As much as I would like some understanding, I will not risk the friendship between 2 young ladies whom I adore, and love like they were my own, for my benefit. Because when I say I love someone, I mean it. With every bit of my heart. I do not see them as objects to be used, or puppets for people’s games. I will live with the regret and unanswered questions, before allowing someone to break that bond, or teach another little one that people and relationships are only useful for personal gain, and so easily disposable.
Threatening 11 y/o girls and using them as pawns. That is all the understanding I need right now, to know that someone is not worthy of my effort. I am sorry I wasted 9 months of my time, trying to remind someone of what it was like before their hatchet wielding mind started chopping it to pieces. I’m sorry I believed in someone so much, that I compromised across the board to demonstrate true loyalty, to someone that knows so little of it.
This site will not receive any major updates prior to 20310418.
In Tempore Veritas…
🧠
20250625
Obliviousness is the mental state of being oblivious, generally understood to mean “a state of being unmindful or unaware of something, of being ignorant or not conscious of its existence”. Obliviousness differs from unconsciousness in that the oblivious person is conscious, and could or should be aware of the things of which they remain unaware. A state of obliviousness may be intentionally sought by those wishing to avoid acknowledging or dealing with surrounding realities. In fiction and literature, obliviousness is often used for comedic effect.
Overview
Obliviousness may be described as going beyond a mere lack of some level of awareness, and becoming an act of repression of an awareness that should exist. Although an unconscious person may similarly be unaware of things around them, obliviousness “implies not a cessation of all attention but only that directed outwardly”, with the oblivious person’s attention being “directed inwardly—to thoughts, feelings, imaginings, fantasies, worries or bodily states which have nothing or little to do with the world at hand”.
Obliviousness “extends to activities, especially those involving drudgery or repetition”, for which “[p]eople may actually encourage a state of obliviousness as they work”. It is “sometimes associated with positive inner states”, but “more often occurs in situations of sickness, hurry or negativity”. It has been suggested that when individuals exhibit an absence of concern about what others think of them, this “could be due either to their obliviousness to social concerns or to their desire to create the image, in their own minds and for others, of being autonomous and independent individuals”.
In some contexts, obliviousness to problems serves as a defense mechanism against the need to engage in efforts to change those problems. For example, members of a majority group may be oblivious to discrimination and related struggles faced by members of a minority with whom they regularly interact. Remaining oblivious relieves the majority group members of a sense of responsibility for the problems of the minority group.
In popular culture
In fiction, obliviousness is commonly exploited for comedic value, and the characteristic has been described as “tailor-made for comic plotting; no sooner does ‘reality’ assert itself than a recovery commences”.[6] The characteristic is identified as one of the key traits of the “lovable loser” character archetype, typified by the behavior of such characters in describing plans or pursuing dreams that objective observers immediately realize are futile, a fact to which the loser remains oblivious.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Obliviousness, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250619
Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. This quality can apply to an ability, as in a rational animal, to a psychological process, like reasoning, to mental states, such as beliefs and intentions, or to persons who possess these other forms of rationality. A thing that lacks rationality is either arational, if it is outside the domain of rational evaluation, or irrational, if it belongs to this domain but does not fulfill its standards.
There are many discussions about the essential features shared by all forms of rationality. According to reason-responsiveness accounts, to be rational is to be responsive to reasons. For example, dark clouds are a reason for taking an umbrella, which is why it is rational for an agent to do so in response. An important rival to this approach are coherence-based accounts, which define rationality as internal coherence among the agent’s mental states. Many rules of coherence have been suggested in this regard, for example, that one should not hold contradictory beliefs or that one should intend to do something if one believes that one should do it. Goal-based accounts characterize rationality in relation to goals, such as acquiring truth in the case of theoretical rationality. Internalists believe that rationality depends only on the person’s mind. Externalists contend that external factors may also be relevant. Debates about the normativity of rationality concern the question of whether one should always be rational. A further discussion is whether rationality requires that all beliefs be reviewed from scratch rather than trusting pre-existing beliefs.
