Discussing Trigger Warnings - WorkingitThrough2

So, I tried this one today during a Sharing Circle (group n = 9):

For Sharing Circle Rules:

(7) Please label your share with a Content Warning, so that those in the group who might find the content disturbing or sensitive can exercise their option to step away for up to 7 minutes. (For example, Content Warning: domestic violence, trauma, etc.)

Also, during the introduction to the Share:

🌹 the floor is yours for up to 7 minutes. Please post a Content Warning if you’re going to cover what you think may be sensitive information for others in the room. Please indicate whether you would like a quiet share 🤫 or one with supportive comments. 🕰 I will give a gentle reminder at the 6-minute mark to guide you to wrap up your share. 🏁

I asked for feedback from the group on what their opinion was on using the different terminology for the same thing.

The feedback from this small group was that six were neutral and three people liked it.

Love and Courage,

Tas

@VioletVeritas

Hey Tas,

Thank you very much for trying it out in practice and sharing the feedback here! Once the discussion here has come to an end, I'll create a survey and will put "Content Warning" in as an option.

Take care,

audienta

@VioletVeritas

That was great, Thank you for responding to this post and giving your thoughts❤️

@audienta

I find trigger warnings make certain topics feel 'off limits' and therefore increases shame around them. We don't need to make trauma any more taboo in society. For me, this is the real danger of using trigger warnings. If you are attending a discussion on sexual abuse (for example) then you would expect for it to be about that topic so they would not be needed. In general though, I don't think people should be allowed to describe details of traumatic events (or relationships involved), when in group settings. It is talking about the events that is re-traumatising for the individual and others hearing it. Trauma is not the event itself, it's in the thoughts and beliefs about ourselves that result from it. Those are the things survivors have in common and can help each other with. Un-shaming our inner experience helps us to integrate difficult emotions, reduces unhealthy/dangerous coping strategies and combats denial. We have to deal with the feelings about the feelings, before we allow ourselves to admit to and therefore integrate, the original emotions.

@CompassionateArtist

I dont think the emotions involved is what makes it trauma, also the situation itself. Talking about it can be very helpful for a lot of people and is also used as a treatment for ptsd! Also the trigger warning in rooms is so people know there will be a potential triggering subject because you don't always walk in knowing that the chat is about for example sexual abuse because it's a setting with many other struggles and situations. Sharing graphic details about events in rooms isn't allowed but talking about it is just not with graphic details :)

@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.

@CompassionateArtist i totally understand your point, tho i believe trauma isnt just one specific thing, trauma is so complex it isnt just one symptom.

I think its unfair to make the decision for what other members need. Im also one who seeks validation by sharing my trauma and yes i repeatedly do this, because its something i need at the moment. Talking about it once will not make my trauma go away.

Its also important to remember that 7cups listeners are not professionals and do not have any training on treating anyone and it shouldnt be a replacement for therapy.

I think chats on topics like that in group settings can be quite helpful because it makes us feel not alone and by sharing it makes people relate. And you do know when the topic and what to expect when a banner is set so people joining in is at own risk. Its unfair to tell people they cannot share because it triggers others or themselves because for one i think the member themself can decide whether they are ready to share and know the risk of getting triggered and second members coming in know its a risk too and can do selfcare by stepping out or not joining a chat like such all together. Its own responsibility you can expect from adults.

I also do not mean to invalidate anyone and i definitely understand your point! I just think it would be unfair to decide for others what can be shared and what is helpful for them :)

@WendyBird14

Hi Wendy: I hope that you have not misunderstood the post. It was just something that was being researched, and some websites are now using this as opposed to Trigger Warnings. My intent was to call attention to the new word of Content Advisory, which is a much more subtle word.

You are right that you have the right to talk about your Trauma and to be validated. It is a part of our healing process. Thank you for explaining how you feel, and I support you.

Thanks so much❤️😄

@WorkingitThrough2

I understand the post yeah! These replies were to another member :)

@CompassionateArtist

Thank you for explaining your thoughts. I don't think that the group discussions that we do here should be used as trauma therapy. That's not what it is. Instead, the chats help the members to feel less isolated with their situation, and they can also learn from others that are further along on their healing journey.

@CompassionateArtist

I agree that un-shaming is important for trauma survivors, but I don't feel like a trigger warning puts shame onto the topic. It's simply there so that the reader can decide if they feel stable enough to deal with this topic at the given moment. Do you feel like trigger warnings are harmful in general?

@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

@CompassionateArtist

Artist, I appreciate the comprehensive and affirming nature of your reply, which really actually gives much more information about trauma and trauma healing. I know this took a lot of thought to put together, as well as your other reply and I just wanted to say I noticed it and appreciate the effort and care you took.

