Discussing Trigger Warnings - WorkingitThrough2

@audienta

I agree with you that a trigger warning should be about content. I thought that your suggestion to make it a content warning could be a step in the right direction for clarity. Perhaps there could be a trial where you test it out to see if it works better?

Triggers were originally meant to be about identifying that something reminds you of trauma and therefore has to potential to cause distress, such as flashbacks. On social media a lot of people say they are 'triggered' when actually they mean they are emotionally activated. They are now used interchangeably to describe when someone has an emotional reaction to something they 'don't like'. I have seen this in the general support rooms and people often shut down topics for the fear of being 'offensive'. Given the nature of trauma, most topics are offensive, because we were offended against! I want there to be safe spaces for these topics.

I think that TW's can also be overused and often out of context. Other times (usually when discussing relationships) they are not expected, but those topics are commonly some of the most triggering topics. I think it's important to separate the 2 because for a trauma trigger you would do grounding and focus on safety. For someone who has established safety, when they have emotional activation, you would focus on helping the person tolerate their emotions within their window of tolerance. This helps them know it's safe to feel them and they are survivable. This is how they begin to integrate memories and inner experiences which is the goal for healing. This is how we stop emotional activation turning into avoidance or rumination. This is the practical side of my earlier posts about how to manage people being at different stages.

My concern is that some here have become emotionally activated by the trigger warning itself and we all have to do better for these members. Using cups should never be harmful and trigger an increase in avoidance patterns. When we are stuck in avoidance, TW's can become another learned avoidance. For these members (and all members) we have a duty to help them feel safe first and foremost. We all use avoidance now and then, but if it becomes a pattern, we aren't doing our job as a community to help people in the right way. The balance between safe spaces and meeting needs to validate is difficult and delicate, which is why I advocate for validating the emotions (which we all have in common), rather than events. Otherwise talking about the events over and over can become rumination and a form of self re-traumatisation. If there really is a consensus for trauma 'event' focused topics then perhaps there could be sessions with more experienced listeners (lived experience) to facilitate this separately and therefore anyone attending knows what to expect, because it is often the unexpected element that causes avoidance reactions.

I suggest this because when TW's are used in general chat, the content comes with it straight away, which doesn't give anyone time to leave. The topic of conversation in the room naturally changes and so it is difficult to ignore even if you temporarily mute a specific person sharing. I think that letting people know you want to discuss something and then waiting for those with you in the room to decide, is polite and gives people time to leave and come back in say 15 mins. I do this myself to manage my own triggers/dysregulation. In addition, there are some cases where people become addicted to seeking validation and get stuck in harmful patterns of rumination. Having time boundaried spaces for this meets the need, which is essentially the principle of therapy sessions. But therapists have skills to pull someone out of harmful patterns. Do we have people with these skills here? Who are willing to do this in a group? If not, is it safe to continue?

Lastly, I think if we are going to use TW's, there should be clear guidance on what they are (content wise), it's relation to trauma specifically and what is expected from members in terms of when and when not to use them. Then how to use them. This would make it more approachable for our neurodiverse members too.

The CTAD clinic did a great video on activated vs triggered here: https://youtu.be/GWWCBBj8idY

There is a great video about the trap of validation & rumination here (she calls it the difference between emotional dumping and emotional sharing): https://youtu.be/dfxOBpe_YMs

@WendyBird14 uhh I mean I don't think emotions alone is what makes the trauma also the situation*

@WendyBird

Hi Wendy, thanks for your thoughts. I think it is natural to want to talk about the event and what was done to us. I absolutely think survivors deserve these spaces.

When I said chat about a topic like SA I was referring to scheduled sessions where the banner is set with the topic for all to see. In essence that would be the contact/trigger warning and therefore expected as part of the chat.

I am trying to be practical about the use of group settings and discussion of trauma events. I have seen a lot of people say things like ‘my trauma is not as bad as yours’ and ‘mine doesn’t count’. Those types of comments tend to pop up after discussing events but don’t seem to when discussing the feelings and beliefs we are left with or when exploring coping strategies. Sometimes talking about the event is a type of avoidance from dealing with emotions, which I appreciate may be difficult to hear. I've also noticed members repeat trauma stories and have negative reactions from others because they become triggered. This then reinforced their messaging that they weren't accepted in wider society and it's so sad to see them leave and not use cups for support.

Current research shows that if 2 people experience an event, and say one gets PTSD and the other doesn’. The one that develops PTSD dissociated at the time of the event. When we dissociate, the memory of the event fails to integrate in the brain and be marked as a ‘past’ experience. It remains as current experience, with all the alarm, anxiety and dsyregulated emotions as the actual event. This is why I said the trauma is not the event itself. Unfortunately I learnt this on training so I cannot link to a specific source but the NICABM have regular free training that covers this for those whom are interested, plus they are on YT.

I based my comments on the model for trauma informed therapy. It is a 3 phased approach that starts with Safety and Stabilisation. At this stage trauma is not mentioned and the person is encouraged to focus on making current life safe and manageable. Trauma work is usually done 1-1 in therapy. In group settings, trauma work has the potential to trigger others because the dynamics of abusive relationships are re-traumatising for others. Abusers all work in similar patterns of grooming, so it is logical that witnessing others talk about these behaviours in their relationships will be triggering. For this reason most Domestic abuse and Rape crisis centres do not allow trauma work in group sessions. Then the final phase of recovery is integration, this is integration of memory, emotional experience and core beliefs (and not necessarily fusion of parts for those that have DID as this is a personal choice).

I said that I don’t think the event should be discussed in a group setting because we are not set up to help people if they are triggered into crisis. Not everyone using the site will have the experience to know what boundaries are necessary to do this work safely. I also talked about the emotions of trauma because many people with become stuck in denial because shame/fear of reprisal stops them from accepting it. Or they constantly repeat the trauma event, seeking validation, and co-regulation in the hope of resolving the memory but instead they flood themselves with re-experiencing. What actually resolves the memory is accepting it has happened, rejecting what the abusers made you believe about yourself, (as a result of their crimes!) and helping your brain notice that the present is now safe (if it is).

I think cups is in a brilliant position to help people with safety and stabilisation, and also to help those further along in recovery with the integrating stage when in a group setting. But I personally feel trauma work should only be done in a 1-1 setting with someone experienced enough to do this safely. Which is why having great listeners is so helpful to those who can’t afford therapy. The difficulty with a group setting is that some maybe ready to do all 3 stages, others none, or just stabilisation. But unless you have separate spaces for people at each stage and everyone is self aware enough to know what stage they are is, it is very hard for all 3 to be done at once.

I wanted to clarify my view so that you didn’t think I was invalidating the need to talk about the event. I want to make sure that when people do, their bravery is met by a suitably skilled and compassionate response that meets their needs, without distressing others around them. As a survivor myself I know the damage that can be done by unsafe ears.

Yes, that's the word!

@audien

All i did is make a suggestion "If this is the case maybe 7CUPS should think about phasing TW out. "

It is a suggestion because i used the words "Maybe" to show uncertainty & "Think" as in to ponder. In other words Maybe they should Think about it. I hope you can at least step out of your police roll long enough to realize that is all i did.

@audienta

I want to say thank you for allowing this discussion to take place. To all of you who so graciously participated with your voice, I say thank you.

This post was introduced to give our opinions of how we are affected by seeing trigger warnings, and I think that everyone has done a great job. I only hope that no one leaves feeling shorted or misunderstood. It is these type of discussions that helps us all to learn and to grow and to be able to hear other people's point of view without judgment.

Thanks 7cups, Way to go😊