Triggered by Words?

[youknowme]

Some words that I've seen trigger people out of context:

• Audism
• Gay
• Black
• White
• Handicapped
• Blind

All of these examples have more than one meaning or definition, but their mere use appears to trigger some people.

Perhaps it is a case of classical conditioning such as with Pavlov's dog. When you hear over and over that gay people are immoral, abominations, unnatural, etc. . . throughout your whole life, the mere word itself can trigger a flood of emotions.

 

[youknowme]

The fact is that words are not some objective entity that exist in the real world, they are fluid and subjective and they have a history that varies from place to place, from person to person.

 

[David T]

It's a very common mistake. Very common. You see it daily on websites, including RF. The curious thing is people tend to dig in their heels and insist that their definition of the word is somehow superior to any other usages.

I debated on winner or funny face and concluded it was funny and spot on at the same time.
Words are interesting. They change meaning over time. If we have a whole esoteric text of words, translated and retranslated and commented on through multiple generations say 100. What is the statistical likelyhood of the 100th generation understanding the text? I am going to say statistically incredibly low. i mean very very very low.. Evidence points to that right here on RF..

 

[David T]

The fact is that words are not some objective entity that exist in the real world, they are fluid and subjective and they have a history that varies from place to place, from person to person.

I have said that about math. Boy that gets some panties on fire. I have been looking for math symbols washing up on the beach here in oregon while i am beach combing none have washed up yet! Until i have emperical evidence i cant say they are "real" .

 

[Revoltingest]

I debated on winner or funny face and concluded it was funny and spot on at the same time.
Words are interesting. They change meaning over time. If we have a whole esoteric text of words, translated and retranslated and commented on through multiple generations say 100. What is the statistical likelyhood of the 100th generation understanding the text? I am going to say statistically incredibly low. i mean very very very low.. Evidence points to that right here on RF..

A friend objects to modern definitions when they conflict with his dictionary,
which (as I recall) is 1930s vintage. He doesn't like evolution of words, &
believes they should have fixed definitions. I understand the desire, but
one must face what common usage is. Otherwise, there's miscommunication.
Modern dictionaries best reflect common usage. But differing arcane or
professional jargon is fine, so long as one makes the context clear.

 

[David T]

If someone calls my son handicapped, impaired, or disabled, I don't have any problems with that.

If someone calls my son "otherly-abled," or a lot of more recent terms, I'll roll my eyes and continue to refer to him as handicapped, impaired, disabled...

If someone calls my son (or frankly, anyone else) a retard, a moron, an idiot or so on, then I have a problem with that...when I grew up, retarded, moron, idiot, freak, etc., may have been the official medical/psychological terms used among specialists, but in practice had become insults.

By the time I became a young adult (and we adopted our son), the new "neutral" terms---handicapped, impaired, disabled--had been developed...I like those terms, and even though I am aware that some use them as insults, they don't have the emotional baggage for me.

As for the newer terms, I think it's just stupid to come up with some of the expressions.

I see the same sorts of things happening with concepts of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, politics, intelligence, education, and so on.

My feeling is that one should be aware of how others might take the words they use, and therefore be very careful when using words that might be fraught with other meanings. It ends up turning the discussion from some point that was intended, to something that is unintended...it disrupts or ends communication...

Likewise, those who get offended easily ought to take a chill pill...take a deep breath...and understand that the speaker might not really mean it in the way you're taking it...I do the same as much as I can these days...

In practice, that means I don't engage in conversations much with people who regularly use terms such as libtard or deplorables, or lots of other terms that I know are emotional landmines deployed by trolls...

"If someone calls my son (or frankly, anyone else) a retard, a moron, an idiot or so on, then I have a problem with that...when I grew up, retarded, moron, idiot, freak, etc., may have been the official medical/psychological terms used among specialists, but in practice had become insults"

I have a daughter that would fit the original term as stated. Sunce its become only a term used as insult today i simply understand that term in context to normal folks that they use to label each other and has nothing to do with my daughter actually.

I personally have a huge problem with defect in context to my daughter or birth defect. That today is bandied avout as a "scientific" term and its not its a bias. Nature does not manufacture create or generate defects. So your child is not "defective" and i like to say they are extremely unique so unique we can see it. That is all.

 

[David T]

A friend objects to modern definitions when they conflict with his dictionary,
which (as I recall) is 1930s vintage. He doesn't like evolution of words, &
believes they should have fixed definitions. I understand the desire, but
one must face what common usage is. Otherwise, there's miscommunication.
Modern dictionaries best reflect common usage. But differing arcane or
professional jargon is fine, so long as one makes the context clear.