Various types of rationality are discussed in the academic literature. The most influential distinction is between theoretical and practical rationality. Theoretical rationality concerns the rationality of beliefs. Rational beliefs are based on evidence that supports them. Practical rationality pertains primarily to actions. This includes certain mental states and events preceding actions, like intentions and decisions. In some cases, the two can conflict, as when practical rationality requires that one adopts an irrational belief. Another distinction is between ideal rationality, which demands that rational agents obey all the laws and implications of logic, and bounded rationality, which takes into account that this is not always possible since the computational power of the human mind is too limited. Most academic discussions focus on the rationality of individuals. This contrasts with social or collective rationality, which pertains to collectives and their group beliefs and decisions.
Rationality is important for solving all kinds of problems in order to efficiently reach one’s goal. It is relevant to and discussed in many disciplines. In ethics, one question is whether one can be rational without being moral at the same time. Psychology is interested in how psychological processes implement rationality. This also includes the study of failures to do so, as in the case of cognitive biases. Cognitive and behavioral sciences usually assume that people are rational enough to predict how they think and act. Logic studies the laws of correct arguments. These laws are highly relevant to the rationality of beliefs. A very influential conception of practical rationality is given in decision theory, which states that a decision is rational if the chosen option has the highest expected utility. Other relevant fields include game theory, Bayesianism, economics, and artificial intelligence.
Definition and semantic field
In its most common sense, rationality is the quality of being guided by reasons or being reasonable. For example, a person who acts rationally has good reasons for what they do. This usually implies that they reflected on the possible consequences of their action and the goal it is supposed to realize. In the case of beliefs, it is rational to believe something if the agent has good evidence for it and it is coherent with the agent’s other beliefs. While actions and beliefs are the most paradigmatic forms of rationality, the term is used both in ordinary language and in many academic disciplines to describe a wide variety of things, such as persons, desires, intentions, decisions, policies, and institutions. Because of this variety in different contexts, it has proven difficult to give a unified definition covering all these fields and usages. In this regard, different fields often focus their investigation on one specific conception, type, or aspect of rationality without trying to cover it in its most general sense.
These different forms of rationality are sometimes divided into abilities, processes, mental states, and persons. For example, when it is claimed that humans are rational animals, this usually refers to the ability to think and act in reasonable ways. It does not imply that all humans are rational all the time: this ability is exercised in some cases but not in others. On the other hand, the term can also refer to the process of reasoning that results from exercising this ability. Often many additional activities of the higher cognitive faculties are included as well, such as acquiring concepts, judging, deliberating, planning, and deciding as well as the formation of desires and intentions. These processes usually affect some kind of change in the thinker’s mental states. In this regard, one can also talk of the rationality of mental states, like beliefs and intentions. A person who possesses these forms of rationality to a sufficiently high degree may themselves be called rational. In some cases, also non-mental results of rational processes may qualify as rational. For example, the arrangement of products in a supermarket can be rational if it is based on a rational plan.
The term “rational” has two opposites: irrational and arational. Arational things are outside the domain of rational evaluation, like digestive processes or the weather. Things within the domain of rationality are either rational or irrational depending on whether they fulfill the standards of rationality. For example, beliefs, actions, or general policies are rational if there is a good reason for them and irrational otherwise. It is not clear in all cases what belongs to the domain of rational assessment. For example, there are disagreements about whether desires and emotions can be evaluated as rational and irrational rather than arational. The term “irrational” is sometimes used in a wide sense to include cases of arationality.
