even further from one's fears is often counter-productive, and that sometimes facing them can help.

Except that we're not really talking about any kind of anxiety, we're talking about PTSD, the majority of the time.

And, yes, 'facing one's fears' can help. In what environments? Is every college professor qualified to say for every individual who enters their classroom that being exposed to this thing at this degree of severity will be ultimately beneficial to their health?

To what degree do trigger warnings actually effect those who don't suffer from PTSD, which is what the article you posted is mainly about?

[BIXX]

You know I think the fact that the left places so much importance on discussions about trigger warnings is kinda funny

Like seriously who gives a shit

[Redistribute the Rep]

People with PTSD need to be reexposed in a controlled environment under supervision of a professional. The author takes this type of therapy out of context and at one point even suggests a scenario where the reader help reintroduce someone traumatized by elevators. I don't think they're actually suggesting the reader do this but it does corroborate that he's taking things way out of context

I also think the author exaggerates the effects of trigger warnings. To suggest it as a possible cause for rising incidences of anxiety disorders is massively unwarranted and ignorant. To be fair the author says he wants to avoid oversimplification but I found this to be implied throughout the article. Also he makes it seem like some controversial topics are being censored practically out of existence which I find very, very difficult to believe as I've been reading books for class featuring things like rape and racism regularly since middle school. He uses some isolated examples to make very broad generalizations.

[StromboliFucker666]

I think that with certain things, it's not only okay but the right thing to do. In others, it's a waste of time. I will provide an example of both

1. A person makes a video that is about rape or violence but the video title does not explicitly mention rape or violence.

2. The title mentions that it's about rape (or whatever) yet they also put a trigger warning. This is a waste of time. If that kind of stuff triggers you, you should be able to read the title and know what it's about.

[Wyboth]

I am writing a full response to this article. I will post it here when I am done, as well as in the comments of that article.

[ComradeAllende]

I don't really know if this "trigger" movement is real or just another exaggeration from the "Politically Incorrect and Proud" crowd. I've heard of triggers and microaggressions; my college orientation included a small lecture on this, although I always understood it as "don't be an asshole." As far as "triggers" go, I'm ok with them for really graphic or controversial things, like photos of a mutilated corpse or something like that. They kinda remind me of the "viewer discretion is advised" disclaimers on TV shows.

On the other hand, I think triggers (and this whole mess in general) is kinda counterproductive, as it does little to eliminate the structural roots of prejudice and makes us on the left look overly-sensitive and ridiculous. All it does is concentrate precious time and political capital on individual discrimination and neglects the prejudice embedded within socio-economic and political institutions. I'm totally for bashing fascists and other reactionaries, but not with the bourgeois state's club. Every time this shit hits the airwaves, the reactionaries have a field day and we weaken our standing.

Sometimes I wonder if this is the result of the left's structural weakness in recent years; unable to achieve radical (or even minor reformist) change, we're stuck with hate speech codes and scandalizing celebrities who reveal their inner ignorance.

[willowtooth]

you know what they're interested in? A clean place too live.... their own habitat

2ZyCK-GF9zU

[Comrade #138672]

This article is crap.

[Rudolf]

That article is shit and people going crazy over trigger warnings need to get a new hobby.

What's so wrong about giving people a heads up over the content of something? They already do that with movies, games etc and have done for quite a long time.

[Comrade #138672]

A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

This is not the first time TheAtlantic mentions this. They have written more shitty articles where they mention Jerry Seinfield and other comedians not showing up at college campuses because of "political correctness". They don't care about traumatized people and what supposedly "works best for them". That is just being used against so-called "political correctness" (you know, like not saying racist or sexist crap).

[Hatshepsut]

...On the other hand, I think triggers (and this whole mess in general) is kinda counterproductive, as it does little to eliminate the structural roots of prejudice and makes us on the left look overly-sensitive and ridiculous.

I tend to agree here. We're taking all the Confederate flags down but leaving the slumlords, payday loan places, and paramilitary cop shops open for business as usual. Forty years of so-called liberalism in the federal government have achieved pathetic real gains. An ACA bill that promises health insurance, yet not for those too poor to qualify for the subsidies but too "rich" to qualify for Medicaid, or single, or in a state that declined the Medicaid expansion. Gay marriage, but not a recognition that our whole legal marriage institution is filled with perverse side effects, discriminating against the unmarried when it comes to obtaining benefits or Social Security on another person's account even as it penalizes two-earner couples with higher taxes. A lot of gays choosing to marry will pay those taxes.

To embrace revolutionary communism demands a tough hide; there are no apologies that can be made to get around that fact. Serious revolutionaries usually die young or end up in jail. A communist will see in the Atlantic article an instance of pure reactionary bullshit—one which happens to carry little impact on the wider battle against imperialism. If we do something about the culture that protects rape behind closed doors at home while it wars for hegemony abroad, we might have fewer anxiety and PTSD victims needing care.

