Bullying, damaging or helpful?

[R Ev0lution]

You apparently are unaware that your brain also has chemical signals that cause you to feel pain when you are tormented psychologically.
This can manifest itself as various neuroses, heightened stress, blood pressure changes, and more.
Everyone experiences this to one degree or another, just as everyone bleeds to one degree or another.

Your degradation of the victims only shows your ignorance to basic psychology.

4 Edits? Tch.
"Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain."
OH? So now everyone who cannot tolerate physical or emotional pain is weak, by your standards. REALLY?

The number of edits has nothing to do with the point I am making. The first three were minor spelling/grammar corrections and the last one was the addition of the last line, if you must know.

"Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain."
OH? So now everyone who cannot tolerate physical or emotional pain is weak, by your standards. REALLY?

Can you read? I said small amounts of pain. Small amount of pain being a prick with a needle, small burn, etc.

You apparently are unaware that your brain also has chemical signals that cause you to feel pain when you are tormented psychologically.

If verbal insults are psychological torment to everyone, then why is it that most people who are verbally bullied do not care for it? There is your answer. They are not weak, they are strong, they take it on the chin and get over it.

Hurray for bullying apologists.

Are you trying to say that I am a bully?
No.
I stuck up for people who were getting physically bullied,
I was verbally bullied myself quite extensively when I was young (pre-secondary school). I took it on the chin because I am not weak. And because of that, when I entered secondary school I had emerged a much stronger person.

Only weak people let it bring them down.

Answer my thing, too, dude. Don't make me feel left out here.

[R Ev0lution]

None of your sources explain why not everyone is so "psychologically tormented" and "damaged" from verbal abuse.

Many of the people I know who were verbally bullied, they lead very successful lives now and never suffered from any psychological trauma.
Show me where I said noone suffers from psychological trauma. I said only the weak. And it is true.
As someone who suffered from verbal bullying, I can say that those studies are bullshit. They can throw their scientific terms around as much as they like, but it is obvious that they are not basing their research on talking with people who suffered from it, but rather just their very limited understanding of the human brain.

I posted on this a while ago. If your friends weren't damaged by their experiences, it may be because their bullies didn't try hard enough, or because they weren't very good at being bullies.

Anybody you know that isn't palpably scarred by their experiences as victims of bullying probably got lucky. Doesn't mean they're tougher.

[R Ev0lution]

I feel no desire to carry out an argument against someone for several days as I do have better things to do with my time.

I find myself rather disappointed. First, you never responded to my posts, which I felt had very valid arguments behind them. Then, when all of us other posters dedicate our time and energy to engaging in vigorous intellectual debate with you, you randomly tell us that you have to go, using the very rude words "I have better things to do with my time". I think we all have a right to be a bit upset and insulted by your lack of etiquette, Itanica.

[R Ev0lution]

Thus, I have proved there to be an exception to the scientists' papers as I never suffered psychological trauma from the extensive verbal bullying I suffered.

I hope you realize that self-diagnosis is virtually the biggest no-no in the history of psychiatry (and, really, virtually any semi-respectable intellectual field). You have a biased viewpoint, and might be too ashamed or lack perspective to acknowledge psychological damage. Only a third party who is trained in psychology, psychiatry, child development, or some other relevant field can tell you whether you've suffered psychological trauma from bullying.

[R Ev0lution]

I find myself rather disappointed. First, you never responded to my posts, which I felt had very valid arguments behind them. Then, when all of us other posters dedicate our time and energy to engaging in vigorous intellectual debate with you, you randomly tell us that you have to go, using the very rude words "I have better things to do with my time". I think we all have a right to be a bit upset and insulted by your lack of etiquette, Itanica.

I'm sorry if you find engaging in arguments on a forum thread a great thing to do with your time, unfortunately it is my opinion that it is not. Especially on such a lovely day like this!

Anyhoo, just for you, as you seem to be an intellectual man / woman.

We're keeping our intellectual wits sharp, exercising our minds, and voicing our strongly-held opinions!!! Is it not a rewarding experience?

Even as a very athletic and outdoorsy individual, I can't stand the thought of an unresolved debate! Who cares whether it's in a forum thread or in Congress?

