The Mysterious Fate of White Dwarves

 

    This week I would like to bring attention to White Dwarfs on the H-R diagram.  Seen on the bottom-left of the diagram, this class contains the oldest stars in the universe (Redd, 2018).  They are what remains after small-medium sized stars burn off their hydrogen.  The most massive stars never become them- instead they explode into supernova, or become neutron stars or black holes.
    White dwarfs used to be main sequence stars that grew into red giants.  Once their fuel was burned off, the red giants collapsed, leaving behind planetary nebulae, with the much smaller white dwarfs remaining at the center.  Most white dwarfs have a mass similar to our Sun, but since they are much smaller they have a lot more density.  The only objects in space that are denser than white dwarfs are neutron stars and black holes (Redd, 2018).    

    Most white dwarfs are thought to keep expending energy until they turn into what are aptly called black dwarfs.  No black dwarfs have been discovered yet, because it takes trillions of years for white dwarfs to dim by that much.  It's thought that our own Sun will become a red giant, then a white dwarf, and decay for 10 trillion years before it becomes a black dwarf (Klesman, 2020).  However, there are some white dwarfs that are binary, meaning they orbit each other.  When these pairs collide, they are predicted to create either a neutron star or a supernova.
    You have to wonder if the universe will even exist long enough for black dwarfs to make an appearance.  It's difficult to imagine what it will look like in 10 trillion years!

 
Sources:
Redd, Nola Taylor.  2018.  White Dwarfs: Compact Corpses of Stars.  Space.com.  Retrieved from:  https://www.space.com/23756-white-dwarf-stars.html
Klesman, Alison.  2020.  When Will the Sun Become a Black Dwarf?  Astronomy.com.  Retrieved from:  https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2020/04/when-will-the-sun-become-a-black-dwarf

Stages of Moral Development

    I think many factors contribute to moral development, and there isn't one scale that fits every child's shoes. Gilligan's criticism of Kohlberg was legitimate, because his scale only seemed to apply to privileged white males (webster.edu). Gilligan found a scale among girls that differed from Kohlberg's, showing how gender can influence morality. Since different expectations are required of women, based on gender roles, their moral development is highly influenced by it. Forgiveness, mercy, empathy and sacrifice- things that women seem more in touch with as caregivers- don't always apply in situations of law.

    I believe other things influence moral development as well, like class, religion, or political orientation. Poor people are usually more desperate to make ends meet, so I could understand a different moral progression for them. I can see how the meaning of law would get distorted by those less privileged, for some see the law as a way of upholding class structure and therefore keeping them down, especially when race is involved. As for politics, it's pretty clear that what one side finds moral does not apply to the other, and religion ties into that as well. For example, with abortion it really depends on semantics and what one considers alive; how much one understands the sacredness of life or values women's rights. And in my view, a lot of this relativism stems from parenting. I think what the parents valued or the religion they practiced has as much an impact on the moral development of their children as the law does. If I lived in the slums and my parents taught me it was o.k. cheat the law, Kohlberg's stages would hardly apply to me. The same if I were a woman, and I were taught to forgive people no matter what heinous crime they committed, for to be a good caregiver is to love unconditionally. For reasons like these, I don't believe law and morality always go hand in hand.

Source: http://faculty.webster.edu/woolflm/gilligan.html

Earth Without the Moon

 

    Without the moon, things would be very different on Earth.  For one, the days would be much shorter.  This is because the moon's gravity has been slowing down the Earth's rotation for eons.  Billions of years ago, a day was only 10 hours long.  Without the moon, it would likely still be that length.  Shorter days would have meant more rapid heating and cooling of the ocean, causing more turbulent weather.  Storms would have also been stronger due to a larger Coriolis effect increasing wind speeds worldwide.  

    Then there's the issue of tides.  Weaker tides would have made it harder for amphibians to evolve on land.  They need a stable balance of wet and dry conditions to survive, which our chaotic world may have been lacking.  And without amphibians, plants and animals wouldn't have had a chance to evolve on land either.  Indeed, without the moon, humans probably wouldn't have existed!  Life may have been limited to the aquatic realm.  If land animals and plants were to evolve, they would have had to be shorter and stockier to withstand the heavy winds. 

    If humans happened to exist, which I doubt, it would have affected our civilization in subtle ways.  First, we wouldn't have a lunar based calendar. Instead it would have probably been based on a different celestial cycle.  Seeing as the days were named after the planets, moon, and sun, we would only have a six day week instead of seven.  Also, night on Earth would be darker.  This might have aided in the development of astronomy because it would have made for better viewing.  But the faster spin may have made it more difficult to detect and follow celestial objects, especially with extra turbulent weather increasing interference.  Finally, without the moon, there wouldn't be any eclipses.  Not that it makes a huge difference, unless you get a thrill from them like me! 

Ecological Systems Theory

     I find the Ecological Systems Theory to be the most attractive in investigating child development.  The theory uses various social systems that revolve around the child to examine their influences. The most immediate system is the microsystem, consisting of family, school, and peers.  This is embedded in the mesosystem, which measures the microsystem's interactions.  In turn, the mesosystem is embedded in the exosystem, which consists of the media, government agencies, extended family and neighbors.  Next out is the macrosystem- the norms, beliefs, and attitudes of the culture.  Finally, the chronosystem measures environmental changes that affect development over a long period of time, such as moving to a new home or divorce.

