"I got an Itch on my Trigger..."

[wolven7]

So, something has been bothering me, for a little while, now, and I've just come to a concrete sense of it. In fact, I've just come to a conclusion about the proliferation of certain psychological terminologies which may alienate me from many of my friends. We'll see what happens.

"Triggering" language. I've mentioned it before, in other contexts, and I want to say that I know the reality of PTSD and what that can do to anxiety, mental and physical health, and social interaction. [By "know," I don't mean a first-hand experience of PTSD symptoms, but a second-hand engagement with someone who has. The anxiety, the breakdown of present and past.]

That being said, the fact is, for me, the idea that something is a "Trigger"-- that is, will cause so strong a recurrence of memory of a trauma as to be like living the trauma, again, for the first time-- has been so over-used as to become weightless. Worse than this, it seems, more and more, to be used as a justification for not facing or thinking about elements of one's past or psychology which are "merely" upsetting. This is, to me, the very nadir of the psychological endeavour, a trough of aversion to self-examination which leads us to cringing, cowering fear, rather than triumph.

Confront your demons. Learn their names. Bend them to your will and eviscerate them as you see fit. Don't let their mere mention cause you to be unable to engage.

Find the form of help that you need [in order that you may] destroy that which seeks to destroy you.

I'm sorry if anyone is offended by this idea, but I do have a hard time understanding or accepting "Ignore It And It Will Go Away." Yes, some time and distance is often needed, but if the mention of that which you find unpleasant "triggers" you, even in context of someone talking about their struggle with, or their overcoming the same thing, and how you might, as well? How will anything ever change?

If you want to ennumerate things I don't understand about the situation, feel free to do so in the comments and we'll talk about it. That's why they're there.

Comments

[smartlikeatruck.livejournal.com]

I like to own language. Screw trigger words. Words don't make me relive things, similar situations do.
"Rape" doesn't make me think about rape. Having someone pin me down and choke me does.
"Family Court" doesn't make me think about inappropriately invasive CPS workers, going to court for a traffic ticket does.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I can definitely understand that.

[spiritualmonkey.livejournal.com]

and I know the reality of PTSD and what that can do to anxiety, mental and physical health, and social interaction

Somehow I'm not fully on-board with your assertion.

I'm sorry if anyone is offended by this idea, but I do have a hard time understanding or accepting "Ignore It And It Will Go Away."

I kind of approach it as "I will try to go out of my way to not inflict needless suffering on someone else."

You want people to get over their shit on your schedule, in a manner of your liking, because it's convenient to you. That's really selfish and self-centered. Maybe the are working through their shit. Still.

It feels like you're saying "Hey, I like talking about war movies. Nietzche-up and get over the fact that your combat experience makes you relive the firefight where you saw your buddy blown to pieces when I talk about scenes from war movies."

You're very big on the ego, it's power, it's ability to change the world.

I'm very big on evolution and the limbic system. The lizard brain ALWAYS wins out, because outranks the ego. Been around longer, has more stripes on it's sleeve. Descartes got it backwards.

And insisting on not having to take into account words/actions/images that cause people's lizard-brains to go into panic/survival mode because you find doing so cumbersome does not seem... compassionate.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

First and foremost, I assert again that there is a difference between trigger-induced PTSD, and a generalised upsetness at being reminded of something. My problem-- and all comments made from this point-- is with the latter, not the former.

"I will try to go out of my way to not inflict needless suffering on someone else."

Absolutely. But in the case of, say, someone needing to discuss progress they've made in a similar situation, or the idea that how we approach a topic must always be couched in warnings that it might make us uncomfortable? Therein lies my issue.

"The lizard brain ALWAYS wins out, because outranks the ego."

Vastly disagree. I think, without the interplay of both, we have nothing. It may have been around longer, but that doesn't mean that, now that we have something else in the mix, we continue to Let it win, just because that's what it's done in the past.

"And insisting on not having to take into account words/actions/images that cause people's lizard-brains to go into panic/survival mode because you find doing so cumbersome does not seem... compassionate."

