I'm having trouble believing an AI did this. I mean, I know it did, and I trust HN to call BS. But ... it's just too perfectly imperfect. You can almost spot the cardboard headwear. I literally can't convince myself an AI did it. It's a weird feeling I'm experiencing.
The art cliche "hands are hard" strikes again. Lucid dreamers also describe hands not looking right in dreams, using it as a tell that they are dreaming. I've also seen my hands look like these pictures when taking LSD. With merged fingers etc.
Looking at my hands and counting 5 fingers is definitely comforting.
it's too good and if real im very impressed. these are the best AI generated images ive ever seen, they fit the theme almost too perfectly. I want to see the prompts that made something of this caliber
"Overall, we found that warnings have no effect on affective responses to negative material nor on educational outcomes (i.e., comprehension). However, warnings reliably increase anticipatory affect. Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material, or that they increase engagement with negative material under specific circumstances. Limitations and implications for policy and therapeutic practice are discussed."
The characteristics of the meta analysis were largely focused on the general public and attempts to limit anxiety in that domain. But I think they forgot an entire other application: NSFL warnings.
Whenever I see NSFL I ABSOLUTELY avoid clicking, I even stop reading, and that has greatly improved my peace of mind. Learned that the hard way during the early internet: I've accidentally seen way too many horrific things I wont even tangentially mention to last me 1000 liftimes. Sure there is an anticipatory impact, but NSFL works for me!
It seems like one message here is that more moderation is needed if anticipation has similar impact as the actual content.
> One possibility is that most people are not skilled at emotional preparation (e.g., reappraising emotional content or using coping strategies). Thus, the uncomfortable anticipatory period is unlikely to reflect any form of helpful action. This conclusion is supported by Bridgland et al. (2021) who asked participants to explain what they would do when they came across a trigger warning; only a minority of participants mentioned some form of approach coping strategy (e.g., reappraisal strategies, such as reminding themselves to focus on non-emotional aspects of the situation; Shiota & Levenson, 2009). Indeed, trigger warnings (including those used in the present studies) typically warn people about the distressing reactions they may have, but do not explain how to reduce these reactions.
Basically, content warnings aren’t useful on their own without additional therapeutic training, which makes sense. “Something bad is about to happen” isn’t useful if you don’t have the means or experience to prepare for it.
Eh, NSFL type warnings (and experience) might provide an alternative explanation?
The warnings don’t help when people’s curiosity (morbid, compulsive, or otherwise) has not been counteracted by learned experience (or tools via therapy) that they don’t like it or it doesn’t help them.
The warnings are generally not generic (aka ‘bad stuff here’), they’re usually quite descriptive of what category it covers. Far more than a NSFL warning for sure!
If someone keeps going, it’s not because they did so accidentally. They either thought it was going to be fine and they could handle it (and most can), or couldn’t stop themselves even if they knew it was going to be bad.
Makes me wonder what the overlap is between those demanding trigger warnings and those habitually stumbling upon NSFL material. I'd venture very little. Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings. However, I think content should be described when rating media.. for instance, R/M ratings could have "rape" in its description when depicted which would make trigger warnings redundant. When it comes to mere conversation (on yt or whatever), it's already redundant.
> if you don’t have the means or experience to prepare for it.
This is where they therapy side would be interesting to understand. Everyone is going to need a different response plan. Granted, many will be similar, but how do you teach someone to prepare?
I imagine the things people consider NSFL depend on their personality and background. These studies seem like they'd be more illuminating if they looked at e.g. rape content warnings for rape survivors.
Effects on the rest of us matter as well, but shouldn't be considered the whole story.
I typically see content flagged NSFL when it's generally repulsive regardless of background (excepting those seeking out the content). Stuff like graphic videos of beheadings or people set on fire that's upsetting even to people with no traumatic background. It's kind of like a trigger warning for an average person; background doesn't matter if the content is bad enough.
