I haven’t, but I think that were trigger warnings are appropriate is in things that hurt a few people disproportionately. If something hurts everyone that reads it you shouldn’t write it at all, and if it hurts no one more than it is worth it isn’t a case for trigger warnings. But if it is something that needs to be said to many people, and there is a significant group (perhaps those that have had a certain experience) who would suffer a lot from reading it, then you put a trigger warning that would be recognized by that group at the top.
TLDR If most people never care about trigger warnings, then they might work as intended.
Trigger warnings are stupid in general, I think they do more harm than good.
Even people who fear being negatively affected will mostly read the content, if only because forbidden fruit are the sweetest and because they are curious. The trigger warning will then already have put them in a frame of mind in which they expect a bad emotional impact of some sort—clearly predisposing them to react much worse than if there had been no trigger warning in the first place.
I concede that some people may in fact heed trigger warnings and not read the content, but an overall utility calculation would probably favor no trigger warnings at all.
Even people who fear being negatively affected will mostly read the content, if only because forbidden fruit are the sweetest and because they are curious.
Probably, people for whom that is true (while constituting probably the majority of regular Internet users) are not the same people as those for whom trigger warnings are written. See e.g. this discussion about the relationship between the openness personality trait and the memetic analogue of parasite load.
I haven’t, but I think that were trigger warnings are appropriate is in things that hurt a few people disproportionately. If something hurts everyone that reads it you shouldn’t write it at all, and if it hurts no one more than it is worth it isn’t a case for trigger warnings. But if it is something that needs to be said to many people, and there is a significant group (perhaps those that have had a certain experience) who would suffer a lot from reading it, then you put a trigger warning that would be recognized by that group at the top.
TLDR If most people never care about trigger warnings, then they might work as intended.
Trigger warnings are stupid in general, I think they do more harm than good.
Even people who fear being negatively affected will mostly read the content, if only because forbidden fruit are the sweetest and because they are curious. The trigger warning will then already have put them in a frame of mind in which they expect a bad emotional impact of some sort—clearly predisposing them to react much worse than if there had been no trigger warning in the first place.
I concede that some people may in fact heed trigger warnings and not read the content, but an overall utility calculation would probably favor no trigger warnings at all.
Probably, people for whom that is true (while constituting probably the majority of regular Internet users) are not the same people as those for whom trigger warnings are written. See e.g. this discussion about the relationship between the openness personality trait and the memetic analogue of parasite load.