It's not "Cumbersome," to take these things into account. My monitoring my language, usage, and the way I behave in social situations is part of the package that comes with the evolution of the concept of self-as-member-of-society. What I find problematic is the idea that this "panic/survival" mode is given free reign, over and above our ability to rationally, socially, emotionally approach it, and consider the factors that can help us overcome it.

Again, I'm not talking about full-on PTSD, wherein we are cast back to the precise psychological, physiological, and emotional states of the trauma, and are left incapable of differentiating our Now from our Then. I'm talking about those who use the language of PTSD to talk about suffering which is no less real, but is certainly less intense and intractable.

[spiritualmonkey.livejournal.com]

I'm very glad to hear that you've got a faultless detector for when some is justified in their emotional reaction, and when they're just a fucking slacker.

Because that's the basic issue. YOU DON"T KNOW THEIR STORY. And to decide that they're "faking it" based on whatever your personal criteria is... a young, male position to adopt.

"The lizard brain ALWAYS wins out, because outranks the ego."

Vastly disagree. I think, without the interplay of both, we have nothing. It may have been around longer, but that doesn't mean that, now that we have something else in the mix, we continue to Let it win, just because that's what it's done in the past.

I'm less interested in your disagreement than the evidence you have to back up that disagreement. Just because you want something to be doesn't mean the Universe has to take any notice. On what evidence do you base your position?

I point you once again to Descarte's Error linked above. Research is showing that the impulse to take an action happens in the brain before the rational part of the brain lights up. Some people have argued that consciousness itself is a post-hoc rationalization for decisions the lizard brain has already made and is currently acting on.

The Japanese have a word that has no English equivalent: Hansei. They have entire books dedicated to teaching Japanese people who come to America how to deal with the fact that English doesn't even have a word to describe what is a fundamental part of their culture:

"Hansei" literally means "reflection". Figuratively it describes being conscious of your behavior and its impact on others. People who take pride in driving noisy cars do not hansei. People having loud conversations while walking past your bedroom window at 2AM do not hansei. People who stall checkout lines at the grocery store while they figure out whether or not they've got the money to buy what they selected do not hansei. Hansei is the reason why mobile phones are always on vibrate and only used for sms in public areas: text creates less disturbance than loud conversations. Hansei is at the center of Japan's iconic anti-smoking ads, reminding smokers not of their own health risks but of the disturbance they are causing to others.

What you are arguing for is the right to go out of your way to not Hansei and escape being considered a douchebag. If find that an illegitimate argument to make.

You can couch it in "Oh, some people are fucking faking it", but I am unswayed. Because you have no fucking idea who is faking it and who isn't, and it's the mark of crippling hubris to believe you can.

In Dave Chappelle's "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong" sketches, the consequences fall on the one keeping it real.

Your desire to "keep it real" may at worst cost you ostracism and loss of esteem in your social circle.

The people on the receiving end of your choice to actively go out of your way to forgo Hansei, when it goes wrong, are the ones who will suffer the emotional beat-down.

And Lexi points out over my shoulder that it seems the majority of people who seem to be concerned with the issue of "triggeriness" tend to be women, and the ones who tend to be most dismissive of it tend to be men.

How many male veterans of our current wars have you called "BULLSHIT" on to their face because you thought they were "faking it"?

I think she's onto something there.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No one knows anyone's story. We take the evidence as presented and we can either try to honestly express what we think is happening, honestly engage the response, and honestly attempt to do better, or we can rage, we can not listen and blindly react, and we can hide ourselves.

I am advocating the former.

I could point you to numerous philosophical and neurological writings on rationalisation and consideration, but the fact is, the rational mind is the reflective mind. Whether it comes before or after the lizard brain activates, we have the ability to stop, assess the lizard brain and say, "Do I Want This?" And to change our behavior to modify it.

'What you are arguing for is the right to go out of your way to not Hansei and escape being considered a douchebag. If find that an illegitimate argument to make.'

That is precisely the opposite argument I am making here, and which I make every day in every action I take in my life.