NSFW/NSFL is a completely different animal than trigger warnings. Only 3 categories exist: 1) no warning, 2) NSFW, 3) NSFL.
Trigger warnings are hyper-specific to the audience and could involved thousands (or infinite) potential 'triggers' and a huge variety of audience categories/groups. The burden on the platforms, writers, and general audience is magnitudes higher for some questionable value.
Exactly. If I'm going to warn people about content, it's because of what those specific people might struggle with. It was something I understood better once I found a piece of pretty ordinary media traumatic. And here I should say: content warning for cancer and death.
Some years back my mom was getting treated for a brain tumor. It was a glioblastoma, and as one of her surgeons explained, "This is the thing you will die from." Median survival time, 14 months.
I was very involved in her care and it was draining. She was still fighting hard at that point, but we knew that a moment would come when we'd have to decide to stop treatment. So when I saw that a local theater was having a triple feature with one of my favorite directors, Edgar Wright, I immediately bought tickets. At last, a light and fun evening.
What I had forgotten in the years since I had seen it was that in Shaun of the Dead, a zombie rom-com I adored, there is a scene where the protagonist's mom gets bitten. That protagonist, played by Simon Pegg, struggles with what to do. When his mom turns into a zombie, he is forced to shoot her. At that point I was about a month away from having to pull the plug on my own mom, and the scene was just devastating. I had to leave the theater. A decade later I've still not been able to watch the film.
I should be clear here: I'm not saying Shaun of the Dead should have had a content warning. I had seen it! And I think that sort of need is better served by things like https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ . But I am saying that it was a profoundly shitty experience. In the same way I'm going to avoid literally stepping on somebody's toes (because that hurts!) I'm going to avoid retraumatizing somebody when I can.
I think people already do that pretty naturally with things that are widely seen as disturbing. E.g., I was visiting a friend and went to pick up a textbook on his coffee table. He warned me not to open it, as it belonged to his brother in law who was studying to be a hand surgeon. I was grateful for that warning, as I can't unsee that stuff. To me content warnings are just extending that courtesy to less common horrors.
Sure. I think it's something we have to figure out jointly between people of different experiences. But I agree with others that definitionally the effectiveness for less common stuff can't be measured by looking at the general-audience reaction.
If you were a university or journalist or public figure tweeting etc, it's important to consider the generic utility.
Your example is very relevant as it's both very real and also extremely specific to your own world and context.
Trying to predict every potential 'trigger' imposes a major mental burden both on the authors/editors to find them and on the reader in the distracting way it's prominently appended to information
If you're talking to a very specific audience I don't see anything wrong with it. But making it a common/general practice seems like a completely wasteful exercise. Especially with the way the grievance crowd is never satisfied with only a few people getting special treatment, the list always grows exponentially. Then eventually there will be a mountain of trigger warnings for every potential niche.
So if we agree there's some very real (growing) costs involved, the other factor is does it provide real benefit for x% of readers? Then you can evaluate the ROI. If studies show people are even more likely to read it anyway (or maybe can't "prepare" themselves in a meaningful way) it's hard to see much benefits vs costs.
I don't think one should let consideration drive paralysis. But I don't think devoting a modest amount of time to being considerate is wasteful.
That said, I think there are plenty of people who feel resentful that people are now asking them to be considerate when before they could get away with being thoughtless jerks. That's especially the case when the requests for consideration come from groups constructed as lesser (women, non-dominant ethnic groups, gender/sexuality minorities, etc). Those people can go fly a kite.
I disagree that the costs are growing. My experience is that I spend an approximately constant amount of time on consideration. On occasion, somebody points out how something I said could be unpleasant or harmful to some set of people. I think about it, usually find another way to make my point, and move on. From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them, and so don't end up learning. That's a choice that they can make, but I don't see any reason to coddle them.
> From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them
This sort of smug/stereotypical dismissal of why people don't care to add preambles to every comment/paragraph they write or say aloud that might offend or upset someone is exactly why people push back on this sort of thing.
