As you may have noticed, the world is an upsetting place. At least on college campuses, one popular way to mute the pain of the world is to make an announcement before you say anything upsetting. These announcements are called trigger warnings. Though widely mocked, they’re spreading widely.
Casual critics usually reject trigger warnings on puritanical grounds: We have the duty to face the ugliness of the world, even if we don’t like it. But psychologically literate critics have a more powerful critique: People must face their fears to overcome them. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt provide a primer on exposure therapy:
However, there is a deeper problem with trigger warnings. According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. A person who is trapped in an elevator during a power outage may panic and think she is going to die… If you want this woman to retain her fear for life, you should help her avoid elevators.
But if you want to help her return to normalcy, you should take your cues from Ivan Pavlov and guide her through a process known as exposure therapy. You might start by asking the woman to merely look at an elevator from a distance—standing in a building lobby, perhaps—until her apprehension begins to subside. If nothing bad happens while she’s standing in the lobby—if the fear is not “reinforced”—then she will begin to learn a new association: elevators are not dangerous. (This reduction in fear during exposure is called habituation.) Then, on subsequent days, you might ask her to get closer, and on later days to push the call button, and eventually to step in and go up one floor…
Students who call for trigger warnings may be correct that some of their peers are harboring memories of trauma that could be reactivated by course readings. But they are wrong to try to prevent such reactivations. Students with PTSD should of course get treatment, but they should not try to avoid normal life, with its many opportunities for habituation… And they’d better get their habituation done in college, because the world beyond college will be far less willing to accommodate requests for trigger warnings and opt-outs.
Interestingly, however, Scott Alexander vehemently objects to this critique of trigger warnings:
You know, I love science as much as anyone, maybe more, but I have grown to dread the phrase “…according to the research”.
They say that “Confronting triggers, not avoiding them, is the best way to overcome PTSD”. They point out that “exposure therapy” is the best treatment for trauma survivors, including rape victims. And that this involves reliving the trauma and exposing yourself to traumatic stimuli, exactly what trigger warnings are intended to prevent. All this is true. But I feel like they are missing a very important point.
YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
[…]If a person with post-traumatic stress disorder or some other trigger-related problem doesn’t want psychotherapy, then even as a trained psychiatrist I am forbidden to override that decision unless they become an immediate danger to themselves or others.
I freely admit that Scott’s objection initially seems quite strong. But there’s one little problem: Rhetoric aside, psychotherapy is just a particular kind of conversation. And to borrow Scott’s punctuation…
FREE SPEECH MEANS YOU DON’T NEED GOVERNMENT-APPROVED TRAINING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
“Administering exposure therapy without patient consent” isn’t like forcibly injecting someone with morphine. Instead, it’s like something almost all of us do every day: Sharing our unsolicited opinions. Current law largely avoids this tension by turning a blind eye to conversation unless you call it “therapy.” (Colorado even has official procedures for registering as an “unlicensed psychotherapist.”)
I’m one of Scott Alexander’s biggest fans. But if we took his medical ethics literally, every conversation would have to be preceded by paperwork. If this seems overstated, remember that some people have severe social anxiety. For them, hearing the statement, “Nice weather we’re having,” could be construed as treatment. Indeed, we couldn’t meet Scott’s standard even if we did require paperwork for any conversation. After all, some people – like me – are terrified of paperwork. When you ask me for my signature, you are ipso facto administering medical treatment without my consent.
As you might know, I’m against medical licensing. But you don’t have to agree with me to see that current law and medical ethics create an enormous loophole for conversation-that-looks-just-like-psychotherapy-as-long-as-you-don’t-call-it-psychotherapy. And what a lovely loophole is it. The loophole doesn’t just permit people to speak without fear of accidentally practicing medicine without a license. It also permits people to listen without fear of accidentally receiving medical treatment. That’s the glory of free speech!
None of this means, of course, that you should use your free speech to be rude or insensitive. But once you accept the science of exposure therapy, you’re likely to change your mind about what counts as “rude” or “insensitive.” If casually discussing sensitive topics ultimately makes traumatized people feel better, why should there be a norm against it? At minimum, the science is a good reason to switch the default rule. Instead of expecting controversial speakers to say, “May I discuss X?,” the burden should be on sensitive listeners to ask, “Can we please change the subject?”
