Post by robeiae on Jul 13, 2019 13:36:10 GMT -5
This thread was suggested--really, I'm basically pilfering the idea--from another member's (Opty) retweet of this:
Here's the article at Slate: slate.com/technology/2019/07/trigger-warnings-research-shows-they-dont-work-might-hurt.html
From it:
Here's the paper: osf.io/axn6z/
The writer at Slate's gut reaction had been that trigger warning were a good thing. My gut reaction has always been that they were an ill-considered thing, that their principle function was to provide an easy means of criticizing someone for failing to give a trigger warning. Because I think that there are so many potential "triggers" out there that one can't possible anticipate ever potential one. I also think a lot of people who claim that they were "triggered" by this or that are mostly full of shit.
Anyway, opinions on this new evidence?
Here's the article at Slate: slate.com/technology/2019/07/trigger-warnings-research-shows-they-dont-work-might-hurt.html
From it:
“Trigger warnings just don’t help,” Payton Jones, a clinical psychology doctoral student at Harvard, tweeted alongside a preprint of his new paper. He further explained that the paper actually suggests that trigger warnings might even be harmful.
When I saw the tweet, my gut reaction was that Jones was wrong. I have been for trigger warnings even before the Year of the Trigger Warning, which according to Slate, was 2013. Opponents of trigger warnings tend to argue that they are an unnecessary concession that only serves to further coddle already sheltered college students. I figure they might be a good way to help people with mental injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder stay safer as they move around the world, the same way that a person with a broken leg uses crutches. But after considering Jones’ paper, and chatting with him, I’ve been convinced that we’d do better to save the minimal effort it takes to affix trigger warnings to college reading assignments or put up signs outside of theater productions and apply it to more effective efforts to care for one another.
When I saw the tweet, my gut reaction was that Jones was wrong. I have been for trigger warnings even before the Year of the Trigger Warning, which according to Slate, was 2013. Opponents of trigger warnings tend to argue that they are an unnecessary concession that only serves to further coddle already sheltered college students. I figure they might be a good way to help people with mental injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder stay safer as they move around the world, the same way that a person with a broken leg uses crutches. But after considering Jones’ paper, and chatting with him, I’ve been convinced that we’d do better to save the minimal effort it takes to affix trigger warnings to college reading assignments or put up signs outside of theater productions and apply it to more effective efforts to care for one another.
The writer at Slate's gut reaction had been that trigger warning were a good thing. My gut reaction has always been that they were an ill-considered thing, that their principle function was to provide an easy means of criticizing someone for failing to give a trigger warning. Because I think that there are so many potential "triggers" out there that one can't possible anticipate ever potential one. I also think a lot of people who claim that they were "triggered" by this or that are mostly full of shit.
Anyway, opinions on this new evidence?