Nerd Pride Radio

Okay, I can't believe this topic's been dead . So it's time to revive it on the new boards.

Just wanted to add about research into PTSD and how that impacts the trigger warning discussion.

No trolls.

I wish that we could in fact employ evidence and research to help decide this issue, rather than leaving it in the realm of politics where it seems stuck. I do not like trigger warnings because I do not think there is good scientific (or other) evidence they actually help anyone the way they are supposed to, and instead they can be quite patronizing and involve bad assumptions, and they restrict speech and expression in politically motivated ways. So there's a lot to dislike, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't buy this stuff about the inherent desirability of "exposure" because it matters very much how that happens. Suddenly being thrown into the deep end of the pool like "WHEEEEEE! Have a terrifying exposure whether you like it or not!!! You're totally out of control of this experience - deal with it!!!!" is a really, really bad way to help someone get over PTSD or anxiety issues, particularly if a loss of control was part of the trauma. If you do that to a person, you've likely trained their brain even more to assume that bad scary things will pop out in this vicinity, requiring a panicked response! The anxious person must choose the exposure deliberately, and moreover, must ride through the subsequent negative effects in a certain way. Doing anything to protect yourself from the response, or suppress it, is going to cause further problems. So a classroom is never, ever a place where someone should seek or wish to create this sort of "exposure" experience for another person.

On the other hand, I believe there is very little accurate and non-patronizing way of predicting what things might cause another person to react with anxiety or panic. About all I can say is that people with combat PTSD might not be good with loud sudden noises. But that could be caused in ways that have nothing to do with the content of their experience - maybe it's party balloons and not a film about war. And if you treat it like some kind of movie-ratings warning, ok, that's really bland, and it's more likely to be used to demand protection for popular ideologies.

I don't have a problem with issuing trigger warnings. I do have a problem with allowing college students to be excused from any portion of the curriculum that may be triggering. Does that mean that we can't test over material that may have been triggering? Or that if you were excused from that portion then you can't be penalized for not knowing it? Because the downhill slope on that process gets very steep very fast.

Absolutely. There are lots of examples of why this is a real problem, but one that recently made the news is the release of a lot of extra video surrounding one of the public incidents at Yale (the students who confronted Prof. Christakis). It is fascinating to see how these students imagine their own position and the things to which they are entitled as a matter of basic respect and human decency. Once the claim is that someone's words PHYSICALLY hurt you, the whole concept of academic freedom is left in the dust. Students use this comparison to e.g. accidentally physically injuring someone, which obviously anyone would apologize for, in order to try to show that words that physically injure must be treated the same way. Those who are hurt by them are the sole judges of any value in the content of the ideas, and the only possible response is an apology. No other words will be tolerated.

There's a syllabus. It presents topics likely to be discussed in class before you take the class.
Nowadays, there are publicly available notes, responses and evaluations of every class also available to those who wish to find them. I issue warnings about video presentations that contain images, etc that are potentially disturbing, but exploration/discussion/deconstruction/analysis of difficult topics is why you go to class.
If someone has a bad reaction (panic, ptsd, etc) they have every right to excuse themselves, and I'd expect to say I was sorry that happened, sorry they reacted badly, sorry it elicited such a negative response. However, nobody should feel they're entitled to suppress it for the rest of the population. I presently have many refugee students, who witnessed terrible things. We still engage in conversations about child soldiers, racism, sex workers, bullying, every concern that finds its way into my classroom.
That's what we're there for. Handled properly, even the rough experiences help people cope with memories they can't break down, help diagnose wrecked tolerances so kids can get help. To rob other students of that, or to expect that somehow we're going to be able to sanitize the public spaces, is destructive.

how regressive of all of you, trigger warning triggers people that have experienced gun violence, the correct nomenclature is "content warnings"

"The following contains material that may be upsetting to some viewers." We've had "trigger warnings" for most of my life and nobody had a problem until it had a neat label that old people could use to bash on theses kids today.

But yes, being able to opt out of curriculum seems bad to me. It encourages people to define themselves by the bad things that have happened to them and to retreat.

That's exactly why the old people got upset: because it was no longer a brief, informative message aimed at functional adults. Instead it became, "you can't talk about this freely without warning people, who need to be shielded from everything associated with this topic, and may even be done actual violence by your otherwise inoffensive words".

I said my piece on this the last time it came up. But here's the Cliff Notes version. The problems of trigger/content warnings lies entirely in how some have chosen to use them. What they are hasn't changed a single bit. They're warnings, and nothing more. Examples of them used poorly are far outweighed by examples of them used well, if you're reading much in the way of modern literature or long-form reporting. If you've got a problem with how they're used, address those problems. If you have a problem with the existence of them, please feel free to go fuck yourself.

I don't think the warning itself causes a problem with people's PTSD, i.e. making it worse. Nor does failure to give the warning improve anyone's PTSD or anxieties, as the article that was linked up there long ago was intimating. If you're lucky, getting through a difficult situation makes you stronger. But doing this to people on purpose might have the opposite effect, increasing their loss of control and making them feel even worse, or encouraging them to self-soothe in a counterproductive way.

I agree with you that focusing on the warning itself as a "thing" is rather silly; the goal is to achieve some basic courtesies that flow from the content itself. You can't actually protect people from the things that trigger their anxiety; this approach is doomed to failure and unintended bad consequences. We shouldn't treat adults like a big egg that can crack with the slightest pressure. What we can do is recognize that many people, for many good reasons, dislike emotionally intense experiences and being forced to witness violence and so forth. A polite person lets the audience know about this content so that they can maintain a degree of choice and self-control, which is exactly what you want for people with PTSD et al.

As an example: I don't assume that all survivors of sexual assault are fragile wisps who cannot be expected to think about sexual assault forever after - in fact, that's horribly patronizing and false. I know I can't protect people from everything in a piece of literature or a movie that might call to mind traumatic memories or produce an unpleasant reaction. But I can recognize that all people - survivors or not - deserve to know when I'm about to show them something that depicts a sexual assault, out of basic common courtesy we should extend to everyone as a matter of course, and as adults I can trust them to manage their own behavior with respect to that information.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Not everyone who is demanding trigger warnings has PTSD. You don't even need to have a verified traumatic event to claim that you were triggered by something. In the moment that someone is attempting to leave the discussion, you can be prohibited from asking the question (if one of my Airmen did this, I'd be available to talk, but not pushing in case of restricted reporting.)

What I'm trying to get at it, especially in the case of college kids who are usually not emotionally mature, is the ones who don't have PTSD, but they are uncomfortable. Maybe they weren't personally victimized, but know someone who was. Or they just have an active imagination. Sadly, some people stretch themselves to claim victim status, or anything that helps them feel unique. Because we're talking about college campuses.

I'm truly sorry that my presence is ruinous to productive discussions. It's a special gift I have, whether through birth or cultivation I cannot say.