Candy is a digestive ambush, but not for the reasons most people think. The sugar itself is rarely the main culprit. The real villains are a consortium of mechanisms: maltitol, a sugar alcohol that ferments in your colon like a microbrewery; citric acid, which can chemically burn your tongue; and gelatin, a hydrogel that swells in your stomach. Together, they create the perfect storm of gas, cramping, and osmotic diarrhea—as the legendary Haribo sugar-free gummy bear reviews attest. But the episode isn't just about horror stories. It's a harm reduction guide to treats. The key concept is the "food matrix": treats that embed sugar in fat, protein, or fiber (like dark chocolate, frozen fruit, or halva) are processed differently by the body than isolated sugar and texturizers. The hierarchy of indulgence runs from premium ice cream and dark chocolate at the top, down through dried fruit (with FODMAP caveats), to gummy candy at the bottom. Even "healthier" candy alternatives with chicory root fiber or allulose can cause their own digestive issues for sensitive people. The takeaway: if you want a treat, choose something with a real food matrix—not a laboratory-designed delivery system for shelf stability.
#3496: The Digestive Ambush Inside a Bag of Gummy Bears
Why gummy bears wreck your gut—and what to eat instead. A harm reduction guide to treats.
Episode Details
- Episode ID
- MWP-3673
- Published
- Duration
- 29:11
- Audio
- Direct link
- Pipeline
- V5
- TTS Engine
-
chatterbox-regular - Script Writing Agent
- deepseek-v4-pro
AI-Generated Content: This podcast is created using AI personas. Please verify any important information independently.
Downloads
Transcript (TXT)
Plain text transcript file
Transcript (PDF)
Formatted PDF with styling
You Might Also Like
Never miss an episode
New episodes drop daily — subscribe on your favorite platform
New to the show? Start here#3496: The Digestive Ambush Inside a Bag of Gummy Bears
Daniel sent us this one — he's been thinking about the spectrum of treats, and he puts ice cream on the wholesome end and candy on the other. Turns out he's had his own run with a candy habit, especially the loose stuff sold by weight near Mahane Yehuda. It wrecks his digestion, makes him feel lousy, and he wants to know what's actually going on in there beyond just the sugar. He's heard the synthesized fruit sugars and gelatin are culprits, and he's noticed those horror stories about people eating Haribo and ending up hospitalized. The real question is, if candy is probably best avoided, what are the less harmful treats we can actually look forward to? A harm reduction approach to indulgence.
I love this framing. The harm reduction case for treats. Because we've talked about ice cream before, and there's actually a real argument that some treats are structurally different from others in how the body processes them. Candy is fascinating as a digestive villain because it's not one thing. It's a whole consortium of mechanisms conspiring against you.
A consortium of mechanisms. That sounds like a law firm you do not want to hire.
It really is. And the first thing to understand is that when people say candy bothers their stomach, the sugar itself is rarely the main culprit. Your small intestine handles sucrose just fine for the most part. The problem is everything else that comes along for the ride, especially in modern candy manufacturing. The Haribo case is actually the perfect entry point.
Alright, let's do the Haribo story. I've seen the Amazon reviews, they're legendary, but what actually happened?
The famous case involves Haribo Sugar Free Gummy Bears. These are sweetened primarily with maltitol, which is a sugar alcohol — part of a family that includes sorbitol, xylitol, erythritol, and a few others. Maltitol is about ninety percent as sweet as sugar, but your body only absorbs a fraction of it in the small intestine, so it delivers fewer calories. The tradeoff is that the unabsorbed portion continues into the large intestine, where your gut bacteria go absolutely wild fermenting it.
So you're basically running a microbrewery in your colon.
That is not an unfair description. The bacterial fermentation of sugar alcohols produces gas — hydrogen, carbon dioxide, sometimes methane. And then there's the osmotic effect. The unabsorbed maltitol pulls water into the bowel. So you've got gas production and water influx happening simultaneously. The result is bloating, cramping, and what the medical literature politely calls osmotic diarrhea.
How much maltitol are we talking about to trigger this?
The Haribo bag was a five pound bag, and the serving size was about seventeen pieces. But here's the thing — even a single serving could contain enough maltitol to cause problems for people who are sensitive. The reviews on Amazon became this cultural phenomenon because people were describing, in graphic detail, what happened after eating what they thought was a reasonable amount. Some reports had people eating the whole bag in one sitting. One reviewer described it as what he imagined a hundred gerbils trying to escape his body would feel like.