The meaning of the terms “rational” and “irrational” in academic discourse often differs from how they are used in everyday language. Examples of behaviors considered irrational in ordinary discourse are giving into temptations, going out late even though one has to get up early in the morning, smoking despite being aware of the health risks, or believing in astrology. In the academic discourse, on the other hand, rationality is usually identified with being guided by reasons or following norms of internal coherence. Some of the earlier examples may qualify as rational in the academic sense depending on the circumstances. Examples of irrationality in this sense include cognitive biases and violating the laws of probability theory when assessing the likelihood of future events. This article focuses mainly on irrationality in the academic sense.
The terms “rationality”, “reason“, and “reasoning” are frequently used as synonyms. But in technical contexts, their meanings are often distinguished. Reason is usually understood as the faculty responsible for the process of reasoning. This process aims at improving mental states. Reasoning tries to ensure that the norms of rationality obtain. It differs from rationality nonetheless since other psychological processes besides reasoning may have the same effect. Rationality derives etymologically from the Latin term rationalitas.
Disputes about the concept of rationality
There are many disputes about the essential characteristics of rationality. It is often understood in relational terms: something, like a belief or an intention, is rational because of how it is related to something else. But there are disagreements as to what it has to be related to and in what way. For reason-based accounts, the relation to a reason that justifies or explains the rational state is central. For coherence-based accounts, the relation of coherence between mental states matters. There is a lively discussion in the contemporary literature on whether reason-based accounts or coherence-based accounts are superior. Some theorists also try to understand rationality in relation to the goals it tries to realize.
Other disputes in this field concern whether rationality depends only on the agent’s mind or also on external factors, whether rationality requires a review of all one’s beliefs from scratch, and whether we should always be rational.
Based on reason-responsiveness
A common idea of many theories of rationality is that it can be defined in terms of reasons. In this view, to be rational means to respond correctly to reasons. For example, the fact that a food is healthy is a reason to eat it. So this reason makes it rational for the agent to eat the food. An important aspect of this interpretation is that it is not sufficient to merely act accidentally in accordance with reasons. Instead, responding to reasons implies that one acts intentionally because of these reasons.
Some theorists understand reasons as external facts. This view has been criticized based on the claim that, in order to respond to reasons, people have to be aware of them, i.e. they have some form of epistemic access. But lacking this access is not automatically irrational. In one example by John Broome, the agent eats a fish contaminated with salmonella, which is a strong reason against eating the fish. But since the agent could not have known this fact, eating the fish is rational for them. Because of such problems, many theorists have opted for an internalist version of this account. This means that the agent does not need to respond to reasons in general, but only to reasons they have or possess. The success of such approaches depends a lot on what it means to have a reason and there are various disagreements on this issue. A common approach is to hold that this access is given through the possession of evidence in the form of cognitive mental states, like perceptions and knowledge. A similar version states that “rationality consists in responding correctly to beliefs about reasons”. So it is rational to bring an umbrella if the agent has strong evidence that it is going to rain. But without this evidence, it would be rational to leave the umbrella at home, even if, unbeknownst to the agent, it is going to rain. These versions avoid the previous objection since rationality no longer requires the agent to respond to external factors of which they could not have been aware.
A problem faced by all forms of reason-responsiveness theories is that there are usually many reasons relevant and some of them may conflict with each other. So while salmonella contamination is a reason against eating the fish, its good taste and the desire not to offend the host are reasons in favor of eating it. This problem is usually approached by weighing all the different reasons. This way, one does not respond directly to each reason individually but instead to their weighted sum. Cases of conflict are thus solved since one side usually outweighs the other. So despite the reasons cited in favor of eating the fish, the balance of reasons stands against it, since avoiding a salmonella infection is a much weightier reason than the other reasons cited. This can be expressed by stating that rational agents pick the option favored by the balance of reasons.
However, other objections to the reason-responsiveness account are not so easily solved. They often focus on cases where reasons require the agent to be irrational, leading to a rational dilemma. For example, if terrorists threaten to blow up a city unless the agent forms an irrational belief, this is a very weighty reason to do all in one’s power to violate the norms of rationality.
