One tricky thing here is that existing literature is really examining the potential effects of trigger warnings in and of themselves, devoid of context or non-immediate decision making. Does seeing a literal trigger warning make someone feel less anxious? Almost certainly not, why on earth would it?

In studies that find no or slight negative effect, the outcomes are immediate measures. How do you feel right now? If it assesses decision making, it’s whether you do or do not immediately consume the content.

But for trauma survivors the potential to be triggered is always in flux, always dependent on everything else going on in your life, often set off by things that seem unrelated or irrational. Trigger warnings give someone a choice in that exact moment for what to do based on what they believe they can* manage. Yes, it may promote avoidance, but avoidance can increase feelings of agency that allow for reduced avoidance behavior in the future.

As an example from the great college campus syllabus trigger warning kerfuffle: I assign chapters from Durkheim’s Suicide in some seminars, as well as complementary readings with less obvious titles. My students get a warning about this ahead of time, but they don’t get to just skip that part of the class. Some things students have done: scheduled extra therapy sessions during those weeks, read in small groups in the library instead of isolated in dorm rooms, missed a class meeting and made up for it with office hours and a short additional assignment (so they didn’t out themselves to their peers with a panic attack in class). It’s about agency and self-assessment.

A screen with a suicide hotline number isn’t going to magically make someone ok with seeing suicide represented, but it offers an action the person can take to regain agency.

*Or just want to manage. Sometimes you’re just living your life and not super in the mood for exposure therapy, and if you can get your brain somewhere else for a while that’s a very good thing.

I use this example to introduce formal and functional approaches to topics in the social sciences. Any argument you try to make within the debate ends up including a variant of “…because sandwiches [abstraction about what formally defines a sandwich]”, which itself presumes that the “right” way to carve up the world is in categories of form. You could also conceive of sandwiches functionally, where something isn’t a sandwich if we (some cultural or linguistic group) just don’t think of them that way.

From a functional view, the very fact the debate exists at all means hot dogs aren’t sandwiches, cereal isn’t soup, pop tarts aren’t ravioli, etc.

Then I make them think about it in contexts like language, Durkheim, and policy making and watch their little minds explode.

Yeah it’s got a reputation for exactly this. It’s a terrible movie, but the ending is a completely stupid and unearned tearjerker.

Click.

I absolutely consider Phantom Tollbooth a masterpiece. There’s nothing else like it, and it has extraordinary persistence.

For now absolutely. He’s been a real gift to IL. But I would be all in on a Pritzker/AOC ‘28 or ‘32 ticket.

I really wasn’t attracted to my now husband at all when we met. I remember also really disliking his smell (not BO, just regular pheromones or whatever).

11 years later we are extremely happily married and he’s sexy as fuck. His appearance hasn’t changed (except that he’s actually a little overweight now and looks a decade older) but every day he’s just hotter and hotter. Not like a “I just love him so much on the inside.” Like I genuinely perceive him to be extremely physically attractive (and equally good to smell) and look back on early days with complete confusion.

n=1 so grain of salt and whatnot, but I’d say if you’re vibing enough to make this a question worth asking then it’s probably worth giving it a shot to see if attraction develops

Edit: Please don’t actually tell them you’re not attracted to them though. That’s weird and unnecessary. You don’t need to lie either, just don’t comment on their appearance until/unless you start to notice those little things that have grown on you.

Also: stopcockstopcock stop. Cock. Stopcock

Very handy and widely applicable.

Though you’d lose the equally useful “pop pop”.

I’m 4/5 typically but I will get flashes of level 1 gore. Not randomly or frequently (thankfully), but like if I am reminded of a particular kind of injury I find very distressing I will see it very vividly for just a moment. Not fun.

My dreams are also really vivid.

I mean, GPT 3.5 consistently quotes my dissertation and conference papers back to me when I ask it anything related to my (extremely niche, but still) research interests. It’s definitely had access to plenty of publications for a while without managing to make any sense of them.

Alternatively, and probably more likely, my papers are incoherent and it’s not GPT’s fault. If 8.0 gets tenure track maybe it will learn to ignore desperate ramblings of PhD students. Once 9.0 gets tenured though I assume it will only reference itself.