Of course there are gerbil analogies.
There was enough of a pattern that it became news. People showed up in emergency rooms with severe abdominal pain, thinking they had food poisoning or something much worse. And the doctors would run tests and eventually land on: you ate a bag of sugar free gummy bears, didn't you.
Maltitol is the main villain, but Daniel also mentioned synthesized fruit sugars and gelatin. What's the deal with those?
The synthesized fruit sugars thing is interesting. I think what's being referred to are artificial and natural flavoring compounds used to create fruit flavors in candy. Some of these are esters, which are chemical compounds that mimic fruit aromas. They're generally recognized as safe by the FDA and similar regulatory bodies, but there's a separate question about whether certain people have sensitivities. More importantly though, a lot of fruit flavored candies use citric acid and malic acid for tartness. The acid load can be a real problem.
Wait, acid load?
Citric acid is everywhere in gummy and sour candies. It's what gives Sour Patch Kids and Warheads their punch. In high quantities, it can irritate the lining of the mouth, the esophagus, and the stomach. There are documented cases of people developing what's essentially a chemical burn on their tongue from eating too many sour candies in one sitting. The tongue literally peels.
That's horrifying.
And then there's the gelatin question. Gelatin is made from collagen derived from animal bones and connective tissue. It's what gives gummy candies their chew. For most people, gelatin is actually fairly benign — it's essentially a protein that's been partially hydrolyzed. But there are a few things going on. First, the sheer quantity of gelatin in a candy binge can be a lot of protein hitting the stomach at once, which can slow gastric emptying. Second, some people have trouble digesting large amounts of collagen derived proteins, especially if they have low stomach acid or certain enzyme deficiencies. And third, and this is the one I find most interesting — gelatin is what's called a hydrogel. It absorbs water and swells.
You're eating these little bears and they're expanding inside you.
They don't expand dramatically, but the gelatin matrix does hold water and can contribute to that feeling of fullness and sluggishness. Combined with the sugar alcohols fermenting and the acids irritating, you've got a perfect storm. The candy isn't just delivering sugar. It's delivering an osmotic laxative, an acid bath, and a slowly digesting protein matrix, all at once.
The consortium is acid, maltitol, and gelatin, all working together. What about the sugar itself? Everyone talks about the sugar crash.
The sugar crash is real but it's metabolic, not digestive. When you eat a large amount of simple sugar, your blood glucose spikes, your pancreas releases insulin, and sometimes it overshoots, leading to a blood sugar dip that makes you feel tired and irritable. But that's not what's causing the stomach pain. The digestive distress is almost entirely about the non sugar components.
If someone just ate plain sugar cubes, they'd feel different than eating a bag of gummy worms.
They'd get the sugar rush and crash, maybe some nausea from the sheer osmotic load of that much sugar in the stomach, but they wouldn't get the fermentation gas, the acid burn, or the gelatin bloat. The candy experience is uniquely punishing because it's a delivery system engineered for shelf stability and texture, not for digestibility.
Which brings us to the harm reduction question. If candy is basically a digestive ambush, what do you reach for instead?
Let's think about this systematically. The ideal treat, under this framework, should satisfy the craving for something sweet and indulgent without triggering the consortium of mechanisms we just described. I'd put forward a few categories.
Lay them out.
First category: dark chocolate. And I mean actual dark chocolate, seventy percent cocoa or higher. The fat from cocoa butter slows sugar absorption, so you don't get the same blood sugar spike. There's no sugar alcohols unless you're buying sugar free varieties. There's some fiber in the cocoa solids. And the flavor is intense enough that most people are satisfied with a couple of squares rather than a whole bag. It's the treat that has the best evidence base for actually being neutral to slightly positive for health in moderation.
The flavanol people love dark chocolate.
They do, and the research on blood pressure and endothelial function is genuinely interesting, though I'd say the effect is modest. But for our purposes, the point is that it doesn't wreck your digestion. The second category is dried fruit, but with a major caveat.
What's the caveat?