@VioletVeritas

Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. It's nice to know how I intended to come across was actually how it is received. I'm autistic so it feels like a guess at times!

@CompassionateArtist

Yes, Artist. I understand that. I think in your responses you have captured the essence of why I hesitate to run a Group discussion about trauma. As you stated, people who enter a group may be at any of the different stages of healing/working through trauma, and it takes a skilled enough person to just work with a person 1:1 to get through a trauma as versus a group, seems almost too daunting unless everyone really speaks in more general terms. You have, in your passages, identified in a technical way, where my hesitation was perhaps coming from.

@VioletVeritas

Thank you for validating❤️ her with your post

@CompassionateArtist

Thank you for your thoughts and impulses. I agree that we should clarify how trigger or content warnings should be used, whatever the term is. Would you be willing to make a proposal to me in the pms? That would be very helpful!

@audienta

What I propose is actually there in my reply,

1. We change TW's to content warnings as you suggested, and consider relationship topics for content warnings in general chat also.

2. We ask people to bring up topics they'd like to discuss and give people time to leave if they don't want to join in.

3. We focus on emotional processing and not situations or events. In order to avoid members becoming trapped in rumination & validation cycles or avoidant of anything remotely related to the trauma and becoming trapped in denial patterns.

Then provide some educational materials like the videos I left links for to explain why these changes are being made. This will help with emotional processing of changes and make things clear for our neurodivergent members.

@CompassionateArtist

I agree with Compassionate Artist's direction.

I'm very open to alternative terminologies:

Content Advisory

Gentle Advisory

Proceed with Caution

Parental Discretion Advised-- wait, is that right? Well yeah, because we have the young ones checking out our website, especially forums at time.

Anything to make sure everyone in the space is comfy.

Kindly,

Tas

@CompassionateArtist

Also, I just started watching the video regarding emotional dumping - that's really interesting and highly relevant for our group sessions! Would you be interested in joining the writing team and writing a post about it?

@audienta

I think the video covers the topic wonderfully. I don't know the forums well, perhaps there is a place where we can put a link to the video where member can find it more easily?

@CompassionateArtist

I also think that the video is good but it might be too long for some. Can I pm you?

@CompassionateArtist

I agree with you❤️

I get anxious when I see "Trigger warning" and then immediately don't want to go there bc I'll definitely get one. But as you wrote, the good part is I can actually prepare myself to go there after some time. It's my decision.

As a foreigner, "Content Advisory" does not seem to me as understandable as "Trigger Warning" actually, it seems less stressful, harmless even, it's just some note I can ignore. And that's the point, it might not actually explain that I need to be careful.

@mish3l

Would "Content Warning" maybe be a good middleground?

Yes, that's the word!

@audienta

I just want to say thank you for all of your opinions on this subject..❤️

i personally appreciate trigger warnings. I usually read anyway unless it’s a tw for inappropriate content. But if it’s a tw for psychological stuff I read it anyway, I think I would regardless of the wording of the warning honestly haha

@ThatChristLover

Thank you for your thoughts, and thank you for being a part of this community❤️. I value your input.😊

@ThatChristLover

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Another phrase that is used in a lot of video presentations (tv, you tube) is "viewer discretion advised." That is more common and may not cause a negative response.

@PapaJeff59

I think that is a good idea to, thanks for that response❤️

@PapaJeff59

Thank you for your input!

@audienta

For me, the word Trigger Warning puts my brain in a trauma response. Why? because the T-word reminds me of my trauma at gunpoint, so my brain has that image of the word there making me not want to dove into reading it for my own peace of mind. I wish that I had that under control, but, I yet struggle with that.

@WorkingitThrough2

I understand that controlling something like that feels nearly impossible. It's not your fault when it happens.

@audienta

"Researchers say that after conducting this survey that they did not find any evidence of trigger warning alerts to be effective. Researchers have concluded that they can be more harmful than helpful."

If this is the case maybe 7CUPS should think about phasing TW out. I know that when you treat fear you must deal with it hear on, maybe slowly but not hiding from those things that cause you fear. My doctor says that each time we hide from our fears we re-enforce the fear making it worse over time.

@Gettingbettertoday

Thank you for your response, and you are so right about hiding from our fears can sometimes be the effect of using TW.

Thank you for being a part of this discussion.❤️

@Gettingbettertoday

What you quote are the results of one study. We can't make such huge changes just because of that. But it is good to have a conversation about it and I have understood that you don't find trigger warnings helpful.

@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.