Based on rules of coherence
An influential rival to the reason-responsiveness account understands rationality as internal coherence. On this view, a person is rational to the extent that their mental states and actions are coherent with each other. Diverse versions of this approach exist that differ in how they understand coherence and what rules of coherence they propose. A general distinction in this regard is between negative and positive coherence. Negative coherence is an uncontroversial aspect of most such theories: it requires the absence of contradictions and inconsistencies. This means that the agent’s mental states do not clash with each other. In some cases, inconsistencies are rather obvious, as when a person believes that it will rain tomorrow and that it will not rain tomorrow. In complex cases, inconsistencies may be difficult to detect, for example, when a person believes in the axioms of Euclidean geometry and is nonetheless convinced that it is possible to square the circle. Positive coherence refers to the support that different mental states provide for each other. For example, there is positive coherence between the belief that there are eight planets in the Solar System and the belief that there are less than ten planets in the Solar System: the earlier belief implies the latter belief. Other types of support through positive coherence include explanatory and causal connections.
Coherence-based accounts are also referred to as rule-based accounts since the different aspects of coherence are often expressed in precise rules. In this regard, to be rational means to follow the rules of rationality in thought and action. According to the enkratic rule, for example, rational agents are required to intend what they believe they ought to do. This requires coherence between beliefs and intentions. The norm of persistence states that agents should retain their intentions over time. This way, earlier mental states cohere with later ones. It is also possible to distinguish different types of rationality, such as theoretical or practical rationality, based on the different sets of rules they require.
One problem with such coherence-based accounts of rationality is that the norms can enter into conflict with each other, so-called rational dilemmas. For example, if the agent has a pre-existing intention that turns out to conflict with their beliefs, then the enkratic norm requires them to change it, which is disallowed by the norm of persistence. This suggests that, in cases of rational dilemmas, it is impossible to be rational, no matter which norm is privileged. Some defenders of coherence theories of rationality have argued that, when formulated correctly, the norms of rationality cannot enter into conflict with each other. That means that rational dilemmas are impossible. This is sometimes tied to additional non-trivial assumptions, such that ethical dilemmas also do not exist. A different response is to bite the bullet and allow that rational dilemmas exist. This has the consequence that, in such cases, rationality is not possible for the agent and theories of rationality cannot offer guidance to them. These problems are avoided by reason-responsiveness accounts of rationality since they “allow for rationality despite conflicting reasons but [coherence-based accounts] do not allow for rationality despite conflicting requirements”. Some theorists suggest a weaker criterion of coherence to avoid cases of necessary irrationality: rationality requires not to obey all norms of coherence but to obey as many norms as possible. So in rational dilemmas, agents can still be rational if they violate the minimal number of rational requirements.
Another criticism rests on the claim that coherence-based accounts are either redundant or false. On this view, either the rules recommend the same option as the balance of reasons or a different option. If they recommend the same option, they are redundant. If they recommend a different option, they are false since, according to its critics, there is no special value in sticking to rules against the balance of reasons.
Based on goals
A different approach characterizes rationality in relation to the goals it aims to achieve. In this regard, theoretical rationality aims at epistemic goals, like acquiring truth and avoiding falsehood. Practical rationality, on the other hand, aims at non-epistemic goals, like moral, prudential, political, economic, or aesthetic goals. This is usually understood in the sense that rationality follows these goals but does not set them. So rationality may be understood as a “minister without portfolio” since it serves goals external to itself. This issue has been the source of an important historical discussion between David Hume and Immanuel Kant. The slogan of Hume’s position is that “reason is the slave of the passions”. This is often understood as the claim that rationality concerns only how to reach a goal but not whether the goal should be pursued at all. So people with perverse or weird goals may still be perfectly rational. This position is opposed by Kant, who argues that rationality requires having the right goals and motives.