I'll let the college students decide on trigger warnings; I'm too old to butt into that debate. (Besides disqualified as a serious revolutionary by dint of survival!) Deeply offensive or shocking content certainly deserves labels, which not only warn, but also tell the audience that the presenter is delivering the material for study purposes without intent to target vulnerable people.

[blake 3:17]

Does anybody know wide spread the demand for trigger warnings is? Has anybody in school the last few years heard people call for them? I would be very interested to know about that.

I had a very interesting discussion with a number of artists and academics on this issue, some of us were hostile to trigger warnings in class and others were open to them, but then they had already been giving them basically when teaching particularly distressing material. I see a big problem in that colleges and universities will discourage the use of any book, story, poem, film that causes the slightest upset.

[ComradeAllende]

Does anybody know wide spread the demand for trigger warnings is? Has anybody in school the last few years heard people call for them? I would be very interested to know about that.

I think this all started sometime after 2011, although I'm just getting that from the OP's article. It's probably a reaction to the racially-motivated shootings (Trayvon Martin especially) that happened under the Obama administration, which dispelled the "post racial myth." Unfortunately, young people (especially young whites) are adopting a rather narrow definition of "racism," involving overt bigotry and usually neglecting structural and institutional forms.

I think this "individualized" construct of racism has contributed to this anti-hate speech movement, where the overwhelming focus is on overtly-racist statements (remember Clyde Bundy and Donald Sterling). It's also why we're obsessed with the opinions of "killer cops" like Darren Wilson rather than the overarching narrative within their institutions (aggressive policing in minority neighborhoods, the widespread notion of "black criminality", etc).

[Quail]

As a recent mathematics graduate, nobody I knew called for trigger warnings because, well, I don't know what kind of bizarre trauma you'd have to have been through to find maths triggering. I don't know about social sciences/literature, but I never heard of anyone in my university calling for it.

I have some thoughts about trigger warnings, and since I'm procrastinating doing something more important, I may as well articulate them.

1) The article talks about exposure therapy, but as others have pointed out, it takes exposure therapy completely out of context. There is a world of difference between exposure in a controlled environment and exposure to triggers when you're not expecting it. If you're going to do the exposure thing, you have to do it on your own terms and in a safe place/with someone you trust.

2) I don't see why people make such a big deal of content warnings. As has already been noted, there are content warnings for the news on tv if there's an upsetting story, or a tv show if there's a graphic rape scene. I'm not sure why that suddenly becomes controversial when it comes to written media.

3) I do think that "trigger" warnings have been overused to the point of obfuscating and diluting what the word "trigger" actually means. Being "triggered" does not mean being offended. It should be used either for PTSD, so when something "triggers" flashbacks, dissociation, etc., or for stuff like eating disorders, when you might get "triggered" to binge/purge/fast. Trigger warnings originated on mental health forums (I know, because I used to use them regularly). It's only recently they've come into the mainstream. But the point of them was to keep the rest of the community safe. If you're trying to recover, or you're finding things hard, you don't want to click on what seems like an innocuous thread only to be confronted with a load of graphic stuff that makes you ill.

4) I also think that trigger warnings can be misused. Sometimes people use trigger warnings to keep themselves ill. I know, because I've done it (mostly with my eating disorder, but I think that any mental illness can become an identity to a degree). To some extent, you can do it subconsciously... Thinking constantly about what might trigger you can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now that I'm in a much better mental state, I am a lot more critical of trigger warnings than I was when I was ill and all of my thoughts were focussed on being ill. I think excessive and unnecessary trigger warnings can provide a constant reminder of the fact that sometimes you get triggered and it's awful and horrible and terrifying - and that only adds to the anxiety and fear that's already there.

Obviously this is pretty much all based on my own experiences, so it might not apply to everyone. Despite my concerns though, I am in favour of content warnings in most cases for graphic stuff like rape, violence, etc. It doesn't take much time or effort, and if you can prevent triggering someone I think it's worth it.

[willowtooth]

this was on real time with bill maher last week seems to pretty much hit the nail on the head

SA1bsM2rZVU

[BIXX]

this was on real time with bill maher last week seems to pretty much hit the nail on the head

SA1bsM2rZVU

I'd be swriosuky surprised if bill maher said anything not-shitty.

Im not saying he can't be right, but given that he's generally total shit, I'd be pretty surprised.

[willowtooth]

I'd be swriosuky surprised if bill maher said anything not-shitty.

