Mindfulness/meditation and loss of ability to reason when triggered

[Luke Artanis]

MW on educational strategies: Mindfulness research shows when people step out of thoughts and become more awake and aware in their senses (e.g. mindfulness, meditation), it deactivates the limbic system (fight-flight-freeze) and activates the pre-frontal cortex (reason, coherence, integration).

Research shows people lose the ability to reason and learn when “triggered” - a state of cognitive impairment. This is an area we could consider doing more research around in order to develop our education and public advocacy, in a way that engages people without eliciting cognitive & emotional triggers. 

Psychologist John Gottman would record couples discussing difficult issues, and when heart rates went over 100BPM, he’d instigate a break for 15mins to reduce high arousal. Once out of high arousal, he’d let couples resume dialogue, and found they were much more frequently able to achieve common ground and come to resolution.

[Luke Artanis]

I saw the above in last weeks meeting minutes, and wanted to preserve it here in the forum, as well as make an additional remark.

An intactivist once told me a story about how they first realized there is something deeply traumatic about "circumcision". They had observed a mutilation victim, who is normally calm and rational, become  angry, loud, irrational (triggered) during a conversation about the topic. Since the behavior was so out of character, they were provoked to curiosity to learn more about the possibility of long-term psychological harm of circumcision.

So, even if we try and fail to to prevent triggering people in our conversations, the very fact that the person become triggered can still work to our persuasive advantage.

[Luke Artanis]

I have found that when I speak about "circumcision" I cannot speak in a way that guarantees no listener will be triggered.

If I speak in euphemisms (for example genital cutting, circumcision, medical surgery, holy ritual) I may assuage the guilty consciences of the perpetrators and enablers, making them feel comfortable and more able to listen, but I often trigger the victims of mutilation who shut down mentally.

If I speak in a way that advocates from the perspective of the victims of mutilation (e.g. sexual violence, abuse, torture, mutilation), I tend to trigger the perpetrators and enablers, but comfort the victims.

Also, it must be emphasized that there is a VAST overlap between victims of mutilation and the perpetrators and enablers. This means they can be triggered no matter how you speak about the issue.

I prefer to advocate from the perspective of the victims because this opens all the important opportunities, and because it is the purpose of the movement. (Discussion about the issue from the perspective of the perpetrators saturates the literature and is dominant in the culture. Representation of the victims' perspectives is the unheard/missing piece of the conversation.)

Also, you cannot empathize with someone you have hurt, unless and until you understand the perspective of your victim. Therefore the perpetrators and enablers must be exposed to the perspectives of the victims (even if it triggers them). Only then can they begin to heal their own trauma, and seek redemption (through helping the existing victims and engaging in activism to prevent additional victims).