[R Ev0lution]

I hope you realize that self-diagnosis is virtually the biggest no-no in the history of psychiatry (and, really, virtually any semi-respectable intellectual field). You have a biased viewpoint, and might be too ashamed or lack perspective to acknowledge psychological damage. Only a third party who is trained in psychology, psychiatry, child development, or some other relevant field can tell you whether you've suffered psychological trauma from bullying.

Psychological trauma is not that big of a thing to self diagnose, you know. I had a great social life from the point of the bullying, I always felt happy, etc. So I don't really see how I'm so badly traumatised as many people here seem to claim.

Having a social life doesn't mean that you didn't suffer psychological damage from bullying. I was abused as a child, and have been diagnosed with some minor psychological traits associated with my kind of upbringing. I still have a girlfriend (moving in together soon), some very close buddies, and am in the top 2% of my academic cohort at university. Virtually no immediately-recognizable evidence exists of my childhood abuse, and yet, my psychologist says that it's there.

And, nothing you said changes the fact that self-diagnosis is an outrageous no-no. Also, for the record, psychological trauma can be pretty difficult to diagnose. There are psychologists who've spent their entire careers (30+ years) doing academic research on the nature of such traumas. It's a pretty deep and complex subject. I don't think you appreciate its intricacies enough to speak with any real authority on the matter; at least, not as a diagnoser.

[R Ev0lution]

You want me to pay to go visit a psychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

Yes. Because, unless your best friend or mom has a degree in psychology, residencies in medical psychiatry, or some background in child development, neither of them is actually qualified to tell you if you struggle with psychological trauma, because they have not been trained to recognize subtle-yet-crucial markers and symptoms which are signs of an underlying problem.

If you've ever seen Dr. House, it's like that, but less exaggerated. You know how he randomly walks up to people and, based on the way they twitch, "I don't know if you know this, but you have cancer." Again, this is a very exaggerated example, but a doctor/psychologist/specialist is trained to understand and diagnose certain medical conditions and will recognize/see/read into things that ordinary people won't. Our knowledge of diagnosing cancer is limited to "is there a lump there?" Theirs is, I assure you, much more extensive.

By that same logic, your understanding of psych trauma may be very rudimentary, and so you (wrongly) assume that it's "fairly easy to diagnose" and that unqualified folks in your life can actually tell you anything about your psychological state. A psychologist who has spent his/her 30-year career dealing with trauma can probably tell whether you were abused/bullied as a child based on far more subtle symptoms.

[R Ev0lution]

And no, why should I go and spend money to prove nothing is wrong with me just so I can prove someone on an internet forum wrong?

Because you based a fundamental aspect of your argument on a personal anecdote and, specifically, an assumption within that anecdote which nobody without a degree or residency in Psychology/Psychiatry/Child-Development is qualified to make.

[R Ev0lution]

Yes. Because, unless your best friend or mom has a degree in psychology, residencies in medical psychiatry, or some background in child development, neither of them is actually qualified to tell you if you struggle with psychological trauma, because they have not been trained to recognize subtle-yet-crucial markers and symptoms which are signs of an underlying problem.

If you've ever seen Dr. House, it's like that, but less exaggerated. You know how he randomly walks up to people and, based on the way they twitch, "I don't know if you know this, but you have cancer." Again, this is a very exaggerated example, but a doctor/psychologist/specialist is trained to understand and diagnose certain medical conditions will recognize things that ordinary people won't. Our knowledge of diagnosing cancer is limited to "is there a lump there?" Theirs is, I assure you, much more extensive.

Well if your knowledge on diagnosing cancer is just "is there a lump there", fair enough. But not me. If I was going to try and diagnose cancer on myself (As a preliminary to visiting an actual doctor of course), I would take all of the symptoms I know for cancer and try and put them all together to try and form a rough idea.

I probably will visit a psychiatrist at some point in life, but I am fairly confident I suffer from nothing. And if the effects are not visible and not even known to myself, I'm in no hurry.
Anyone who wishes to continue debating with me, take it to TG as this is slowly derailing.

First, your statement actually supports my argument. Even if you do extensive research on cancer, no self-diagnosis you make will mean anything until a doctor confirms it. Likewise, no matter what you think you know about psychological trauma and verbal bullying, you're simply not qualified to tell anybody that your psychological health is tip-top.