    An example from my son's life is how is he learning about the world from books and television programs.  (He is only two, so not in school yet).  These media platforms are part of the exosystem because he does not participate in them directly- only the microsystem allows that.  The macrosystem affects him because we, his parents, are conditioned by society's values and norms.  He is therefore learning how to be a member of society through our connection to it.  I don't think he is old enough to experience the chronosystem yet, but I am.  My parents were divorced long ago, and I have moved several times.  I have gotten married and had a child.  All these events sharpened my maturity over time.

Integration Assignment: Theories of Intelligence

A topic that has interested me since high school is intelligence: where it comes from, why some people score higher on it than others, and the different theories that explain it.  I believe intelligence is usually a good indicator of success, whether it is a measure of someone’s creativity, natural ability, or insight.  All the varieties of intelligence that people demonstrate are equally fascinating to me, in a manner that leaves me awestruck by individual capabilities.  In this paper I will examine theories of intelligence from cognitive, physiological, and environmental perspectives.  

Most theories that describe intelligence have elements of all three, though psychologists often lump it into the cognitive field.  This is due to a simplification called the g factor, which is thought to represent basic cognitive ability.  Traditional I.Q. tests were created to theoretically measure the g factor, or one’s general intelligence.  The weaknesses of this one-dimensional model are that it can be culturally biased, and it does not measure elements of intelligence that predict success in each career (Woodruff, 2013).  For example, an I.Q. test may only measure spatial and mathematical abilities, which would help predict someone’s success in careers like engineering and science.  But it fails to measure other aspects of intelligence, like social and emotional understanding, which would better help predict careers in teaching and counseling. 

Other theories of intelligence attempt to reach a broader understanding of it.  For example, the Cattell-Horn theory shows equal elements of physiological and environmental factors.  One aspect of it is called fluid ability, which is “the physiological efficiency with which a person deals with novel tasks, solves problems, and takes charge of short-term memories...” (N. Pam, 2013).  Another is referred to as crystallized ability, or the “learned and acquired aspect of mental ability as seen in one’s knowledge of language, vocabulary, and general information” (N., Pam.  2013).  Crystallized intelligence is more of an environmental factor since one’s knowledge can vary depending on their upbringing and behavior. 

Another theory was proposed by Howard Gardner, called Multiple Intelligences.  Gardner maintained that aspects of intelligence could be strengthened or weakened, associating it with having a strong environmental influence (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004).  According to Gardner, humans possess nine types of intelligence in varying amounts, each person having different areas of strengths and weaknesses.  Some of these areas coincide with those abilities measured by I.Q. tests, such as spatial and mathematical.  Some of the others that Gardner includes is musical, verbal, and kinesthetic intelligence.  This is a radical departure from the traditional idea that I.Q. is strictly cognitive- that people are born with a fixed amount of intelligence that does not change over time.   

Physiology also plays a role in determining one’s level of intelligence.  This is more based on verifiable research than on theory.  Studies done on twins have determined that intelligence is heritable.  The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is one of the most well-known.  This study concluded that “about 70% of differences between IQs in twins is due to genetic variation (Dixon, 2019).  The same study concluded that the remaining 30% is caused by environmental factors, stating that these numbers line up with previous research. 

I think the physiological and environmental perspectives complement one another nicely.  The concept of Range of Reaction combines them both when it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate about many traits, least of all intelligence.  According to Range of Reaction, genetic potential is fixed while environmental stimulation either increases or decreases intelligence, creating a balance between the two.  As for the cognitive perspective, it seems to have become a little dated, but modern psychologists still find relevance in the concept of the I.Q.  This is because out of all the theories of intelligence, general intelligence has the most empirical support. 

My opinion is that Gardner has the strongest theory for intelligence, even if it does have holes in it.  It fails to quantify how much genetics plays a part in the evaluation process, relying solely on development instead of natural cognitive ability.  Cognitive psychologists cite that there is no empirical evidence to its validity (Marcenus, 2020).  Yet there is much to be said for the fact that I.Q. only describes a couple facets of the many possible types of intelligence.  And there may be even more than Gardner alluded to, like humor, street smarts, creativity, emotional, and moral intelligence.   My feeling is that reducing intelligence to a single factor is an oversimplification.  That is probably why our education system has been more open minded to cognitive development through multiple intelligences instead of just one. 

 

References: 

N., Pam.  (2013, April 7).  Cattell-Horn Theory of Intelligence.  Psychology Dictionary.  https://psychologydictionary.org/cattell-horn-theory-of-intelligence/  

Woodruff, Austin.  (2013).  The Problem with IQ Tests.  Educational Connections Tutoring and Test Prep.  https://ectutoring.com/problem-with-iq-tests 

Educational Broadcasting Corporation.  (2004).  Tapping into multiple intelligences.  Concept to Classroom.  https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/mi/index.html 

Dixon, Travis.  (2019, February 11).  Key Study: The Minnesota Twin Study of Twins Reared Apart.  IB Psychology.   

https://www.themantic-education.com/ibpsych/2019/02/11/key-study-the-minnesota-twin-study-of-twins-reared-apart/ 

Marcenus, Michele.  (2020, June 9).  Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  Simply Psychology.  https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html