From my perspective, identifying a trigger is an opportunity for many things. Initially, it's an opportunity mentioned is a quote attributed to Viktor Frankl -"Between stimulus and response there is space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our choice lies our growth and freedom."
Another perspective - once a trigger has been identified, there is an opportunity to "remove" the trigger, so a future response is not "hijacked" by the trigger. Then it is very easy to find the space between the stimulus and response, and make a conscious choice.
Good article. I remember reading about the practice of ingesting small, non-lethal amounts of poison so that your body builds a tolerance or resistance to toxins. I guess it’s called Mithridatism.
I absolutely agree that one should take serious ideas that one does not agree with.
However the issue I have with the MMA model is that combat is the dominant metaphor and mode for interrogating ideas today. Social media is full of clips where “X DESTROYS Y”. Which is boring. We live in less a marketplace of ideas than a cage match of ideas.
I like that. MMA worked better before 2018 and you're right, we have too much flex nuts combat vs. actual martial arts. Your framework is also great. Idea sex is just a terrible idea though!! 😜
I want to amplify one aspect of today's essay: the idea that noticing when something bothers you can lead to much bigger revelations about yourself (and sometimes about others, too!). This is golden advice: whenever something bothers you, don't get mad, but instead get curious.
I still get mad at first sometimes, but then I catch my breath and start to wonder why. The rest takes care of itself.
I do not have a social media account on any platforms, so I was unfamiliar with the term “Triggered” until today (you learn things if you read or pay attention). Still, I see that people increasingly avoid defending their ideas publicly in daily interactions or even questioning other people's ideas if they are in the minority and generally do not speak at all; one of the phrases my friend frequently uses: “Go along to get along.”
I also recently came across the following study. Do you think the below plays any role in “Triggered”?
Summary: People's desire to stand out or be unique has significantly declined over the past two decades. Analyzing data from over a million individuals, researchers found a decrease in all three dimensions of uniqueness: concern for others' reactions, willingness to break the rules, and willingness to defend beliefs publicly. The most dramatic decline was observed in the willingness to defend beliefs publicly, suggesting a growing fear of social ostracism or "cancelation." This trend has significant societal implications, as it could stifle dissent, limit diverse perspectives, and hinder progress.
I'll have to dig deeper into that study because on one hand you've got people desperate to stand out and be unique with piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, etc. and in the other it ends up being part of a conformity element as well.
Fundamentally what I think we are seeing is the natural consequence of unfettered diversity where there is no common 'safe place' to be and so they demand them.
I agree. While many strive to stand out through appearances like piercings, tattoos, or dyed hair, these choices can ironically become a form of conformity within specific groups. Without a shared "safe place," people often seek refuge in familiar patterns.
True uniqueness lies not in appearance but in our ideas. Although no one is truly 1 in 8 billion, we can cultivate distinctiveness by thinking differently within our environments. A friend recently highlighted the need for diversity of thinking, as external influences like schools and workplaces can make us more homogenous than any other attribute, such as race or color.
Michael Woudenberg’s essay on being "triggered" presents itself as a lesson in emotional resilience — an argument that people should embrace discomfort, confront challenging ideas, and refuse to retreat into mental fragility. But the essay carries an undercurrent of frustration that feels strangely personal, as though Woudenberg is still nursing old wounds from past encounters. For those familiar with his history, this tension is no surprise.
In one particularly memorable incident, Woudenberg himself was triggered — and in a moment of frustration, called someone a "little bitch." This wasn’t a calculated critique or a thoughtful challenge — it was a knee-jerk insult that undermined his own message. In the heat of the moment, Woudenberg didn’t embody the calm, unshakable mindset he promotes. Instead, he reacted emotionally, lashing out in exactly the way his essay insists is a sign of weakness.
That outburst reveals something important: Woudenberg’s essay isn’t just an abstract exploration of psychological resilience — it’s also an attempt to justify his own behavior. The metaphor-heavy lecture about "idea sex" and the pitfalls of comfort zones feels less like a dispassionate analysis and more like someone rationalizing their own tendency to lose their cool. Woudenberg wants readers to believe that being triggered is a sign of fragility — yet when he was triggered himself, his response wasn’t introspection or self-improvement. It was anger.
This contradiction exposes the core flaw in his argument: being triggered isn’t always about mental weakness. Sometimes it’s just a natural, human response to frustration, confrontation, or even cruelty. Woudenberg’s mistake is in painting all emotional reactions as equal — as though a defensive comment on social media is the same as a deeply ingrained trauma response. By dismissing emotional reactions as mere "unpreparedness" or "ego," he oversimplifies what is, in reality, a complex and deeply personal experience.
Ironically, his essay ends up proving exactly what it tries to disprove: that everyone — even those who claim to thrive in the "octagon of life" — is capable of being triggered. The key difference is whether that experience leads to reflection and growth, or just another defensive outburst. Woudenberg’s choice to double down on bravado and metaphors about “intellectual masturbation” suggests he’s still stuck in the latter.
Ahhhhh. There's a delicious irony here. You misrepresent my trolling tactic for being triggered. The irony? I was trolling to trigger you. I even tipped you off with, "Well, I wouldn't be a little bitch about it! 👊🏽" I was calling out your histrionic response on the thread linked below.
A thread you hadn't even tagged me in, and you got so damn triggered you've commented dozens of times all over these threads. You've only recently begun slowing down. I'm glad you got to this essay to see the mechanism. It's funny because it also triggered a few others. I trolled you and three people got triggered in response.
I'd like to point out, your still externalizing these ideas. The main point on Mixed Mental Arts is to internalize them. You made the essay about me and showed just how much you needed to make it about you. I already try to own my own foibles. None of us are perfect.
From my perspective, identifying a trigger is an opportunity for many things. Initially, it's an opportunity mentioned is a quote attributed to Viktor Frankl -"Between stimulus and response there is space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our choice lies our growth and freedom."
Exactly right. I might have to edit that essay to put that quote in!
Another perspective - once a trigger has been identified, there is an opportunity to "remove" the trigger, so a future response is not "hijacked" by the trigger. Then it is very easy to find the space between the stimulus and response, and make a conscious choice.
I agree. Especially pertinent in PTSD. I wrote about that a bit here:
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/whats-in-a-brain
Good article. I remember reading about the practice of ingesting small, non-lethal amounts of poison so that your body builds a tolerance or resistance to toxins. I guess it’s called Mithridatism.
Another term for that is a vaccine.
This article just triggered me, but also aroused me mentally. I'll go have a quick mindgasm now.
Sounds like mental BDSM!
I absolutely agree that one should take serious ideas that one does not agree with.
However the issue I have with the MMA model is that combat is the dominant metaphor and mode for interrogating ideas today. Social media is full of clips where “X DESTROYS Y”. Which is boring. We live in less a marketplace of ideas than a cage match of ideas.
Hence my own suggestion: https://tempo.substack.com/p/idea-tasting
I like that. MMA worked better before 2018 and you're right, we have too much flex nuts combat vs. actual martial arts. Your framework is also great. Idea sex is just a terrible idea though!! 😜
Nice article, thanks for sharing, Michael!
Glad to have you here!
Frist, happy birthday! It gets worse from here.
I want to amplify one aspect of today's essay: the idea that noticing when something bothers you can lead to much bigger revelations about yourself (and sometimes about others, too!). This is golden advice: whenever something bothers you, don't get mad, but instead get curious.
I still get mad at first sometimes, but then I catch my breath and start to wonder why. The rest takes care of itself.
Just had this happen to me this morning and yes, I learned more about me!
It's almost as though our bodies are doing parts of the thinking for our brains.
They certainly are.
I do not have a social media account on any platforms, so I was unfamiliar with the term “Triggered” until today (you learn things if you read or pay attention). Still, I see that people increasingly avoid defending their ideas publicly in daily interactions or even questioning other people's ideas if they are in the minority and generally do not speak at all; one of the phrases my friend frequently uses: “Go along to get along.”
I also recently came across the following study. Do you think the below plays any role in “Triggered”?
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2024/new-msu-study-fewer-people-want-to-stand-out-in-public
Summary: People's desire to stand out or be unique has significantly declined over the past two decades. Analyzing data from over a million individuals, researchers found a decrease in all three dimensions of uniqueness: concern for others' reactions, willingness to break the rules, and willingness to defend beliefs publicly. The most dramatic decline was observed in the willingness to defend beliefs publicly, suggesting a growing fear of social ostracism or "cancelation." This trend has significant societal implications, as it could stifle dissent, limit diverse perspectives, and hinder progress.
I'll have to dig deeper into that study because on one hand you've got people desperate to stand out and be unique with piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, etc. and in the other it ends up being part of a conformity element as well.
Fundamentally what I think we are seeing is the natural consequence of unfettered diversity where there is no common 'safe place' to be and so they demand them.
My 2 cents:
I agree. While many strive to stand out through appearances like piercings, tattoos, or dyed hair, these choices can ironically become a form of conformity within specific groups. Without a shared "safe place," people often seek refuge in familiar patterns.
True uniqueness lies not in appearance but in our ideas. Although no one is truly 1 in 8 billion, we can cultivate distinctiveness by thinking differently within our environments. A friend recently highlighted the need for diversity of thinking, as external influences like schools and workplaces can make us more homogenous than any other attribute, such as race or color.
And you've nailed the reason why I write. 😀
Michael Woudenberg’s essay on being "triggered" presents itself as a lesson in emotional resilience — an argument that people should embrace discomfort, confront challenging ideas, and refuse to retreat into mental fragility. But the essay carries an undercurrent of frustration that feels strangely personal, as though Woudenberg is still nursing old wounds from past encounters. For those familiar with his history, this tension is no surprise.
In one particularly memorable incident, Woudenberg himself was triggered — and in a moment of frustration, called someone a "little bitch." This wasn’t a calculated critique or a thoughtful challenge — it was a knee-jerk insult that undermined his own message. In the heat of the moment, Woudenberg didn’t embody the calm, unshakable mindset he promotes. Instead, he reacted emotionally, lashing out in exactly the way his essay insists is a sign of weakness.
That outburst reveals something important: Woudenberg’s essay isn’t just an abstract exploration of psychological resilience — it’s also an attempt to justify his own behavior. The metaphor-heavy lecture about "idea sex" and the pitfalls of comfort zones feels less like a dispassionate analysis and more like someone rationalizing their own tendency to lose their cool. Woudenberg wants readers to believe that being triggered is a sign of fragility — yet when he was triggered himself, his response wasn’t introspection or self-improvement. It was anger.
This contradiction exposes the core flaw in his argument: being triggered isn’t always about mental weakness. Sometimes it’s just a natural, human response to frustration, confrontation, or even cruelty. Woudenberg’s mistake is in painting all emotional reactions as equal — as though a defensive comment on social media is the same as a deeply ingrained trauma response. By dismissing emotional reactions as mere "unpreparedness" or "ego," he oversimplifies what is, in reality, a complex and deeply personal experience.
Ironically, his essay ends up proving exactly what it tries to disprove: that everyone — even those who claim to thrive in the "octagon of life" — is capable of being triggered. The key difference is whether that experience leads to reflection and growth, or just another defensive outburst. Woudenberg’s choice to double down on bravado and metaphors about “intellectual masturbation” suggests he’s still stuck in the latter.
Ahhhhh. There's a delicious irony here. You misrepresent my trolling tactic for being triggered. The irony? I was trolling to trigger you. I even tipped you off with, "Well, I wouldn't be a little bitch about it! 👊🏽" I was calling out your histrionic response on the thread linked below.
A thread you hadn't even tagged me in, and you got so damn triggered you've commented dozens of times all over these threads. You've only recently begun slowing down. I'm glad you got to this essay to see the mechanism. It's funny because it also triggered a few others. I trolled you and three people got triggered in response.
I'd like to point out, your still externalizing these ideas. The main point on Mixed Mental Arts is to internalize them. You made the essay about me and showed just how much you needed to make it about you. I already try to own my own foibles. None of us are perfect.
https://closertotheedge.substack.com/p/the-psyop-of-lazy-thinking/comment/101013207