Until you come across a third-party expert who can confirm your amateur self-diagnosis, your personal anecdote is meaningless to me. Don't use it as part of an argument suggesting that people who suffer from psychological trauma via verbal bullying are weak.

Use actual evidence supported by actual facts that can be supported by actual efforts. This is a very basic, rudimentary rule of any intellectual debate.

[R Ev0lution]

Because you based a fundamental aspect of your argument on a personal anecdote and, specifically, an assumption within that anecdote which nobody without a degree or residency in Psychology/Psychiatry/Child-Development is qualified to make.

You're telling me that if I said right now that you have Downs Syndrome, you would march down to the doctor and get a test - just to prove me wrong? While the thought of that is charming, I just don't feel the necessity to do that myself.

I've been to the doctor, and actually lived with a Pediatrician for 17 years of my life. Also, my parents did all the pre-birth and infant-age tests for virtually any condition you can think of, including the pre-natal test for Downs Syndrome.

I don't have it. Find another condition to use as an example. Again, I lived with a doctor for 17 years. I've been subjected every medical, psychological, and developmental test you can think of.

So, if you can think of a condition that would actually require me to book yet another visit to the doctor and/or psychologist in order to demonstrate that I don't have it, please, fire away.

[R Ev0lution]

First, your statement actually supports my argument. Even if you do extensive research on cancer, no self-diagnosis you make will mean anything until a doctor confirms it. Likewise, no matter what you think you know about psychological trauma and verbal bullying, you're simply not qualified to tell anybody that your psychological health is tip-top.

Until you come across a third-party expert who can confirm your amateur self-diagnosis, your personal anecdote is meaningless to me. Don't use it as part of an argument suggesting that people who suffer from psychological trauma via verbal bullying are weak.

Use actual evidence supported by actual facts that can be supported by actual efforts. This is a very basic, rudimentary rule of any intellectual debate.

By my definition of weak, they are weak. For example, there is no universal definition for how much you have to be able to bench press to be weak or strong, etc. By my definition of mentally weak, these people are mentally weak.

So, by YOUR definition of psychological trauma, you don't have it, and by YOUR definition of psychologically-fragile, victims of verbally bulling are psychologically-fragile?

Well, forgive me if I don't really care what you think, because, unless you use Psychology Today as a bathroom reader and/or shadow a Psychiatrist as part of a Pre-Medical internship, I doubt you have the perspective or the expertise to attach remotely qualified or informed definitions to either of those terms.

[R Ev0lution]

Yeah, he said awhile ago that it is his definition, and admitted it is contrived and circular.
Which is why this is pointless, talking to him. He's fallen back on circular arguments and the ability to summon warped definitions into play to always make himself right.

No, just no.

I'm sure a guy like this considers someone like this guy's max bench press to be really low, even though to the latter it is really high. Weakness has no universal set rule, everyone defines weak in different ways - That's a fact.
I never gave my own definition to psychological trauma anyway, you are twisting my words.

You attempted to self-diagnose psychological trauma without actually having any education or training on the topic. Maybe that's not "attaching your own definition" to the term, but, at the very least, it's "applying your nonexistent expertise to make a medical diagnosis about a set of conditions which you're in no way, shape, or form qualified to speak about."

Respond to my response to your Downs Syndrome challenge. I still feel neglected, and crave more intellectual sparring practice.

[R Ev0lution]

I've been to the doctor, and actually lived with a Pediatrician for 17 years of my life. Also, my parents did all the pre-birth and infant-age tests for virtually any condition you can think of, including the pre-natal test for Downs Syndrome.

I don't have it. Find another condition to use as an example. Again, I lived with a doctor for 17 years. I've been subjected every medical, psychological, and developmental test you can think of.

So, if you can think of a condition that would actually require me to book yet another visit to the doctor and/or psychologist in order to demonstrate that I don't have it, please, fire away.

You probably have Cancer. It's very possible.
Prove me wrong.

Great. I'm glad you came up with one I couldn't refute, because it actually brings me to my next point.

I admit that I may have cancer. Sure, I could Google the symptoms and tell you "I don't have it", and that would be it. But, see, there's no way of being certain until I go to the doctor to get full-body scans and colonoscopies and everything else they do. I am not qualified to make that diagnosis. In fact, by choosing not to go to the doctor to get checked up, I'm taking a risk that I may have cancer and am giving it time to develop, grow, and metastasize. However, that is a risk I'm taking, and, until a doctor performs all the necessary tests, I can't tell you, "No, dude, you're wrong. I don't have cancer."