In sum, trigger warnings are indeed a bad idea. Psychologists are correct to worry that trigger warnings make trauma worse. Yes, on second thought you could accuse these critics of advocating forced medical treatment. But on third thought they’re not, because calling psychotherapy “medical treatment” is a metaphor. Current law all but admits this. And thank the stars that it does, because a society where we took the medical metaphor literally would be dystopian enough to trigger us all.
READER COMMENTS
Pajser
Jul 26 2018 at 6:41pm
There is no freedom of speech on university. Stop talking about economics on your lectures, start talking exclusively about Amazon frogs, and you’ll lose job, I think very fast. It would be similar if you stay on topic, just your lectures are of very very low quality. Then, you cannot criticize “safe spaces” on the base of freedom of expression if it doesn’t exist; it must be something else.
I guess that ones ability not to be traumatized by listening ideas is necessary for work on the project “university”, those who do not have that ability shouldn’t be on university, just like people born with extremely fragile bones – shouldn’t be in army; they harm themselves and whole project.
Jon Murphy
Jul 27 2018 at 9:44am
Pajser-
Your example is not a violation of freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Being hired to do a job (in this case, teach economics) is a contractual obligation. One agrees to do some specified task in return for payment. No violation there. Indeed, if we were to take your example further, every action would be a violation of freedom of speech or expression.
Freedom of speech means the government qua government cannot regulate what comes out of your mouth as a private citizen. If you are operating in an official capacity, different story (this goes back to the contractual obligation), but that is not a violation of freedom of speech or expression.
To fire someone for failing to satisfactorily fulfill their contractual obligations is no freedom of speech issue
Pajser
Jul 28 2018 at 3:08am
I don’t think that way, Jon. If university professor talks whatever he wants, he will be eventually physically removed from university. That’s all I need to know to conclude there is no freedom of speech on university. The question whether justification for that restriction of freedom is found in law, contract, ownership of the university or something else is another issue.
Daniel
Jul 30 2018 at 10:10am
The case of the professor being fired for talking about Amazon frogs in an economics lecture is not a freedom of speech issue. The professor is being fired not because he is talking about frogs, but because he is failing to teach his students. He would be free to talk about frogs, but he still has to teach his students
Biscuit Pants
Jul 26 2018 at 10:06pm
[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment and your comment privileges. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.–Econlib Ed.]
JFA
Jul 27 2018 at 9:32am
I think trigger warning policies go off the rails when the student is given the privilege of selecting something different to read or study and still get credit for the course of study. I think trigger warnings are fine (though I do think it is a sign of how sensitive our culture (at least parts of it) have become… and that is a bad thing). The professor can put a trigger warning at the top of the syllabus and say what kinds (if any) potentially offensive things might be covered in the course. Then students are free to take the course or not. If the course is required for the major or minor… well… students better nut up or choose a different educational path.
Hazel Meade
Jul 27 2018 at 11:14am
Agreed. It should be that you may step out of the public lecture, but must still read the material on your own in private. People don’t want to have emotional breakdowns in public, and that would be disruptive to the class anyway. So let them leave class but don’t let them use it as an excuse to avoid studying the same material as everyone else.
Hazel Meade
Jul 27 2018 at 11:11am
I think trigger warnings are something that a considerate person would use as a courtesy. They should not be mandatory and there should not be any paperwork or process involved. And as far as coursework is concerned the expectation should be that the student will still read the material outside of class at his leisure, so they aren’t getting out of any coursework. This puts the student in control of his own exposure, to decide when and how to do it, or to take a hit to his grades.
People who don’t offer this courtesy may find that those who have triggers may avoid their classes/company, so it should be somewhat self-regulating.
msun
Jul 27 2018 at 2:48pm
In controlled clinical environments, exposure therapy leads to desensitization. This is achieved by guiding the patient through the totality of their anxiety-producing response to the stimulus. In uncontrolled clinical environments, exposing someone to their trigger leads to something different: the patient rides the anxiety response all the way to the top but instead of powering through it (with the help of the therapist), they go with what their brain is screaming at them to do and run away from the stimulus. This actually reinforces the stimulus-anxiety connection.
I’d argue that yes, patients with triggers should be afforded every opportunity to desensitize to their triggers. But infrequently surprising them with their triggers is probably not the best way to go about it. The argument can still be made that getting rid of trigger warnings is the right things to do. But I don’t know if you can make the argument that it’s best for patients’ welfare.
Cheers!
Michael Byrnes
Jul 28 2018 at 7:49am
I’m not sure what I am missing, but – regardless of where someone might stand on the issue of trigger warnings – to me, the argument in this post is a non-sequitur.