Ignore all counterpoints and just accuse them all of not caring about x victim's predicament. Surely that will convince them.
Oh, I see. When you write it's an intolerable burden to think of the feelings of others. When I write it's absolutely awful that I don't coddle your incredibly delicate feelings. Noted.
Ah, that's how I know I've found the people truly dedicated to rational discourse: when somebody speaks honestly, just like they advocate for, they threaten violence. Sorry to hear your family relationships are so brittle, though.
Sure. But an important part of the anti-trigger-warning crowd, perhaps the majority of it, is intervening on the side of historically dominant groups, arguing that people shouldn't have to care at all about the historically dominated groups. It's basically, "Why should I, a man, have to care about women who were raped?" Except it's for all targeted groups and their bad experiences.
To my mind that's quite nasty, even when it's cloaked in false, high-minded BS about free speech and the like. So am I going to be frank in return? You bet.
If you really care about people being nasty, I am sure you'll now start hectoring those nasty pro-kyriarchy types. But what I think is actually happening here is that you'll continue to only object to anti-status-quo frankness, while happily accepting pro-status-quo nastiness as long as it's got a modicum of civility glossed over it.
You probably won't read this, but when I saw that movie, my mother who was really not too different from the mother in that film, she had died some years before from some other but overall similar disease.
I had been laughing my head off until that point, but when his mother says, "I didn't want to be any bother," I started crying and just cried and cried through that whole scene you describe.
So I really feel for you. Have a virtual hug.
I have watched the film a couple of times since though. Once you know it's coming, it's just a pang.
Actually, there's plenty of philosophical works that analyze zombie movies from various perspectives. They are still a product of human mind providing various excuses to kill humanoid creatures en masse, and we can use them as a mirror to peek behind the facade. You happened to see it without the candy wrapper of “it's just entertainment”, and the reaction was natural. In fact, trying to keep the face because “people around are having fun” would be the inhuman choice, just as the idea that people whose relatives are dying should better stay in hospitals and their own homes, and get some special “treatment” to keep others comfortable.
In the same manner, those who've seen the war may not react well the “Top Gun” style ass kicking with a happy end. There problem here is not within them.
My sympathies. I know the effect you mean. I have probably made it through the worst experience in my life, so a lot of things below that threshold just don't touch me in the same way.
I'm glad you had that much time with him and that his mind was unclouded. Even now, years later, I treasure those moments of presence.
I absolutely agree that different people are triggered by different things, and in my opinion it's good that we recognize and respect that.
On the other hand I'm convinced there are things that are universally NSFL for everyone and I believe that the parent comment is geared in that direction.
The meta-analysis seems to include only papers that deal with the first kind of trigger:
" The warning, as conceptualized by the authors of the relevant publication, was
intended to notify participants that forthcoming content may trigger memories or emotions relevant to past experiences."
There's a very practical use of trigger warnings that's existed uncontroversially for decades and it's the use of story tags for internet erotica, dating back to the usenet days.
Story tags there serve two important purposes: so you can find what you want to read, and not read that which you definitely do not.
Decades ago, I was having lunch at my parents house. There was a newspaper on the table, unopened, just brought in. I looked over the top of page 1. Unfolded it, and there was a picture of a dead body in the street. It was a story about some conflict in another country (Bosnia perhaps). I'm OK with seeing that if I'm already reading about it and in the right frame of mind, but "not safe for lunch" really hit me that day. So much that I called the newspaper to complain about "being surprised with a dead body on the front pafe during lunch". I've never done that before or since. ;-)
There's a big difference between NSFW/NSFL warnings, and trigger warnings.
The former are meant for people that either actively avoid watching gore/porn, or who generally wouldn't mind but are in public/at work and want to avoid embarassment.