I hace a friend that is the same way. I am ADD enough to let it roll. He is more OCD. So he is good at getting me to state clearly and i am good at making him laugh at shifting words.

We always need others to keep it real!!!!

 

[youknowme]

I have said that about math. Boy that gets some panties on fire. I have been looking for math symbols washing up on the beach here in oregon while i am beach combing none have washed up yet! Until i have emperical evidence i cant say they are "real" .

We can objectively show that one bit is string is longer than another bit of sting and we can objectively show by how much. And no matter who looks at the string the objective difference in length will always be the same.

 

[David T]

We can objectively show that one bit is string is longer than another bit of sting and we can objectively show by how much. And no matter who looks at the string the objective difference in length will always be the same.

So objective has something to do with physical. Agreed.

Is the string objective or the observer? Meaning, Is the strings length dependent on the observer? Is the observer observing causimg it?

The answer should be no no no. The observer is merely experiencing a differnce and stating that, the observer is not objective but subjective to the string length. It causes the experience "string is longer" in the observer.

I prefer to understand "objective" as not in the observer but in the observed. In religion there tends to be" i believe x is true therefore x is true, because i believe x to be true." thats where the brain becomes the point of objective and the world around the brain becomes subjective to it. Its False.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I dont think rational or logical are the appropriate words to to he asking about in conjunction with the concept of triggering. Originally the idea was coined in relation to veterans experiencing reliving trauma in post-war civilian living. It's neither rational or logical (depending on your usage) that a veteran observing a firework would cause them to feel anxiety and panic, even though we can draw logical correlation to the sound of gunfire and the sound of fireworks.

Much more vague are words images are concepts that trigger trauma that we can't easily draw correlation to. For example, I'm a survivor of childhood molestation. I have only ever had one triggering episode before. Of all things it was watching the Marvel superhero TV show Jessica Jones. The lead villain is a character with psychic powers who forces people to commit crimes with them. The main character, Jessica Jones, fell under his sway and was forced to do all sorts of things. After she escaped, he used a lot of blame tactics to illustrate how weak she is and how she couldn't change anything. In hindsight it's not too hard to see how this could relate to someone in my situation, but I didn't think about it until I was halfway through the episode. At that point I just started bawling and had to stop watching.

To say that I was offended, in the sense that the word offended is so often use these days, does not quite fit. I don't blame the writers of Jessica Jones, he is an exceptionally interesting villain and the show writers did an excellent job. But I am glad that they decided to start putting up what is essentially a disclaimer so that other people maybe aren't taking quite as off-guard as I was.

Kind of like how veterans appreciate knowing what day is fireworks are going to be happening. 'Consider pets and veterans when using your fireworks around the holidays' are not given the same sort of 'facts, not feelings' treatment other words or situations are often relating to LGBT issues, disability issues, or sexual assault issues are given. And I think it's because the reaction to those issues are so much more varied and sometimes nebulous.

And yeah of course people can overreact. I certainly don't want Jessica Jones to go away just because I had that experience. But even the notion that having a disclaimer is considered an over reach or even censorship to some people

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some words that I've seen trigger people out of context:

• Audism
• Gay
• Black
• White
• Handicapped
• Blind

All of these examples have more than one meaning or definition, but their mere use appears to trigger some people.

Some of my experience with the word "blind:"

I have a few friends and acquaintances who are visually impaired: they walk with a cane, can't drive, can't see well enough to recognize you in front of them, etc.

Still, all but one of them have limited vision. One can read a sheet of paper if there's good light and she holds it close and looks through an eyepiece.

Another has a very narrow cone of vision and actually does photography. It's funny to see people's reactions as she taps around her with her cane to get into position then pulls out her SLR and takes some shots.

With them, they might be considered "legally blind," but they aren't actually blind. Saying that they're blind - i.e. that they have no sight at all - is to misrepresent and underestimate what they're capable of. It's better to call them visually impaired, not blind, because "visually impaired" is correct and "blind" is not.

"Person with low vision" would also be correct in many cases, but isn't technically correct for people with no vision at all. "Visually impaired" is correct is a wide range of cases.

 

[youknowme]

Is the strings length dependent on the observer?

No.

 

[wellwisher]

There are 6500 different languages in the world. Say we gathered one person from each language in a large lecture hall. We place objects on the stage. We then ask each person to describe what they see. The result would be roughly 6500 different sets of noises for each object. The sounds and noises of language are purely subjective. There is no universal or consensus noise. Each noise has to be conditioned.

On the other hand, the visual aspect of the object is objective; visual language, since each person has to see the same thing to be able to express that object in their own subjective language. Visual is a more universal language based on an alphabet of wavelengths and shapes common to the human eye and brain.

The universal nature of the visual language is why science does not automatically take the word of another researcher via a publication. They will need to reproduce the result, so they can see for themselves. Noises are not enough proof to be objective.

If a person simply accepts language output; gossip, but fails to seek visual verification; proof, they can never be objective. This type of person is more vulnerable to other forms of verbal gaming.

For example, the Affordable Health Care act sounds nice and friendly in a subjective way. But upon visual inspection the words are misleading and subjective. If you do a visual inspection of the data, prices went up and health care became less affordable to anyone who had to pay.

This who continue to to call it affordable, due to being programmed by a political tagging game, will not look beyond the sounds. They are content to live in subjective reality of noises and will call that objective. This type of person can easily be manipulate with other subjective language games; such as name calling and name tagging; PC word gaming. Name calling works on people who assume an objective and universal connection between conditioned noises and physical reality. It does not rely enough on the universal and objective nature of the visual language.

One explanation for this is male are more visually orientated and females are more verbal. The left is more feminized; subjective verbal. The right tends to be more masculine; objective visual.

 

[Sunstone]

One explanation for this is male are more visually orientated and females are more verbal. The left is more feminized; subjective verbal. The right tends to be more masculine; objective visual.

Got it! I have long been totally convinced that today's right wing is absolutely objective about everything -- especially about how objective they are. Why, it's almost as if they are inhumanly objective, they're so objective. Could it be conservatives are a different species? An emerging Super-Objective-Sapiens. It's certainly plausible.

 

[Sunstone]

People can have signal reactions to things besides words. For instance, nudity. Lots of folks see all or almost all nudity in sexual terms.

 

[ChristineM]

Got it! I have long been totally convinced that today's right wing is absolutely objective about everything -- especially about how objective they are. Why, it's almost as if they are inhumanly objective, they're so objective. Could it be conservatives are a different species? An emerging Super-Objective-Sapiens. It's certainly plausible.

Thats evolution for ya !

 

[ChristineM]

Trigger words are the bain of my life. I have a relative with paranoid schizophrenia, i can spend up to 3 hours a day speaking with him on the phone as an unofficial councilor.

There are certain words that can send him into a deep funk, others are a trigger for manic ranting. I must be so very careful of i say.

A problem is that he cannot say what the trigger words are go fear of setting himself off so i just have to play it by ear and remember what i said.

 

[ChristineM]

A friend objects to modern definitions when they conflict with his dictionary,
which (as I recall) is 1930s vintage. He doesn't like evolution of words, &
believes they should have fixed definitions. I understand the desire, but
one must face what common usage is. Otherwise, there's miscommunication.
Modern dictionaries best reflect common usage. But differing arcane or
professional jargon is fine, so long as one makes the context clear.

Wherefore can definitions not remaineth untouch'd by human changeth?

 

[youknowme]

There are 6500 different languages in the world. Say we gathered one person from each language in a large lecture hall. We place objects on the stage. We then ask each person to describe what they see. The result would be roughly 6500 different sets of noises for each object. The sounds and noises of language are purely subjective. There is no universal or consensus noise. Each noise has to be conditioned.

On the other hand, the visual aspect of the object is objective; visual language, since each person has to see the same thing to be able to express that object in their own subjective language. Visual is a more universal language based on an alphabet of wavelengths and shapes common to the human eye and brain.

The universal nature of the visual language is why science does not automatically take the word of another researcher via a publication. They will need to reproduce the result, so they can see for themselves. Noises are not enough proof to be objective.

If a person simply accepts language output; gossip, but fails to seek visual verification; proof, they can never be objective. This type of person is more vulnerable to other forms of verbal gaming.

For example, the Affordable Health Care act sounds nice and friendly in a subjective way. But upon visual inspection the words are misleading and subjective. If you do a visual inspection of the data, prices went up and health care became less affordable to anyone who had to pay.

This who continue to to call it affordable, due to being programmed by a political tagging game, will not look beyond the sounds. They are content to live in subjective reality of noises and will call that objective. This type of person can easily be manipulate with other subjective language games; such as name calling and name tagging; PC word gaming. Name calling works on people who assume an objective and universal connection between conditioned noises and physical reality. It does not rely enough on the universal and objective nature of the visual language.

One explanation for this is male are more visually orientated and females are more verbal. The left is more feminized; subjective verbal. The right tends to be more masculine; objective visual.

Good job cramming politics in where it doesn't belong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wherefore can definitions not remaineth untouch'd by human changeth?

Gadzooks, that beon an earphobic cwide !!

A useful reference....
Modern English–Old English dictionary: Translation of the word "sentence"