The nature of that setup makes it incredibly difficult to research. You'd have to answer a negative.
Of course, that won't stop people that are anti-trigger warnings from using the irrelevant research (they don't work if you don't heed them... duh) to push their agenda.
All those papers look at the difference between "consuming content without being given a trigger warning" and "consuming content after being given a trigger warning."
There has been no proper research on the effectiveness of "being given a trigger warning, and then not consuming the content because of it." Which seems to be the most important factor to consider when it's about avoid sudden panic responses.
> There has been no proper research on the effectiveness of "being given a trigger warning, and then not consuming the content because of it."
Well, there has been. From multiple angles. One, avoiding content because it might trigger you is just... avoidant behavior. Which is pretty much universally considered a bad thing. There's a big difference from seeking out exposure because you want to do your own exposure therapy (bad thing) and just letting yourself be exposed to things in a more organic fashion (good thing).
Two, most research indicates that TW do not actually reduce the consumption of content. Not all of the studies are on "did they help people process content they watched," as a lot of them are "did the TW make people not watch the content to begin with." Mostly it seems to haven no impact. A smaller subset of studies showed effects in other directions - both reduction and increase of content viewing after TW. If they reduce viewing I'd argue this is bad because it's avoidant behavior, and I suspect that the 'forbidden fruit' effect is also not positive because it's now giving you pre-viewing anxiety and is no longer the more organic 'let exposure happen naturally, don't just stop watching the news because it might contain stories about war.'
The average person can make one of those things happen, and not the others. Yes, the alternative is obviously better, but once violence becomes the only course of action with reasonable chance at good results, violence is what you will get. Just watch, this is going to escalate. A lot.
- If it’s a company doing an NC license, probably best to be careful because they can make your life hell with lawyers.
- If it’s a random joe doing an NC license, feel free to ignore it because they don’t have the money to defend it anyway. Especially so if it’s CC-BY-NC-ND, people that pick that one are especially likely to be in the all-bark-no-bite category.
At least that’s how one of the companies I worked for treated CC licenses… I don’t work there anymore.
Fantasizing about having someone fired, making no effort to try and understand the viewpoint of the object of one's contempt, does not seem empathetic to me.
As a side note, I found it ironic, that Keith's email that Bryan linked to making the argument that "Empathy is a core engineering value", uses the word "retarded", which by 2013 was already something you could get "cancelled"(or at least chastised) for, because it's not empathetic to the mentally disabled.
Of course, that won't stop people that are anti-trigger warnings from using the irrelevant research (they don't work if you don't heed them... duh) to push their agenda.
reply