Whether or not trigger warnings are beneficial or harmful, whether professors should or should not provide them in their courses, and whether or not certain conversations are permissible under free speech seem like 3 independent questions that are being conflated here.
Robert EV
Jul 28 2018 at 9:58am
Exposure therapy for a fear of elevators probably shouldn’t begin with trips on dozens of elevators on the first day (unless that’s the kind of therapy the fearful person desires).
Likewise exposure therapy for any other trigger probably shouldn’t begin with the kind of in-depth research and discussion on topics that theoretically take place in the classroom (unless that’s the kind of therapy the fearful person desires).
Robert EV
Jul 28 2018 at 10:00am
And yo, triggers aren’t just about fear. They’re about other intense emotions as well.
Would you recommend that a large male with anger management and flat-out rage issues not get a trigger warning that a class will start discussing their trigger?
Michael Byrnes
Jul 30 2018 at 7:40pm
Yes. To the extent that we can run with the “exposure as therapy” analogy, one thing to consider is” “the dose makes the poison”.
rpenm
Jul 30 2018 at 6:03pm
Uncontrolled exposure to a trigger often worsens PTSD.
I don’t see how trigger warnings are different from allergen labeling. If incidence*severity is high enough, some level of prudence is warranted. And sneaking peanuts into someone’s sandwich is not immunotherapy.
nobody.really
Aug 1 2018 at 11:56am
As the comments here suggest, this essay may not have been Caplan’s best effort. Here’s my take:
If teachers want students to learn, they have an incentive to adopt practices that will help students learn. For example, if a class requires a lot of calculus, it behooves the teacher to let students know beforehand that a class will involve calculus. If a teacher is teaching in the US, it may behoove the teacher to lecture in English. No, I am not aware of any government edict compelling these practices. And if teachers are indifferent to whether students learn, they may feel free to skip these practices. But since many teachers seem reasonably interested in actually getting students to internalize information, they may take these dynamics into account when designing lesson plans.
Admittedly, those are the simple examples. Some research suggests that lecturing is not the best way to get some students to internalize info, and that other mediums may be better suited to those students. Likewise, some students will be better able to convey their learning via timed essay tests, some by papers, some by presentation, etc. Students differ in their needs and capacities. Teachers may elect to take this into account when designing lesson plans.
Likewise, we know that when people are put into highly emotional states, this can impede certain kinds of learning (but can also enhance certain kinds of memory, oddly). A teacher who cares that students internalize the lessons may want to take these facts into account when designing the lesson plan. And one way to take these facts into account is by cautioning people about matters that might provoke emotional states. In sum, trigger warnings are not some weird policy grafted onto teaching; rather, they’re just another tool of teaching, to be used when appropriate.
Note the “when appropriate” part. Sometimes a teacher will want to provoke an emotional state. If you’re teaching a class in forensics, you may want to stage some surprise altercation in the classroom, and then ask students to write down what they saw to illustrate the weakness of eye-witness accounts. Yes, these events might trigger people’s emotions, which might alter their ability to perceive, remember, and recall events; THAT’S THE POINT. In this case, a teacher would want to balance the value of the lesson against the pedagogical harm caused by the triggering event. In short, a teacher might have cause NOT to issue a warning.
Caplan makes the blanket conclusion that trigger warnings are a bad idea—but as the commenters observe, his reasoning hardly supports his conclusion. I’d be curious to know what Caplan’s experience with trigger warnings has been. Has he had bad experiences with them? Or is he merely philosophizing about them?
Larry
Aug 3 2018 at 3:10am
If I was teaching, I hope I would be able to include the following trigger warning with all of my course descriptions.
”This class is not a safe space for anyone (including the professor). Anyone who might be traumatized by insensitive speech should consider other courses, such as….Our school offers a variety of resources for aiding in recovery from trauma. Please see ….”
nobody.really
Aug 3 2018 at 1:30pm
Uh … ok. You’re kind of inviting students to shout you down at every lecture, but if that’s what you want to do, I guess it’s up to you.
But before you do this, you might want to consider the experience of students at Reed College;, who ultimately concluded that they emphatically DID want lecture halls to be safe spaces–for professors. That is, the students decided that they valued hierarchy, in the sense that they valued hearing what their professors had to say more than what some random classmate had to say.
[HTML fixed—Econlib Ed.]
Comments are closed.