Dried fruit is concentrated sugar and fiber. Dates, figs, dried apricots — they're sweet and satisfying, but they're also high in FODMAPs, which are fermentable carbohydrates that can cause exactly the kind of gas and bloating we're trying to avoid. So if someone has a sensitive gut, dried fruit might not be the answer. But for people who tolerate fiber well, a few Medjool dates with some almond butter is a great treat. The fiber slows the sugar absorption, the fat from the almonds adds satiety, and there's nothing synthetic involved.
Dried fruit is a know thyself situation.
Very much so. Third category: frozen fruit. This one is underrated. Frozen grapes, frozen mango chunks, frozen banana slices. The freezing changes the texture in a way that feels more dessert like. You get the sweetness without any added sugar, plus the fiber and micronutrients. And because it's cold, you eat it more slowly. You can't inhale frozen mango the way you can inhale a bag of gummy bears.
The thermal speed governor.
Fourth category: yogurt based treats. A good full fat Greek yogurt with a drizzle of honey or maple syrup. You've got protein, fat, and some probiotics potentially. The protein and fat slow gastric emptying, so you feel satisfied. It's creamy and sweet. If you freeze it, you've basically got frozen yogurt. It's a treat with nutritional structure behind it.
What about ice cream? Daniel put ice cream on the wholesome end.
Ice cream is interesting. A good quality ice cream — and I mean one with a short ingredient list: cream, milk, sugar, eggs, maybe some vanilla — is actually not that hard to digest for most people. The fat content slows sugar absorption. The protein from milk and eggs provides some satiety. It's when you get into the ultra processed versions with stabilizers, emulsifiers, and corn syrup that it becomes more problematic. But even then, the digestive burden is lower than candy because you're not dealing with sugar alcohols or concentrated acids.
Premium ice cream over cheap ice cream, and either over gummy bears.
That's the hierarchy. And then there's a fifth category I want to mention because it's a bit unexpected: nut based treats. Marzipan, which is just almond flour and sugar. Halva, which is sesame paste and sugar or honey. These are dense, rich, and you eat them in small amounts. The fat and protein from the nuts and seeds moderate the sugar impact. They're traditional treats that have been around for centuries, and they don't rely on industrial processing tricks.
Halva's a good call. It's basically sesame and honey held together by sheer will.
It's delicious. The point across all of these is that they have what food scientists call a food matrix. The sugar isn't isolated — it's embedded in a structure of fat, protein, or fiber that changes how your body processes it. Candy, especially gummy and hard candy, has almost no matrix. It's sugar, flavoring, and texturizers designed to dissolve quickly and hit your system all at once.
The food matrix effect. You've mentioned this before with other foods. It's the idea that two foods with identical macronutrient profiles can have completely different metabolic effects depending on their physical structure.
And candy is basically the null case. It's what happens when you strip away the matrix entirely. You get pure hedonic impact with no buffering.
What about the candy alternatives that are marketed as healthier? The ones with chicory root fiber or monk fruit or allulose?
This is where it gets complicated. Chicory root fiber is inulin, which is a prebiotic fiber that feeds gut bacteria. For some people, it's great. For others, it causes exactly the same gas and bloating as maltitol, because that's what their gut bacteria do with it. Monk fruit and stevia are non caloric sweeteners that don't ferment in the gut, so they avoid the digestive issues entirely. Allulose is a rare sugar that tastes like sugar but is mostly excreted without being metabolized. It seems to be well tolerated, though the research is still emerging.
Monk fruit sweetened chocolate would be the holy grail?
Potentially, but there's a catch. These alternative sweeteners don't trigger the same reward pathways in the brain that sugar does. There's some evidence that consuming sweet things without the accompanying caloric signal can confuse appetite regulation. You might end up craving more sweets overall. So the harm reduction approach might actually favor small amounts of the real thing over larger amounts of the engineered alternative.
That's a twist. The healthier candy might make you want more candy.
It's one of those areas where the science is still developing, but the precautionary principle suggests that training your palate to be satisfied with less sweetness overall is probably the better long term strategy.
Let's go back to something you mentioned earlier about acid. You said citric acid can cause chemical burns. Is that really a concern with normal candy consumption, or is that only for people eating industrial quantities?
The tongue peeling cases tend to involve people eating large quantities of extreme sour candies in one sitting — think multiple bags of Warheads or Toxic Waste. But even at lower levels, the acid can erode dental enamel and irritate the stomach lining, especially if someone already has gastritis or acid reflux. The pH of some sour candies is below three, which is more acidic than orange juice. And people don't just eat one. They eat a whole bag over the course of a movie or a road trip.