So, until you go to a psychiatrist who can look you in the eye and say, "No, sir, you do not have psychological trauma resulting from your childhood experiences of bullying," I insist that you concede the point. Even if you Google the symptoms of psychological trauma and try to pull off an amateur self-diagnosis, there is absolutely no way to be sure that you don't have psychological trauma until an expert tells you so.

Thus, your argument that "I went through verbal bullying and I'm not traumatized" is flawed, because you're not qualified to say you're not, and nobody who is qualified agrees with you at this moment. A more accurate statement is that "I went through verbal bullying, and I don't think I'm traumatized, but I haven't seen a psychiatrist about that yet, so I might be wrong." Which, in case you didn't notice, weakens your argument significantly.

[R Ev0lution]

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.



As has been said, its still circular, but it is better than the previously used definition. You seem to be neglecting the degree of the abuse.

If 1 or 2 people are insulting you, and it is of a level that makes Fred Phelps look polite, and it gets to you, then I wouldn't consider that to be weak at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If an entire group of people (10 or more) are constantly harrassing you, in minor ways, and it gets to you- then how would you classify that?

I would class it as like a group of young children running around me. Really annoying, but easily ignorable.

Would prank calls at 4 AM might be interpreted as minor or major? If you're a doctor who's on-call, and you're trying to get some sleep, and you get calls on your cell phone at 2 AM, 3 AM, 3:30 AM, 3:45 AM, 5 AM, and 6 AM, that would pretty much drive you crazy after a while, esp. considering you HAVE to pick up. A single one of those calls once at night might be fine. But 10 calls, every night, while you're on-call as a doctor? Unless you can operate on 15 minutes of sleep a day, it'd drive you crazy.

Also, if you think that sort of stress/harassment is "easily ignorable," and that doctors who start to lose it a bit and/or have serious drop-offs in the quality of their work are just "weak," I dare you to try dealing with it.

Friendly reminder: Respond to my other post on your Cancer challenge. I continue to crave intellectual combat.

Seriously.

[R Ev0lution]

Great. I'm glad you came up with one I couldn't refute, because it actually brings me to my next point.

I admit that I may have cancer. Sure, I could Google the symptoms and tell you "I don't have it", and that would be it. But, see, there's no way of being certain until I go to the doctor to get full-body scans and colonoscopies and everything else they do. I am not qualified to make that diagnosis. In fact, by choosing not to go to the doctor to get checked up, I'm taking a risk that I may have cancer and am giving it time to develop, grow, and metastasize. However, that is a risk I'm taking, and, until a doctor performs all the necessary tests, I can't tell you, "No, dude, you're wrong. I don't have cancer."

So, until you go to a psychiatrist who can look you in the eye and say, "No, sir, you do not have psychological trauma resulting from your childhood experiences of bullying," I insist that you concede the point. Even if you Google the symptoms of psychological trauma and try to pull off an amateur self-diagnosis, there is absolutely no way to be sure that you don't have psychological trauma until an expert tells you so.

Thus, your argument that "I went through verbal bullying and I'm not traumatized" is flawed, because you're not qualified to say you're not, and nobody who is qualified agrees with you at this moment. A more accurate statement is that "I went through verbal bullying, and I don't think I'm traumatized, but I haven't seen a psychiatrist about that yet, so I might be wrong." Which, in case you didn't notice, weakens your argument significantly.

If you read a few posts back, I have already said that "I may visit a psychiatrist later in life, but I am very confident I don't have it"
Not 100% certain, more like 99% certain.

Mental trauma is nowhere near as big a deal as cancer, so I am in no big hurry to get checked out, especially as it is unnoticed, even including by myself.

People commit suicide because of mental trauma. Seems pretty serious to me.

My point still stands that you might have psychological trauma, and so you cannot definitively argue that you are strong because you got through bullying without that trauma.

Also, you're not even qualified to put a probability on how certain you are that you have a condition. It's still a self-diagnosis, because you're still saying, "I don't have any of what I think are the symptoms, so I don't have ." If the only modifier you're adding to your statement is that you're 99% certain instead of 100% certain, you may as well have not added it.