According to William Frankena there are four conceptions of rationality based on the goals it tries to achieve. They correspond to egoism, utilitarianism, perfectionism, and intuitionism. According to the egoist perspective, rationality implies looking out for one’s own happiness. This contrasts with the utilitarian point of view, which states that rationality entails trying to contribute to everyone’s well-being or to the greatest general good. For perfectionism, a certain ideal of perfection, either moral or non-moral, is the goal of rationality. According to the intuitionist perspective, something is rational “if and only if [it] conforms to self-evident truths, intuited by reason”. These different perspectives diverge a lot concerning the behavior they prescribe. One problem for all of them is that they ignore the role of the evidence or information possessed by the agent. In this regard, it matters for rationality not just whether the agent acts efficiently towards a certain goal but also what information they have and how their actions appear reasonable from this perspective. Richard Brandt responds to this idea by proposing a conception of rationality based on relevant information: “Rationality is a matter of what would survive scrutiny by all relevant information.” This implies that the subject repeatedly reflects on all the relevant facts, including formal facts like the laws of logic.
Internalism and externalism
An important contemporary discussion in the field of rationality is between internalists and externalists. Both sides agree that rationality demands and depends in some sense on reasons. They disagree on what reasons are relevant or how to conceive those reasons. Internalists understand reasons as mental states, for example, as perceptions, beliefs, or desires. In this view, an action may be rational because it is in tune with the agent’s beliefs and realizes their desires. Externalists, on the other hand, see reasons as external factors about what is good or right. They state that whether an action is rational also depends on its actual consequences. The difference between the two positions is that internalists affirm and externalists reject the claim that rationality supervenes on the mind. This claim means that it only depends on the person’s mind whether they are rational and not on external factors. So for internalism, two persons with the same mental states would both have the same degree of rationality independent of how different their external situation is. Because of this limitation, rationality can diverge from actuality. So if the agent has a lot of misleading evidence, it may be rational for them to turn left even though the actually correct path goes right.
Bernard Williams has criticized externalist conceptions of rationality based on the claim that rationality should help explain what motivates the agent to act. This is easy for internalism but difficult for externalism since external reasons can be independent of the agent’s motivation. Externalists have responded to this objection by distinguishing between motivational and normative reasons. Motivational reasons explain why someone acts the way they do while normative reasons explain why someone ought to act in a certain way. Ideally, the two overlap, but they can come apart. For example, liking chocolate cake is a motivational reason for eating it while having high blood pressure is a normative reason for not eating it. The problem of rationality is primarily concerned with normative reasons. This is especially true for various contemporary philosophers who hold that rationality can be reduced to normative reasons. The distinction between motivational and normative reasons is usually accepted, but many theorists have raised doubts that rationality can be identified with normativity. On this view, rationality may sometimes recommend suboptimal actions, for example, because the agent lacks important information or has false information. In this regard, discussions between internalism and externalism overlap with discussions of the normativity of rationality.
Relativity
An important implication of internalist conceptions is that rationality is relative to the person’s perspective or mental states. Whether a belief or an action is rational usually depends on which mental states the person has. So carrying an umbrella for the walk to the supermarket is rational for a person believing that it will rain but irrational for another person who lacks this belief. According to Robert Audi, this can be explained in terms of experience: what is rational depends on the agent’s experience. Since different people make different experiences, there are differences in what is rational for them.
Normativity
Rationality is normative in the sense that it sets up certain rules or standards of correctness: to be rational is to comply with certain requirements. For example, rationality requires that the agent does not have contradictory beliefs. Many discussions on this issue concern the question of what exactly these standards are. Some theorists characterize the normativity of rationality in the deontological terms of obligations and permissions. Others understand them from an evaluative perspective as good or valuable. A further approach is to talk of rationality based on what is praise- and blameworthy. It is important to distinguish the norms of rationality from other types of norms. For example, some forms of fashion prescribe that men do not wear bell-bottom trousers. Understood in the strongest sense, a norm prescribes what an agent ought to do or what they have most reason to do. The norms of fashion are not norms in this strong sense: that it is unfashionable does not mean that men ought not to wear bell-bottom trousers.