The ascend power from Tears of the Kingdom. Not so much in my literal real life, but any time someone in a show/movie is being chased or is trapped somewhere or even just stuck in an awkward situation I expect them to just fly through the ceiling and leave all their pursuers with question marks over their heads.

Most decent people don’t want the second kind of respect. I know for me it makes me feel icky thinking that someone has muted themselves because they’re afraid of making me angry. Mind you I don’t think poorly of anyone who says it, ever, because they’re just doing what they were taught and trying to be polite.

Strong agree. I do not want to be shown deference if I’m not in an explicit position of authority and I do now want to shown respect if I haven’t earned it. (I also resent being asked to show deference or respect when it isn’t merited.) General politeness, like please and thank you, goes a long way toward demonstrating that you respect the person as an equal, which feels much more respectful to me than imposing some kind of arbitrary implied hierarchy of unearned respect between strangers.

I spent longer than I want to admit trying to make a pun with AI as “the elephant in the room” to talk to about to my students about which ways of using LLMs are unacceptable/acceptable/encouraged on the first day of class. I couldn’t do any better than AI-lephant. I even asked chat GPT for help. Very disappointing.

I thought it was the Shakers who were fully celibate, not the Quakers. I’m reading through the Quakers’ wiki page now and not seeing anything about views on sex/procreation. Any suggestions where to find more about that?

I’m not trying to challenge you, I’d just like to learn more if I’ve missed something here.

Finally playing Dave the Diver after getting recommendations from everyone I know since it came out. “Dive for fish and make sushi.” Seemed pleasant enough but I didn’t get why people talked about it in the same tone as like, Stardew Valley.

I get it now.

It may not be the original idiom, but it’s definitely something people say. If the core expressions are “(I) take the lead” and “(you) follow my lead,” that lends itself easily to a merge: you take my lead. It’s not as common as the originals but it’s definitely out there. It will stick around because it’s really easy to unambiguously infer what it means in context.

The choice is “help people from systematically disadvantaged groups” or “don’t.” I’d argue that the “don’t” would be the easier choice.

Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.

I’d say X is more like “disproportionately and systematically disadvantaging people of color.”

If you’re in a one on one conversation with another person where the intention of both parties is for you to learn something from them, the idea that you should just sit and wait and hope is silly at best and actively detrimental at worst.

You do want to avoid interrupting at awkward moments so you don’t make them forget what they’re saying or irritate them with a question they are going to answer in the next two words. But it’s pretty simple to avoid those (or more importantly, to demonstrate to the other person that you are INTENDING to avoid them, even if you make mistakes). Three big things:

1. Pay attention to tone of voice, including speed and volume. People will usually slow down, soften their voice, and shift their pitch off neutral (raising or lowering) to sort of “open the floor” for constructive interruptions without outright stopping. That’s the ideal spot to jump in.
2. Be practical about the content of what’s being said. If you have a question about one thing but you see that your partner is clearly moving on to a totally new thing - interrupt them. Even if you do have to be pretty abrupt with it, this is still a “constructive interruption” because it helps both speakers stay on the same page and have an efficient interaction.
3. Backchannel your intentions. Someone else mentioned that backchanneling include minor interruptions — things like nodding, saying “oh wow,” “yeah totally” — that don’t actually take the floor away (the other person doesn’t have to stop talking to give you space). Another kind of backchanneling is using small soft vocal signals (“hmmm” “oh uh well…”) to give the other person the chance to stop and let you ask a question. You don’t force your way in; they can finish their thought but see that they shouldn’t move on yet. Aside from soft vocalizations, these kinds of cues also include laughter, facial expressions (puzzled, skeptical, surprised, etc), eye gaze (either suddenly looking away or suddenly looking right at the person), and gestures (tilting your head to one side, doing a “mouth shrug,”

I study conversational gestures and backchannel a for a living, so I’ll add that my personal favorite tool here is a modified shrug. Tilt your head a little, extend your upturned hand or pointed finger out toward them (but like, softly and not at or near their face, just in neutral space), maybe raise one shoulder a little optionally, and just hold it there. They will read it as a request to metaphorically pass the turn to you the same way they’d pass you the salt.