Again, your level of expertise is virtually nonexistent. So you can say that you have a 50%, 65%, 2%, or 12% chance of having whatever condition, and tell me how 99% certain you are about that, and these numbers wouldn't actually mean anything, even in terms of probability , because you, frankly, know jack about the topic matter

[R Ev0lution]

People commit suicide because of mental trauma. Seems pretty serious to me.

I feel no mental trauma, and have no such thoughts, thus it is not a big deal in my case and I am in no hurry to get myself checked out.

A psychoanalyst will tell you that you're not even qualified to say that you "have no such thoughts."

Psychology is a pretty complicated and intricate field, and everything you're doing -- self-diagnosis, judgments about the nature and causes of psychological trauma, your failure to acknowledge the subconscious as a powerful driving force behind human thought and motivation -- indicates to me not only that you are unqualified to speak about psychological trauma, but even less qualified than unqualified folks like me.

[R Ev0lution]

A psychoanalyst will tell you that you're not even qualified to say that you "have no such thoughts."

Psychology is a pretty complicated and intricate field, and everything you're doing -- self-diagnosis, judgments about psychological trauma, your failure to acknowledge the subconscious as a powerful driving force behind human thought and motivation -- indicates to me not only that you are unqualified to speak about psychological trauma, but even less qualified than unqualified folks like me.

I haven't had any issues for years and years, it isn't going to change in the blink of an eye. If it did get worse, it would deteriorate over time - And I would notice.

Question: Do you any problems in your life, at all? Have you ever had a nightmare, forgotten to check the mail, or were snappish/rude to somebody when they were just trying to be nice? Any problems (even minor) that don't seem to have a clear and defined reason behind them, things that just seem to happen? If so, please tell. Not trying to be intrusive; hopefully, you'll see where I'm going in a moment.

[R Ev0lution]

Question: Do you any problems in your life, at all? Have you ever had a nightmare, forgotten to check the mail, or were snappish/rude to somebody when they were just trying to be nice? Any problems (even minor) that don't seem to have a clear and defined reason behind them, things that just seem to happen? If so, please tell. Not trying to be intrusive; hopefully, you'll see where I'm going in a moment.

If I may... He has said he doesn't feel that he's traumatized. Trying to psycho-analyze him in this thread is, IMO, not the best thing to do.

If you're interested and you have the proper credentials to, perhaps you and Itanica should to take this to TG. Some information is best when not divulged in an open forum.

Fair enough. I'll just say that entire fields of psychology revolve around drawing connections between external behaviors/markers and the subconscious mind. The subconscious, as you know, does not overtly communicate with the conscious, rational mind. Thus, even if your subconscious is deeply and irreversibly scarred by your experiences with bullying, your conscious mind will adamantly insist otherwise, as it is now.

[R Ev0lution]

Fair enough. I'll just say that entire fields of psychology revolve around drawing connections between external behaviors/markers and the subconscious mind. The subconscious, as you know, does not overtly communicate with the conscious, rational mind. Thus, even if your subconscious is deeply and irreversibly scarred by your experiences with bullying, your conscious mind will adamantly insist otherwise, as it is now.

Oh, no doubt. Our minds are icebergs. The tip may present one face while the deeper levels hide terrible secrets we don't want to consciously admit. It is a coping mechanism.

That's what I'm trying to demonstrate to Itanica, who adamantly insists that he is NOT scarred by his experiences with bullying. However, he simply refuses to wrap his head around the fact that, no matter which way he cuts it, he's not really even remotely qualified to tell us how damaged/scarred he is or isn't.

[R Ev0lution]

That's what I'm trying to demonstrate to Itanica, who adamantly insists that he is NOT scarred by his experiences with bullying. However, he simply refuses to wrap his head around the fact that, no matter which way he cuts it, he's not really even remotely qualified to tell us how damaged/scarred he is or isn't.

Yes, I see your point. And it is a valid one. At least there was some improvement with him acknowledging some points and amending his initial stance about 'words not being harmful' and the whole 'weakness' argument.

I'm hoping that, by elucidating how deeply subconscious trauma can be, he will understand that there's no possible way he can definitively prove to me (short of resurrecting Freud and having a cup of coffee with him) that there is absolutely no portion of his mind that did not experience trauma as a consequence of verbal bullying. By extension of his logic, this raises the possibility of his own "weakness", again, by his definition, and, thus, the inherent flaw behind his understanding of such.

[R Ev0lution]

I'm hoping that, by elucidating how deeply subconscious trauma can be, he will understand that there's no possible way he can definitively prove to me (short of resurrecting Freud and having a cup of coffee with him) that there is absolutely no portion of his mind that did not experience trauma as a consequence of verbal bullying, and, by extension of his logic, a possibility of his own weakness.

I take it you're either a student of psychology or are already well versed on the subject of psychotherapy (as in studying psychiatry or some other related field). Your handling of the subject seems to indicate such.

I've taken college-level courses on the topic with a certain level of success. Also, as a History major, I've studied Freudian theory as a movement of resistance against the cold, calculating efficiency of capitalism, rationalism, and Industrialization. So, I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I do have a little background on existing literature on the topic -- enough to explain the rudimentary basics behind Freudian theory.

[R Ev0lution]

I've taken college-level courses on the topic with a certain level of success. Also, as a History major, I've studied Freudian theory as a movement of resistance against the cold, calculating efficiency of capitalism, rationalism, and Industrialization. So, I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I do have a little background on existing literature on the topic -- enough to explain the rudimentary basics behind the Freudian theory.

My question is, though, with all the advancements in the psychology field, is it an advisable thing to use Freud's theories of the subconscious?

I was not trying to actually diagnose a condition, simply to raise the possibility that a condition might exist that the conscious mind is entirely and utterly unaware of. Also, to be frank, I'm not well-versed in modern psychotherapy, but I do know that many modern psychologists use similar systems of psychoanalysis that are spiritual descendants of Freudian systems. Thus, while the original Freudian interpretation of psychology (i.e.: if you like engaging in oral sex, you weren't breastfed enough) is little more than a mind-exercise today, plenty of psychologists still lend weight to the power of the subconscious mind and its role in shaping how we perceive, behave, and think.

[R Ev0lution]

I was not trying to actually diagnose a condition, simply to raise the possibility that a condition might exist that the conscious mind is entirely and utterly unaware of. Also, to be frank, I'm not well-versed in modern psychotherapy, but I do know that many modern psychologists use similar systems of psychoanalysis. Thus, while the original Freudian interpretation of psychology (i.e.: if you like engaging in oral sex, you weren't breastfed enough) is little more than a mind-exercise today, plenty of psychologists still lend weight to the power of the subconscious mind and its role in shaping how we perceive, behave, and think.

I was merely curious.

What's your take on it? Not Freudian theory itself, but the role of psychoanalysis (the modern kind that's evolved since Freud, not the original stuff Freud came up with) and its possibilities as a form of therapy?

[R Ev0lution]

What's your take on it? Not Freudian theory itself, but the role of psychoanalysis (the modern kind that's evolved since Freud, not the original stuff Freud came up with) and its possibilities as a form of therapy?

Having gone through psychotherapy myself, I think it's a promising way of helping people that have gone through traumatic experiences to cope with the effects, without having to relay on medication (in case, of course, that the medication isn't truly needed- in some cases, it is necessary to medicate).

Interesting. I've participated in several psychological studies (both for academic credit and for money) at my university, and some of them involved rudimentary psychotherapy. I believe very strongly in the power of the subconscious, and agree with you on its feasibility as a form of therapy. Although, obviously, since psychotherapists often take larger leaps to reach their conclusions, I think development as a field of study, as well as mainstream approval, will be slow.

[R Ev0lution]

Interesting. I've participated in several psychological studies (both for academic credit and for money) at my university, and some of them involved rudimentary psychotherapy. I believe very strongly in the power of the subconscious, and agree with you on its feasibility as a form of therapy. Although, obviously, since psychotherapists often take larger leaps to reach their conclusions, I think development as a field of study, as well as mainstream approval, will be slow.

Plus there's always some small but vocal minority that will decry that kind of therapy as some sort of brainwashing or some other nonsense.
Which is another form of bullying actually: mob rule bullying.

Well, every field in the known universe has been decried as something negative as some point in time or another. It's the nature of existing in a galaxy with so many conflicting opinions.