It's a cumulative acid load.
And here's something that doesn't get talked about enough: the combination of acid and sugar is particularly bad for teeth, because the acid softens the enamel and then the sugar feeds the bacteria that produce more acid. It's a one two punch. But for digestion specifically, the acid is hitting the stomach lining, which is already an acidic environment. The stomach can handle acid, obviously, but the esophageal lining cannot. If someone is prone to reflux, sour candy is about the worst thing they could eat.
If someone has reflux, skip the Sour Patch Kids. What about the gelatin specifically? Is there a maximum safe dose?
There's no established upper limit for gelatin because it's generally recognized as safe. But anecdotally, people who eat large quantities of gummy candy often report feeling uncomfortably full and sluggish. Part of that is the gelatin hydrating and forming a kind of gel mass in the stomach. Think about what happens when you make Jell-O — you mix the powder with hot water and it sets into a semi solid. Something similar is happening in your stomach, just at body temperature and with less structure.
You're making Jell-O internally.
In a sense, yes. And if you've also eaten other things, the gelatin can slow down the whole gastric emptying process. That's why some people use gelatin as a digestive aid, actually — it can soothe the gut lining. But in the quantities found in a candy binge, it's just more bulk for your stomach to process.
What about the dyes? Daniel mentioned the fruit sugars used for flavoring, but what about the colors?
Artificial food dyes are a whole separate conversation. There's been debate for decades about whether dyes like Red 40, Yellow 5, and Blue 1 cause behavioral issues in children or allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. The evidence is mixed, and regulatory agencies in the US and Europe have come to different conclusions. The EU requires a warning label on foods containing certain dyes, while the FDA does not. From a digestive standpoint, dyes are present in such tiny quantities that they're unlikely to be the primary culprit for stomach distress. But they're a marker of ultra processing. If a food is brightly colored, it's probably engineered in ways that go beyond just sugar and flavor.
The dye is the canary. If your food looks like it could double as highlighter ink, maybe reconsider.
That's a reasonable heuristic.
Let's talk about the behavioral side of this for a moment. Daniel mentioned that the candy near Mahane Yehuda is sold loose by weight. There's something about that format that seems to encourage overconsumption.
The loose by weight format removes the natural stopping point that a package provides. When you buy a bag of candy, you open it, you eat some, and eventually the bag is empty and you stop. When you buy a kilo of loose candy, you scoop it into a bag and it's just this amorphous quantity. You can keep reaching in indefinitely.
It's the bottomless pit problem. And the variety doesn't help. You've got ten different kinds in there, each one hitting a slightly different flavor note, so you never get sensory specific satiety.
Sensory specific satiety is the phenomenon where you get tired of a specific flavor and stop eating, but if you switch to a different flavor, your appetite renews. Buffets exploit this. Loose candy by weight is basically a personal candy buffet.
The format is designed, intentionally or not, to maximize consumption. Which means if you're trying to moderate, the first intervention might not be switching candy types — it might be changing how you buy it.
Buy a single pre packaged bar of dark chocolate instead of a mixed bag of loose candy. The packaging imposes a limit. You open it, you eat it, you're done. There's no open bag sitting there inviting you back.
That's a practical harm reduction tip that doesn't require any willpower beyond the moment of purchase.
That's the key, right? Willpower is a finite resource. Structuring your environment so you don't need to use it is much more effective than trying to white knuckle your way through a bag of candy.
Alright, let's get to the recommendations. If someone is listening and thinking I want to keep a treat in my life but I'm done feeling terrible, what's the ranked list?
I'd say start with dark chocolate — seventy percent or higher, a few squares after dinner. It's the easiest swap, widely available, and satisfying. Second, frozen fruit — grapes or mango are my personal favorites. Third, full fat Greek yogurt with a little honey. Fourth, a small portion of good quality ice cream with a clean ingredient list. Fifth, traditional nut and seed based treats like halva or marzipan in small amounts.
What about baked goods? A good cookie or a brownie?