Most discussions of the normativity of rationality are interested in the strong sense, i.e. whether agents ought always to be rational. This is sometimes termed a substantive account of rationality in contrast to structural accounts. One important argument in favor of the normativity of rationality is based on considerations of praise- and blameworthiness. It states that we usually hold each other responsible for being rational and criticize each other when we fail to do so. This practice indicates that irrationality is some form of fault on the side of the subject that should not be the case. A strong counterexample to this position is due to John Broome, who considers the case of a fish an agent wants to eat. It contains salmonella, which is a decisive reason why the agent ought not to eat it. But the agent is unaware of this fact, which is why it is rational for them to eat the fish. So this would be a case where normativity and rationality come apart. This example can be generalized in the sense that rationality only depends on the reasons accessible to the agent or how things appear to them. What one ought to do, on the other hand, is determined by objectively existing reasons. In the ideal case, rationality and normativity may coincide but they come apart either if the agent lacks access to a reason or if he has a mistaken belief about the presence of a reason. These considerations are summed up in the statement that rationality supervenes only on the agent’s mind but normativity does not.
But there are also thought experiments in favor of the normativity of rationality. One, due to Frank Jackson, involves a doctor who receives a patient with a mild condition and has to prescribe one out of three drugs: drug A resulting in a partial cure, drug B resulting in a complete cure, or drug C resulting in the patient’s death. The doctor’s problem is that they cannot tell which of the drugs B and C results in a complete cure and which one in the patient’s death. The objectively best case would be for the patient to get drug B, but it would be highly irresponsible for the doctor to prescribe it given the uncertainty about its effects. So the doctor ought to prescribe the less effective drug A, which is also the rational choice. This thought experiment indicates that rationality and normativity coincide since what is rational and what one ought to do depends on the agent’s mind after all.
Some theorists have responded to these thought experiments by distinguishing between normativity and responsibility. On this view, critique of irrational behavior, like the doctor prescribing drug B, involves a negative evaluation of the agent in terms of responsibility but remains silent on normative issues. On a competence-based account, which defines rationality in terms of the competence of responding to reasons, such behavior can be understood as a failure to execute one’s competence. But sometimes we are lucky and we succeed in the normative dimension despite failing to perform competently, i.e. rationally, due to being irresponsible. The opposite can also be the case: bad luck may result in failure despite a responsible, competent performance. This explains how rationality and normativity can come apart despite our practice of criticizing irrationality.
Normative and descriptive theories
The concept of normativity can also be used to distinguish different theories of rationality. Normative theories explore the normative nature of rationality. They are concerned with rules and ideals that govern how the mind should work. Descriptive theories, on the other hand, investigate how the mind actually works. This includes issues like under which circumstances the ideal rules are followed as well as studying the underlying psychological processes responsible for rational thought. Descriptive theories are often investigated in empirical psychology while philosophy tends to focus more on normative issues. This division also reflects how different these two types are investigated.
Descriptive and normative theorists usually employ different methodologies in their research. Descriptive issues are studied by empirical research. This can take the form of studies that present their participants with a cognitive problem. It is then observed how the participants solve the problem, possibly together with explanations of why they arrived at a specific solution. Normative issues, on the other hand, are usually investigated in similar ways to how the formal sciences conduct their inquiry. In the field of theoretical rationality, for example, it is accepted that deductive reasoning in the form of modus ponens leads to rational beliefs. This claim can be investigated using methods like rational intuition or careful deliberation toward a reflective equilibrium. These forms of investigation can arrive at conclusions about what forms of thought are rational and irrational without depending on empirical evidence.
An important question in this field concerns the relation between descriptive and normative approaches to rationality. One difficulty in this regard is that there is in many cases a huge gap between what the norms of ideal rationality prescribe and how people actually reason. Examples of normative systems of rationality are classical logic, probability theory, and decision theory. