Back when I was doing research on media literacy and would go into schools to teach high schoolers about navigating the media’s mixed messages, one of my favorite things to talk about was guilt. Specifically, I loved initiating a dialogue with these young people about how the media capitalizes on our individual and collective moral conscience when it comes to food choices.

An all-too-common advertising angle in marketing “healthy” food or. more often, “healthy alternatives” is to frame food as a moral issue. The media uses the concepts of guilt and shame freely to craft a very specific message — to be a good person, make good food choices.

Sometimes the reference is explicit — an advertising campaign will use the idea of “sin” to frame the food messaging. Advertisements for dessert-type foods are often accompanied by phrases like “indulgent”, “sinful”, or even “being bad” (with an obligatory wink). Chocolate gets an unfairly bad rap with this type of advertising. Conversely, advertisement for foods meant to be seen as “good” are often marketed by telling us that we can “ditch the guilt” and elevate our moral superiority by making having this food instead of that. It’s not uncommon to use specific religious imagery to highlight these ideas. The idea of an angel and devil on the shoulder in making a food choice is time-honored marketing image.

These tactics are fraught with problems — perhaps not for the millionaire advertising executives making a pretty penny off our collective shame, but certainly so for the rest of us. First of all, it’s dangerous – and unhelpful – to frame food as good or bad. They are arbitrary labels based on — well, what? There’s no universal rubric for how to identify what special ratio of fat to protein to sodium to iron to whatnot constitutes a food being good or bad. My perspective is that food doesn’t fit into simple categories like this. It’s food. It just is. It’s all good. It’s best when there’s a variety. That’s it.

Further, confusing food with morality leads us down a slippery slope. Guilt and shame, in my opinion, too often define individuals’ experiences of themselves, and this is particularly true for women. So many of us spend out lives feeling guilty for this choice or that choice — I didn’t call my friend back when I said I would. I’m a bad mom for choosing to work outside the home. I use plastic instead of resuable grocery bags. The last time I worked out was 2008. And the litany goes on. Do we really need to add “I ate a piece of chocolate” to that list?

Last, shame is a notoriously bad motivator for change. Rather than inspire us to be a better version of ourselves, shame tells us we are   bad and deeply flawed. We can’t expect people to make choices in line with their health values from a place of unworthiness and shame. So while people might buy your box of veggie crisps the first time because you’ve guilted them into it, unless they like them and they fit into their food repertoire, they’re not going to keep buying them. I’ve said it before and I’ll said (one hundred times) again, shame doesn’t work to change people!

Interestingly enough, a study actually showed that people tend to report enjoying food more when they experience a sense of guilt. So marketing your product by telling us how we don’t have to feel guilty anymore may actually be counterproductive.

But more than that, I just want corporate advertisers to quit telling us how to feel about the choices we make. We make thousands of choices in a given day that define our character. Whether we eat a Hershey Kiss doesn’t need to be one of them.

{image via pinterest}

Once I learned that as a graduate student in psychology, I would be forced to take at least two semesters of statistics courses, it suddenly became my prerogative to figure out how minimize this trauma. When I was interviewing for various programs, I would ask the current students about their experience in the class, the professor, the rigors and challenges.

“Don’t you want to know how many graduates get jobs or if we feel respected by our faculty?”

“No, I just need to know if I have chance in hell of passing that stats class. Thanks.”

A surprise ending

For all of my whining and foreboding, I turned out to not be a half-bad amateur statistician. And while I would never profess any kind of love for this mathematical science, I can honestly (and with a straight face) say that I’ve come to appreciate my statistic training immensely.

Why? Well, I’ve oddly discovered that I enjoy research. And while conducting studies isn’t currently a major part of my work, I find myself using research constantly. And beyond that, I can now easily see through the loads of statistical crap thrown at me in the media.

Being able to apply a critical eye to what we hear, see, and read makes us smarter consumers and can prevents us from getting totally duped. Or unnecessarily panicked, as is often the case.

Facebook causes eating disorders?

Take for example, the claim that spread like wildfire mid-last year. Headlines around the globe touted, “Facebook causes eating disorders.” In The Register article posted online, the headline was followed by the first line, “A survey carried out in Israel shows that the more time young girls spend on Facebook the more likely they are to develop an eating disorder.”

So what you’re telling me then is that Facebook does NOT cause eating disorders?

This is an example of likely the most common error the media makes in reporting research. They report correlation as causation. Here’s a primer: Correlation means that two things (Facebook usage and eating disorders, in this case) are related in some way. When there is a positive correlation, as the rate of one increases (time on Facebook), the rate of the other increases (eating disorders).

But take this classic example to see why this does not mean that one causes the other. Researchers have found a positive correlation between ice cream sales and murders in a small town (really, I’m serious). Does that mean that ice cream causes murder? Are there enraged lactose-intolerant violent criminals out there who just can’t handle their sundae and turn into predators? Simply, no. In this case, researchers suspect that there’s actually a third variable that contributes to both of these – high temperatures. But if we’re not measuring that third variable, we get lost in believing that our Rocky Road is jail bait.

Chicken or the egg?

For those of you who are curious, the Facebook study looked at 248 Israeli girls’ media habits and eating issues. The problem is that this correlation does not reveal which direction the relationship goes. Meaning, it could be (and it would be my contention, to go out on a limb here) that girls who have or are likely to develop eating disorders spend more time on Facebook, rather than the reverse (that they “catch” eating disorders by being on Facebook). It makes much more intuitive sense that girls who are more focused on image, concerned about body weight and shape, possibly somewhat isolated (i.e. girls with risk factors for eating disorders) would spend more time on social networking sites. And sometimes intuition is just as important as hard data.

Generalizing schmeneralizing

So say a study actually does involve experimental conditions, meaning it can point us to causation. Does that mean that the results are going to be true for all of us? Absolutely not. As you probably know, the majority of studies are conducted using participants from the college campuses where the researchers work, meaning that the sample is quite often college students. Not only does this mean that the participants are usually of a certain age range (18-23), but they also disproportionately represent a certain segment of the population – those that go to college. While some diversity exists, we can reasonable conclude that certain segments are going to be underrepresented, such as the poor, the illiterate, racial and ethnic minorities, and people following Bill Gates lead.

It’s also important to consider where the study is being conducted, meaning what geographic area. If the study took place in Israel or Poland or Texas, it makes a difference. Even subtle things that one wouldn’t assume would depend on location (e.g. genetically determined variables) can be impacted.

The point is, you have to know who exactly the study was looking at and where before assuming that it applies to you.

What are you telling me, really?

Yet another question to ask ourselves in this confusing web of statistics reporting is: Is any of this really meaningful? And, further, is it useful to me personally?

I read an article recently claiming, “Soy doesn’t boost brain power in older women, says study.” Okay… I’m not exactly sure my life was enhanced by knowing this fact. It doesn’t make me want to kick my tofu to the curb (it didn’t say it lessens brain power, after all). You have to consider how meaningful the statistics really are, because before you know it you become that 8%* who spout totally useless information just to sound smart. (*Disclaimer: I made that up.)

And more importantly, statistics often don’t mean a whole lot when it comes down to your individual life. Take the recent study that claims that delivering a baby via cesarean section increases the chances of the child being obese by age three. Last time I asked any woman delivering her child, she wasn’t making the decision to deliver vaginally versus a c-section based on her child’s future penchant for Capri Suns. In fact, she wasn’t basing it on anything other than what her doctor and she decided was best for her and the child (let’s be honest, usually the child) in that moment. No woman I know who’s had a c-section made the decision lightly, and research like this, though potentially valuable in certain ways, isn’t useful when it’s directed at mothers who already feel guilty for just about every little thing they do. Because, after all, mothers are to blame for everything, right?

The bottom line

The bottom line is that you have to be careful when interpreting statistics, and even more careful when deciding how much stock to place in them. Because, honestly, when it comes down to it, when you learn you have a 10% chance of getting an illness, and then you get it, your chance just went to 100%. And that’s all that really matters.

{image credit :: inf3ktion}

With half of second grade under my belt, I sauntered up to my mother, who was undoubtedly weary from dealing with the likes of me, and told her that I’d had enough.

“Enough of what, honey?” she asked, with just the right hint of interest to mask her involvement in her novel.

“Enough of all the boys winning on t.v.!” I said incredulously. I then went on to detail how all of the television commercials for board games featured the little boy of the group shaking his hands above his head in victory as the other children looked on in admiration. What I didn’t even realize at the time was that not only were the girls being left to be wallflowers, but the African American and Latino/a children weren’t even invited to the party.

So at the ripe age of six, I decided to write a letter to several of the board game companies who engaged in this boy-take-all practice. Milton Bradley, Hasbro, and all of the big game-makers received my pre-pubescent wrath. And when I saw a commercials airing years later that featured the blond darling girl as the champion, I felt victorious myself (I had given up on seeing someone who looked like me as the starlet).

Whether or not my second grade letter writing campaign produced a societal shift in advertising practices, we’ll never know (though I like to think so!). But what I do know is that the passion summoned to make my little voice heard was borne out of a decision that I’d had quite enough – enough bias, enough injustice, enough lack of progress in gender equality.

I might not have had the words to articulate what I knew, but I was quite certain when enough was enough. I think that we all know – somewhat inherently – when what we encounter just doesn’t feel right anymore. When we’ve reached our limit of tolerance and we just can’t take sitting back and observing.

I’m not generally an angry person, but I am a passionate person. And just like I felt as a young girl, I often find myself fed up with society. Here are some things that recently have made me want to shout, “Okay already, I’ve had enough!”

People being discriminated against due to the body shape or size.

Reality shows that promote distorted values.

Bashing parents for mental illness.

Writers being rude.

The sexualization and objectification of little girls.

Magazines offering quick (dangerous) fixes.

Companies making light of disordered eating.

Not being allowed to be sad.

And so much more…

So what do I do when I’ve had enough? Getting angry isn’t enough. So, sometimes I still write letters. I also blog as a means of sharing my perspective and generating new perspectives. I seek out the wisdom of others. I discuss and debate. I donate and urge others to do so.

What has made you say “Enough!” recently? How do you direct your frustration toward changing the world?

This post was written as part of the Self-Discovery, Word by Word series. To take part and share your thoughts on what ENOUGH means to you, head on over for details from this month’s incredible host, Miss Mary Max.

{photo credit :: lady madonna}

Had you asked me a couple of years ago whether I thought the internet was a vehicle for recovery, I likely would have laughed (and not an “Of course!” kind of laugh). Like many mental health professionals, I had learned to be leery of this mysterious entity that existed outside of the safety of our walls.

The little that I knew revolved around the dangerous and provocative world of pro-ana and pro-mia websites. And my understanding of the internet’s potential in promoting health was limited to WedMD and Wikipedia. Yikes.

It’s sad to think about just how much I was missing! As I started my own blog and began to dig into the multiple layers of the online world, I quickly discovered just what a powerful tool social media could be for those in recovery.

Really, it makes perfect sense. Blogging about one’s journey is similar to keeping a journal – a practice I highly recommend to nearly all of my patients – and sharing it with a community that can give heartfelt feedback and support (I know it’s not all rainbows and daisies, however – read on for more on that!). And we now recognize the power that writing about our experiences can have.

Dr. James Pennebaker knows this well. He’s spent the many years of his life researching the power of the pen – or the keyboard. In numerous studies, Pennebaker has demonstrated that writing about our experiences is healing – and not just in a subjective, “I feel free!” sense, but in very real and measurable ways.

Pennebaker has found that focused writing has helped individuals with issues varying from terminal illness to life transitions. The people in his studies that engaged in meaningful writing came down with fewer illnesses, needed less medical care, had less depression, and reported having better work performance.

And how is that possible, you wonder? Part of the reason that blogging can be so powerful is that it combats the isolation and secrecy in which many of our diseases and difficulties breed. As I’ve said before, we’re as sick as our secrets, and thus emerging from this seclusion can be incredible healing.

But if you’re thinking about starting a blog as a means of promoting your development or recovery, there a several things to keep in mind as you get started. Here are a few of them:

• Create meaning when you can. Besides pulling us out of isolation, blogging – like writing itself – can be powerful by helping us to make sense of events and experiences that can feel like they have no reason or meaning. In Pennebaker’s studies, he encouraged participants to not just write, but to explore the thoughts and emotions surrounding the events. He wanted participants to tie things together for themselves, part of a practice we sometimes call meaning-making, and found that those who did benefited the most.
• Be willing to change your tune. Sometimes the public nature and finality of hitting publish can feel like a major commitment. We can start to feel like putting a feeling, an idea, or a promise out there into cyberspace means that we have to continue down that path as far as it will take us. However, it’s important to have the flexibility to be wrong. Just because you once said that distracting yourself with Sudoku was the key to freeing yourself from emotional eating doesn’t mean that you can’t change your mind later on. To me, the best blogs are authentic ones.
• Only share as much as you are comfortable. Just because you started a blog and have a devoted following of readers doesn’t mean that you owe anyone more than you’re ready to share. Some individuals use blogs as a means of holding themselves accountable (such as when the lapse into a behavior they were working on avoiding). While this can be okay in some cases, it can also walk a line of  making individuals feel shameful and exposed. You need to take stock of how sharing your slip-ups makes you feel.
• Talk about it! If you’re not sure how all this sharing makes you feel, start talking! While writing and surfing (the net) are fabulous, it’s important to also be communicating with real, live human beings too. Make sure you’re bouncing ideas and feelings off your friends, family, or therapist. And if blogging about your journey is bring you down, it may be time to step away from the mouse.

For more tips, or to learn how to be a healthy reader of recovery blogs, check out my guidelines.

Has blogging or writing helped you in your recovery?