Trigger warnings found ineffective
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 5:21 pm
This is the meta-analysis in question I think. I don't think it covered specific groups as it says:monkey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:31 pmHas anyone looked at this? I haven't really had time, but gave the thread a read.
Are the studies that where studied based on the general population, or specific populations that the trigger warnings might be for? If it's the former, I don't think these results would be that surprising. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful for the latter.
Although the current study provides evidence that trigger warnings are broadly inert as applied writ large, it does not provide information on whether trigger warnings have differing effects in specific subpopulations or contexts.
I'm not seeing how trigger warnings and the like support censorship; I think in practice they might have somewhat of the opposite effect.*Millennie Al wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 10:41 pmYou can only tell if something is ineffective once you know what is its intended effect. Like Parental Advisory stickers, trigger warnings have two effects. The most important is to show that the person doing the labelling is supporting a particular world view - what we might nowadays call "virtue signalling". The secondary effect is to support censorship. Protection of people who voluntarily want to avoid the material is, at most, a minor side-effect.