Im not saying he can't be right, but given that he's generally total shit, I'd be pretty surprised.

i like bill maher, i mean his opinions about muslims are pretty bigoted and he's basically a satanist anti-christian, and he's more rebelling against christianity than actually promoting atheism ......... but other than that he's pretty radical

regardless, i posted the video based on what his guest caitlin flanagan said, not because of what he said

[Armchair Partisan]

You know what's the funniest part about the whole "triggering" thing? I'm too lazy to make a pie chart titled "People who say they are triggered by something" with one component taking up 99% of the chart labelled with "Vile reactionary MRAs trying to mock feminists" and the other component taking up the other 1% saying "People who are actually triggered by some kind of content", but you know, you get the idea.

It's just not a major thing in my experience, the PC apocalypse is yet to come, and the Internet can collectively calm dafuq down about trigger warnings.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I read this article earlier, and I thought it was problematic. Trigger warnings became an overused cliche for a couple of years, but this article exaggerates and obfuscates. No, a classroom is NOT a place for exposure therapy. No, these warnings don't censor. Yes, we've never really had sensitive practices to deal with PTSD.

Not teaching "Rape law" in a law class is pretty stupid because it's a law class, but that can't be blamed on "trigger warnings" but on some students who are abusing legitimate concerns (a more sensible solution would be an opt-out for that section). Part of the problem with this kind of article is that extreme examples are taken out of context as exemplars of "PC Culture", and this is then used to indict more moderate, reasonable practices.

[Zoop]

They are a good thing. They prevent people from being exposed to something potentially dangerous and traumatic. The idea that trigger warnings prevent people from getting used to the traumatic thing doesn't hold. First of all, I don't know what's best for other people. Secondly, the existence of trigger warnings allows them to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to expose themselves to it. It is consensual. If they didn't exist, they would be forced to endure something traumatic without warning. Trigger warnings allow people to consensually expose themselves to it, if they feel that is what is best for them. Exposure works when it is done in a careful, gradual way, usually with help. The fact that some people think that being forced to endure horrible triggering situations will make them better demonstrates their lack of knowledge regarding mental health and the recovery process.

So yes, trigger warnings are a good thing.

Some people are idiots.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks Quail for the thoughful comments. My education is literature, and part of the problem I see, is that you could go a bit crazy looking for potential triggers. And yes, SCM, there are some anecdotes that keep getting repeated and repeated.

The issue that this article, and a few others like it, is the economic one. Contract faculty and students are faced with a terrible rush to get through classes with a minimum of fuss.

There's an interesting response to the Atlantic article in the New Republic:
As I’ve explained elsewhere, however, I use trigger warnings in the classroom as a way of preparing students who may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder while also easing the entire class into a discussion of the material. The thinking behind the idea that trigger warnings are a form of censorship is fundamentally illogical: those who offer warnings, at our professional discretion, about potentially triggering material are doing so precisely because we’re about to teach it! If we used trigger warnings to say, effectively, “don’t read this, it’s scary,” then there’d be no need to warn in the first place; we’d just leave the material off the syllabus.

It’s true that giving a warning runs the risk of students avoiding or disengaging with the material out of fear of being triggered (in my three years of teaching, students have come to office hours to discuss sensitive material, but not one has left class or failed to turn in an assignment because of a trigger warning). If a student disengages, however, a professor still can (and should) follow up in a couple of ways. One is to have a private conversation with the student about the material, away from the pressures of the classroom; another is to take the student’s response as an occasion to check in with the student and make sure they have access to campus mental health resources. Few of the media voices catastrophizing trigger warnings seem to understand that professors’ interactions with students in the classroom and during office hours are some of the most important ways of catching mental health (or time management, or substance abuse) issues in our students that may need further attention. While the purpose of trigger warnings is not to screen for mental health problems, being attuned to how students are reacting to material, and prompting them to react to the hard stuff, can help us catch problems before they become real catastrophes.

For those of you who are imagining scores of students using professors’ trigger warnings disingenuously, as a way to get out of class or a reading assignment, this isn’t (for most of us) our first rodeo. Students use deception all the time, but an office hours summons is really all we need to determine whether the student might need help from a mental health professional, or was just trying to game the system. In most cases, however, when you warn students that something might be emotionally challenging or explicit, most of them do exactly what we do when someone tells us to watch out for something lurid: they become even more curious.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122543/trigger-warning-myth

[Sharia Lawn]

I think the main point of the author is being misunderstood by the new republic response. It's not that trigger warnings are by their nature wrong, but that their increasing use in the classroom signals an environment on college campuses that conflates feeling uncomfortable in any capacity with feeling unsafe in terms of physical and mental health. The "censorship" kicks in not with the use of the trigger warning (though arguments can be made that even the presence of such a warning might subconsciously signal to people that there's something questionable or less appropriate/important about the content that follows it) but with topics that aren't being talked about at all, either because they are coming up in discussions where the use of trigger warnings would just be impracticable or awkward or where the fear of making students too uncomfortable will just leave the topic undiscussed altogether even with the option of using a trigger warning.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Can trigger warnings trigger someone?