The latter (trigger warnings) were invented by relatively sheltered and emotionally unhealthy teens on Tumblr, many of whom incorrectly self-diagnose with PTSD and other ailments. It became more prevalent in the 2010s as these teens grew up and got jobs and media influence. It was far more of a way to signal in-group membership, than an actual scientific practice. People who didn't include trigger warnings could get criticized (and occasionally harassed) pretty hard.
It's the same as the TikTokers who say "k-word" instead of "kill", not to protect people's feelings, but to avoid TikTok's heavy content moderation. If influencers or corporations start saying "k-word" outside of TikTok in the future, you can assume it has more to do with immaturity (or the horribly-named "virtue signalling" concept, which is really just in-group signalling) than with any empirical attempt to reduce mental health impacts.
The notion of "poor performers" is a sign of bad management. They bloat the company to where they can no longer get their billion dollar handouts, er, payouts, and then take it out on people who actually care about their jobs and claim they are "poor" at it. While scaring the shit out of everyone else.
I know there are going to be a bunch of bros who think, "Yeah, that's not me, I'm fucking Tony Stark," but in reality, part of their brain will noodle on this gaslighting whether they want it to or not. So it really affects everyone.
It is a sign of toxic rot in a culture when they start branding people this way. But it's Amazon, it's a synonym for toxic.
The question is: do we want to allow this? Without going all slippery slope on this debate, I don't think we've had time to think through the consequences of a precision remote-controlled gun. Of course, they didn't give us a say on selling military weaponry to police departments, so I don't think we'll have much to say in this either.
> I think the author has deeper seated issues to deal with, especially if they spend time languishing over this, and then writing these posts to justify/circumvent their negative emotional reactions by reframing and then echoing their internal troubles to the rest of us like we need to be enlightened.
Seriously. It is loud and clear. The justification of their own pathological behavior is wildly unhealthy. Too bad they don't see a therapist.
Found the boomer. You're right, the goal is to feel disappointed. Isn't that what your generation was about, "Disappointment builds character" and all that toxic nonsense?
Engineers like woodworking because they spend so much time often building intangible things (like software engineers), that it satisfies an unmet need to hold, feel, or experience their creations in a tactile way.
Another key difference is that software is never finished, you can always fix a bug or add a feature or tinker with it.
When you build a piece of furniture for yourself or especially somebody else, when you finish it, it's done. All the little mistakes and imperfections are just part of it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just accept and be proud of it and move on to the next project. It seems odd but it's a very nice feeling for somebody who mostly deals in abstract, perpetually updating software.
The material and sensitive aspect are important but I'd add another factor: physical geometry. Real objects can't be coupled virtually like bits. They interlock in simpler ways.. it creates hard constraints too but I think our brains often prefer them. Unlike a video game, most objects can traverse each others (well to an extent).
I got into software because I loved making stuff, I got my computer as a gift at 12 and I was consumed - I could make stuff and the only limit was my knowledge - not materials or tools - 20 something years after I'm still doing it.
Woodworking, metalworking, electronics, 3D modeling, CAD - just different ways to thinker with stuff.
Totally. A computer is worth tens of thousands of board feet of wood. Until I could afford a house and woodworking tools, this (and music) were my two primary creative outlets.
I say this in my woodworking classes to my fellow SWE classmates. It's so rewarding to have something you can hold, and people like looking at wood a lot more than they do code.
Also why I like playing instruments and drawing with pen and paper and sculpting with clay. After awhile I just got so tired of screens and living in essentially virtual reality.
Another factor I'll add is that anything you build yourself like this is actually a completed project that you can use.
When you look back at your career, how many projects did you complete which were actually used by someone? And how many were just canceled, or failed in the market?
This is exactly why I enjoy cooking so much. It produces something of value from raw materials, and, if I do everything well enough, other people get to derive joy from my effort. :-)
Same here! I started cooking like an adult around age 30, and then really got into it around 35, but didn't feel confident enough to feed large groups until my late 40's. Now I'm in my 50's and love throwing parties and cooking days in advance. My next house needs a dining room that can seat at least 14 or I won't be happy.