Baked goods are an interesting middle ground. They have a food matrix — the flour, eggs, and butter provide structure. The sugar is embedded in that matrix. A homemade chocolate chip cookie is going to digest very differently from a bag of gummy worms. But commercial baked goods often have their own issues — trans fats, emulsifiers, preservatives. So I'd say homemade baked goods are a fine treat option. Commercial ones, it depends on the ingredient list.
The principle is: treats that come from a kitchen rather than a factory.
If your grandmother would recognize the ingredients, you're probably in better shape than if the ingredient list reads like a chemistry textbook.
What about the sugar free candy that uses erythritol or stevia instead of maltitol? Are those safer?
Erythritol is interesting because it's absorbed in the small intestine and excreted unchanged in urine, so it largely avoids the fermentation issue in the colon. It's much better tolerated than maltitol or sorbitol. Stevia is a plant extract that doesn't ferment either. So yes, sugar free candies made with erythritol or stevia are likely to be less digestive disaster prone than those made with maltitol. But you still have the gelatin and the acids to contend with.
They're better but not perfect.
And I'd add that there was a study published in twenty twenty three that found a potential association between erythritol and cardiovascular events, though the evidence was preliminary and the mechanism wasn't clear. So I'm not ready to give erythritol a clean bill of health either.
The safest path is still just less engineered stuff.
The more we process food, the more we introduce variables that our digestive systems haven't evolved to handle.
There's something almost philosophical here. Humans have been eating treats for thousands of years. Honey, dried fruit, nuts with honey, early forms of ice cream. Our digestive systems know what to do with those. What they don't know what to do with is maltitol syrup and Red 40 and gelatin sourced from three different continents and processed into the shape of a bear.
Flavored with an ester that mimics the taste of a fruit that doesn't even grow in the same hemisphere.
It's not that any single ingredient is poison. It's that the combination and the quantity and the format create this digestive perfect storm that our bodies just weren't designed to handle.
The dose makes the poison, as Paracelsus said. But with candy, the format encourages a high dose, and the ingredients amplify each other's effects.
What's the single most damaging candy from a digestive perspective?
Sugar free gummy bears, no question. You've got maltitol fermenting into gas, gelatin forming a gel mass, citric acid irritating the stomach lining, and artificial flavors and colors on top. It's the full consortium. And the sugar free labeling makes people think they're making a healthier choice, so they eat more than they would of regular candy.
The health halo effect.
The label says sugar free, so the consumer thinks it's better for them, and they overconsume, and then they end up in the emergency room. It's a public health communication failure. There should be a warning label on maltitol sweetened products, especially those sold in large packages.
Is there any regulation around that?
In the US, the FDA requires a warning label on foods containing sorbitol, but not maltitol. In the EU, products containing more than ten percent added sugar alcohols must carry a warning that excessive consumption may produce laxative effects. But it's often in tiny print on the back of the package. Nobody reads it until it's too late.
By then the gerbils are already trying to escape.
By then it's far too late.
Let's pivot slightly. You mentioned FODMAPs earlier with dried fruit. For someone who's really sensitive, what's the treat that's least likely to cause any digestive issues at all?
If we're optimizing purely for digestive gentleness, I'd say a small amount of dark chocolate, a few slices of fresh fruit like banana or cantaloupe, or a simple rice pudding made with lactose free milk. Rice is very low in FODMAPs, and if you use lactose free milk, you avoid the lactose issue that some people have. Add a little maple syrup and cinnamon, and it's a treat.
That's a good one. What about popsicles made from real fruit juice?
Those can be fine, but watch the portion size. Fruit juice is still concentrated sugar, even if it's natural. And some commercial popsicles add citric acid for tartness, which brings back the acid issue. But a homemade popsicle made from blended whole fruit is a different story — you keep the fiber, you control the sweetness, and it's just frozen fruit.
The theme really is just eat food.
Not too much. Michael Pollan's line. And for treats specifically: eat treats that are still recognizable as food.
What about the psychological side? Part of what makes candy appealing is the ritual, the bright colors, the childhood associations. If you switch to dark chocolate and frozen grapes, do you lose something?
You might, and that's worth taking seriously. Food is not just fuel. It's pleasure, it's nostalgia, it's comfort. The goal of harm reduction isn't to eliminate pleasure. It's to find sources of pleasure that don't also cause pain. And I think you can build new rituals around the healthier options. A square of really good dark chocolate, eaten slowly, can be more satisfying than a handful of gummy bears eaten mindlessly.
The mindfulness piece. Actually tasting what you're eating instead of just consuming it.
That's harder with candy because it's engineered for mindless consumption. It's soft, it dissolves quickly, the flavors are intense but fleeting. You can eat an entire bag without ever really tasting a single piece. Dark chocolate, by contrast, demands attention. You put it in your mouth and it melts slowly, the flavors develop. You can't rush it.
The healthier treat is also the one that teaches you to enjoy treats more.
That's a nice way to think about it. The candy binge is quantity over quality. The dark chocolate square is quality over quantity. And over time, you might find that you prefer the latter.
Alright, let's address one more thing from Daniel's prompt. He mentioned that the synthesized fruit sugars are very damaging. I think there's a common belief that artificial flavors are toxic or harmful in some specific way. What's the actual science on that?
Artificial flavors are among the most heavily studied food additives. The FDA maintains a list of substances that are generally recognized as safe, and flavor compounds go through rigorous safety evaluation. The doses used in food are extremely small — we're talking parts per million. The acute toxicity risk is essentially zero for the vast majority of people. However, there are a few things worth noting. Some people have specific sensitivities to certain flavor compounds. And there's a separate question about whether artificial flavors, by decoupling flavor from nutrition, might contribute to overconsumption. If your brain associates strawberry flavor with actual strawberries, which come with fiber and nutrients, and then you get strawberry flavor without any of that, your appetite regulation might get confused over time.
It's not that the flavor compound itself is damaging your intestines. It's that it's part of a broader pattern of tricking your body.
That's my read of the evidence. The digestive distress from candy is overwhelmingly driven by the sugar alcohols, the acids, and the gelatin. The artificial flavors are more of a long term metabolic and behavioral concern than an acute digestive one.
That's helpful to clarify. Because I think a lot of people assume there's some specific chemical in the flavoring that's eating away at their stomach lining, and that's probably not what's happening.
The acid is what's eating away at things, if anything is. The flavors are just along for the ride.
To sum up the digestive case against candy: it's the maltitol and other sugar alcohols fermenting in your colon, the citric and malic acids irritating your upper GI tract, the gelatin forming a slow digesting gel mass, and the format encouraging overconsumption. The sugar itself is almost beside the point.
That's it. The sugar is what makes it a treat. Everything else is what makes it a problem.
The harm reduction alternatives are dark chocolate, frozen fruit, yogurt with honey, clean ingredient ice cream, nut based traditional sweets, and homemade baked goods. Things with a food matrix. Things a grandmother would recognize.
If you're going to eat candy, eat the real sugar version in a small, pre packaged portion. Avoid the sugar free gummy bears at all costs. The sugar alcohols are worse for your digestion than the sugar they replace.
The healthier option is worse for you.
It's a classic case of looking at one variable — sugar content — and ignoring the system. Food is a system. You can't just swap out one ingredient and assume everything else stays the same.
Now: Hilbert's daily fun fact.
Hilbert: In the late Victorian period, a British entomologist visiting the Comoros nearly discovered the structural basis of butterfly wing iridescence when he noticed that the wings of a Comorian swallowtail retained their blue color even after being submerged in alcohol for three days. He wrote an excited letter to the Royal Society proposing that the color must be due to microscopic ridges rather than pigment, but the letter was lost in a shipping accident and never delivered. The mechanism wasn't confirmed until electron microscopy in the nineteen forties.
Hilbert: In the late Victorian period, a British entomologist visiting the Comoros nearly discovered the structural basis of butterfly wing iridescence when he noticed that the wings of a Comorian swallowtail retained their blue color even after being submerged in alcohol for three days. He wrote an excited letter to the Royal Society proposing that the color must be due to microscopic ridges rather than pigment, but the letter was lost in a shipping accident and never delivered. The mechanism wasn't confirmed until electron microscopy in the nineteen forties.
Lost in a shipping accident. The history of science is just a series of letters that didn't arrive.
Someone out there is sitting on a very disappointed ghost.
This has been My Weird Prompts. Thanks to our producer Hilbert Flumingtop for keeping the show running. If you enjoyed this episode, leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts — it helps. Find more at myweirdprompts.
Until next time.
This episode was generated with AI assistance. Hosts Herman and Corn are AI personalities.