Reflection is precisely that: To reflect on what it means to engage in an action. That is a rational action.

Many veterans of wars, male or female, are in a place where they seek help for their problems. The fact that many don't or can't is an issue of stigma that's best addressed in other fora. What I am saying is best addressed by your earlier point: "Maybe some are still working though it." Perhaps you're right.

I'm not saying that everyone has to evolve at my pace. That's an assumption you made about my character and thought processes, and I don't know why you did. What I'm saying is, there are many who are use any discomfort as an excuse to not engage, to not seek help, to not Try To Get Better, however it is that they define better.

What gives me the ability to tell? Their repeated doing so, regardless of whether it's an offer to help, a mention of a similar situation, or an explanation of position.

You are missing my point, and I don't know if you're doing so intentionally, but I hope this clarifies it.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I think wolven is reaching for an ethic that I've been struggling with as well.

There is a responsibility to avoid speech and actions that you know are triggering. This merits significant inconvenience. But in communities attentive to this question, there are three distortions I see developing which are a problem.

First, there is an expectation among some that it is one's responsibility — especially if one is a position of relative privilege — to never say or do anything that is triggering. OK, there's a fundamental level on which that's true, but on a purely pragmatic level no matter how thoughtful or attentive one is, it's impossible to perfectly predict everything that may trigger someone, and thus it's impossible to self-police to meet that standard.

Second, there's a growing expectation that not only do we need fora that are safe spaces — which we surely do — but every forum must be a safe space for all. But attempting to do this chokes off some of the frank and challenging dialogue necessary to come to deeper understanding of difficult topics.

Third, and related to the second, I have seen folks who look like they are “cheating,” claiming that a discussion is triggering when they're simply unwilling to reflect deeply on a question. It can be too tempting a trump card to be able to close off an unwanted discussion.

I am hopeful that the first two problems are pretty straightforward for people to address in good faith, though I'm skeptical that many communities will do so.

For the first problem, when someone says or does something triggering in a space that should be safe, they must apologize and the members of the community should examine together whether that person has violated a known principle of responsible behavior. The standard should not be to correctly predict others' reactions, but to correctly obey clear standards of behavior. If a person has violated a standard, then the community should chastise them and seriously consider removing them from that space. Where no standard was violated, the community should look at expanding and revising its standards of behavior to prevent that problem in the future.

For the second problem, we simply need to cultivate both safe and unsafe spaces, and be clear on the distinction.

For the third problem, I'm stumped. I don't see a responsible way to interrogate whether someone was “really” triggered without bringing a lot of pain not only to that person, who likely was triggered legitimately, but also to other folks in the community who have legitimate and serious sensitivities. It may be that we just have to live with some “cheating,” which is frustrating because it's corrosive to the health of a community.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

'some “cheating,” which is frustrating because it's corrosive to the health of a community.'

This. Precisely and exactly.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

as often happens, I'm on both "sides" of this. PTSD is no lightweight when it comes to psychological disorders. Its harrowing to relive through something that was harrowing enough the first time around.

But therein lies the problem; the "disorder" of PTSD is a specific set of symptoms that are only diagnosed by patient-doctor interaction. Unless you are THERE when someone has a triggered reaction, you can only take it on faith when someone tells you they have PTSD. But the sheer number of people laying claim to that specific illness online leads one to believe its become the victimhood de jeur sometimes. I'm sorry but as upsetting as rape is, not every woman is traumatized by it all the way into having PTSD. Going through a trauma of any kind does not, in fact, guarantee one a bona fide label of PTSD sufferer. I do agree, tentatively, that the label is in danger of becoming trendy.

Having said that, and having suffered through PTSD myself, I will say on the other hand, that the point I think you do not understand about PTSD and "triggering" is that it isn't so much that one has demons to fight as the actual outward effect the POST-Trauma symptoms have on a person. It is one thing to be reminded of a trauma and feel sad or angry or even upset. Its quite another to be flung back in time and relive the trauma and thus undergo weeks of disturbing symptoms such as insomnia, paranoia, panic attacks requiring a paper bag, auditory hallucinations and possible psychotic breaks from reality. In the former case, one can be rightfully accused of "bringing baggage" to an argument but the latter could induce dangerous behavior. I have to post this and reread it to figure out what I want to say next.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

PTSD is a "real" disease. I think you are in serious danger of sounding as if you don't "believe" in it here. I assume you DON'T mean that, and I think you should clarify and underline that.

okay

PTSD isn't just "real" its debilitating. That's the essence of why its important to recognize it and allow for it sometimes. Personally, I use lj-cuts for certain special things not necessarily because I'm worried abotu triggering someone, but out of politeness; stories about horrifying child abuse do not "trigger" me and I didn't have PTSD because of that, but such stories affect me greatly and I'd rather not read them. As such rather than wrestle with a helpless overpowering emotional boulder, I'd rather avoid the stories in the first place. I appreciate that my friends by and large recognize that difficulty for me. But it isn't a traumatizing thing. Having heard some horrific story, I can go about my own life afterwards, regardless of how upset the story made me.

And that's where I get bothered by the bandwagon of PTSD. When I had it, it was literally debilitating; when I was thrown down the rabbit hole of reliving my trauma I really was not capable of living my life at all. For hours, days, WEEKS. collapsing on the floor into wracking sobs, curling into a fetal position for hours, shuffling around zombified and not capable of understanding simple sentences, cringing if anyone tried to touch me, having panic attacks for no seeming reason - all typical symptoms of PTSD.

To have someone claim to PTSD and subsequently find out that their symptoms are "being upset" I feel trivialized. As if having something as serious and debilitating as PTSD is some kind of ticket to the "special" amusement park of victimhood.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I am in complete agreement with you, here and above, about the difference between actual Post-Trauma and an Upsetting Reminder.

Perhaps you're right that I should make that more clear in my statements.

[triskelmoon.livejournal.com]

I've been weighing how to phrase this, and I'm not sure I've quite got it right, so apologies in advance for misunderstandings.

1) Upsetting Reminders are definitely separate and distinct from PTSD.

2) For as many people (we speculate) whom overstate their upset into PTSD, there are those who trivialize their PTSD into "I'm just high strung/weak/can't get over it." This is what I did because (with all due respect to above commenter) my PTSD doesn't manifest with crawling, auditory or other hallucinations. When my counselor finally laid out my "low-level" yet chronic and pervasive debilitating symptoms from PTSD that were affecting myself, my job, my relationships et al, I finally accepted that they were in fact PTSD.

3) PTSD, regardless of its manifestation, is not elective. While one may mitigate its affects with CBT and other therapies, it's an elusive disorder to pin down all the tendrils in one's life it affects. So I, for one, would rather be circumspect than unwittingly trip someone up. It's much less effort for me to warn someone than for them to work through their "trigger's" affects.

4) Sometimes someone just doesn't even have enough spoons (See internet search: Spoon Theory) for even an Upsetting Reminder.

For example, I am well in favor of many of the offers you post in helping people confront their issues, open doors, etc. These days I have consciously chosen not to take you up on that. I simply do not have the resources to cope with self-actualization/expansion on top of Work, School, my Husband, and my Son. All capitalized as they are currently each a full-time stress by themselves, let alone in concert.

Essentially, I think that you wanting to help people confront the stumbling blocks (even traumatic ones) are admirable. You taking away someone's autonomy in choosing to do so, even through the disdain of triggers, is hubris at best and predatory at worst.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

yes, yes, and yes.

Although I understand Damien's position, I think it comes from one of 1)seeing too many jumping on a bandwagon they don't necessarily belong on 2)not understanding the actual effects of PTSD and how involuntary they are. Before I went through it, I was skeptical of all but war veterans/victims.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

2) Precisely the case, and precisely why I'm trying to make clear that I'm differentiating between the two groups.

3) Very true.

4) Also very true. But with too few spoons, we have to at least think about the fact that our spoons are gone. We say "I can't deal with this, right now, I don't have the resources."

"You taking away someone's autonomy in choosing to do so, even through the disdain of triggers, is hubris at best and predatory at worst."

Arrogance I will definitely couch.

I think what it comes down to for me is the difference between A) knowing that, today, you don't have the desire or ability to deal with a thing or a topic or even an offer, and confronting that fact and B) Simply curling in and resting on the idea of being "triggered" as not having to confront anything distressing, ever. It's the latter that I find becoming distressingly prevalent, to the point of drowning out the opportunities for the former.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Given the way it's used, I totally want to rename it as "mana theory", but I'm a geek.

[firebirdgrrl.livejournal.com]

Here's my deal:

There are places and spaces where it is perfectly acceptable to use trigger warnings (eg, forums for PTSD, abuse, assault and other crisis survivors plus other spaces of that nature). I view that as a courtesy. That's not ignoring it, it is taking the needs of the reading/participating group into account. In that case, I would err on the side of caution.

I have PTSD. When I've been triggered and it is not a mild upset--it's full shaking, vomiting upheaval (often literally) where a sick feeling can linger on for hours or days. Being triggered is not the same as being pissed off, angry, offended or sad.

I may feel overuse when a "trigger warning" is used, for example, for an advertisement picture, but I also do not know what could make someone else feel as bad as I do. It goes back to the idea of safe space--safe space is not in itself perfectly safe but functions as such when people use the rules and behaviors appropriate to making it happen (much like temple).

Safe space may be overused, but it is vital in certain situations and it does not make those who need it weak. I think a lot of the usage of this idea in conjunction with "trigger warnings" may lead to overuse and dilution, but it is still an important idea and can be a lifesaving thing for those who need it.
(I also am disgusted by those who feel the need to state "My journal (blog, tumblr etc) is not safe space." That to me, says more about the user than any potential visitors.)

Triggering also does not necessarily come from things that would be marked as trigger warnings; it can be scents, sounds, visuals, anything like that. In my experience, you learn coping mechanisms (with the help you suggest and with experience) and can learn when to avoid situations, but sometimes you will be gobsmacked.
It does not mean that the person is weak or not confronting their demons if that happens.
(I personally incorporate this with my practice--salt and hyssop baths for me and banishings if I need along with medical care and taking good care of my physical body).

There are also spaces that will use trigger warnings a lot while not necessarily being affiliated with trauma survival--a lot of feminist blogs do that. It may not be my choice, but that is their party, their rules. If I want to talk there (0), I'll play by their rules as a courtesy.

I feel that individuals do not need to use trigger warnings. I do not think that not using them is a detriment to the writer, forum or aught else.

I do not use trigger warnings.
I will occasionally put things behind a cut or note that this may contain something that might be uncomfortable (mostly this happens when I talk about horror movies--while I like them, I know that some of my friends can get really grossed out, so I give them the chance to not read.) I see that as being a gracious online hostess and giving them as readers an informed choice.

So, I have mixed feelings--I feel it is perfectly appropriate and necessary for some situations, but that it does not need to be de rigeur and it should never have to be.


(0) Given the places I have read that do this, I would most likely not engage, but if I did, would aim to be a reasonable guest.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

'I think a lot of the usage of this idea in conjunction with "trigger warnings" may lead to overuse and dilution, but it is still an important idea and can be a lifesaving thing for those who need it.'

Agreed.

If I've implied "weakness," here, as seems to have been inferred by more than just you, it's unintentional. A certain... Unwillingness to self-examine and -repair, in some individuals, is more my issue, here. Everything you have mentioned seems reasonable, emotionally healthy, and sane, and I agree with it completely.

Personally I don't do cuts, but that may have more to do with my writing style, and the fact that I'll generally note what I'm going to be talking about, in the first few sentences of any post, and so people can judge whether they want to stop reading (for whatever reason), from there.

[firebirdgrrl.livejournal.com]

Side to the topic: my sister told me about a film yesterday that did wind up triggering me (eg, why I am awake and feeling queasy at 4:38 am)--in my experience, a trigger can be a stealth operator where I can be fine and then it shows up again later and blech.

I am not going to lecture her on how she triggered me or ask her (a film PhD candidate, go her!) to always preface her movie discussions with a trigger. However, if she wants to talk about it, I will likely say that this is uncomfortable for me and is it okay if we talk about another movie, please?

One of the other things I have noticed in dealing with this is that in my experience, I have also had to break social conventions to make sure that I remain okay. That is hard since our (US general, w/class and regional specifics) culture is not into people making a scene in certain ways or standing up for their needs in certain ways. As an example, some of my friends at a party were getting really into a topic of conversation that I was listening to and had started to be involved in and then got to the point of "if this keeps going, I am going to be sick",so even though I believe in the free flow of information and being a good hostess, I had to say "Excuse me, I care about what you are saying, but can we please continue this conversation later because right now it is too much for me?" Granted, it is not really coming down like a hammer per se, but it is a way I have had to become aware and overcome types social conditioning.
I look at it as getting a bit of K&C (or awareness of Godsoul if anyone prefers or even self-awareness) because I have to be so aware that I will need to take steps to ensure that I am okay, which isn't the same as hiding from it at all.

Anyway, this is all very interesting. I really hadn't thought about the personal strength and knowledge aspects of learning to deal and cope before. Hmmm.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I have to be so aware that I will need to take steps to ensure that I am okay, which isn't the same as hiding from it at all.

No, you're absolutely right. That is a kind of hyper-awareness of self in terms of limitations, needs, and desires. That's quite a different animal.

the personal strength and knowledge aspects of learning to deal and cope

I think that anything that causes/allows you to have/be able to sit and analyse yourself, at a deep level, has the potential to be a Really Good thing.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

okay, here's my "other side"

I have misgivings about "trigger warnings"

I understand their use in "safe spaces" and certainly do not begrudge any forum their rules and structure. But there are plenty of forums that do not advertise as safe spaces but there are sometimes people who will whiningly demand that certain topics ALWAYS be under a cut with a trigger warning.

The problem I have with the "trigger warning" is this: as noted by others, triggers aren't a predictable thing. There is no way of knowing what does or doesn't trigger a PTSD episode. Certain topics, of course MAY contain a trigger if it is something that particularly "speaks" to you and your past but then again they may not. If you aren't feeling like you have the spoons, a trigger warning might help you avoid a potential backslide into hell but then again, it might be something that is not your issue. As noted, many triggers are other-sense. Words alone rarely do it. It is the sense of being back where you were. Something reminds you of where you were, what you experienced and its always some stupid detail. Reading the words that would be the "topic" of my trauma would not affect me. Never did. I joined groups and forums with 'my trauma' in the title. I read other people's accounts of what they went through. I listened to people in person tell me stories that made me weep. But none of that had any bearing on my psychic state. The things that triggered me were unpredictable and hard to pin down. I actually sometimes felt there was no such thing as "trigger" for me, there was only times of intense emotional vulnerability and my own savage OCD brain that would pummel me of its own accord. But merely reading an anecdote? A thrice-removed article in the news? Hearing someone's own sad story? No. Never. And all the people I interacted with were the same. THe topic of our trauma made us uncomfortable, sad, unhappy, angry even, but it did not magically hurl us into reliving our trauma just because it was mentioned somewhere.

As I have learned words alone are rarely the problem.

That's where my skepticism of "trigger warnings" comes from. From the over-generalization of the idea of "triggers". It seems too pat, too concrete. I know my experience is only my own but from everyone I met going through a similar fate, it was the same; a trigger was too personal, too self-identified to be covered by a "trigger warning".

[wolven.livejournal.com]

A lot of what you say, here, is precisely the kind of thing I'm thinking about. Particularly the fact that, as you and others have noted, there is no way to be completely and constantly vigilant as to what will "Trigger" or even merely annoy someone. All we can do is note if/when we've transgressed, and remember to take that into account, in future interactions and behaviours.

Thank you for sharing both sides and aspects of your experiences on this subject.

I really appreciate it.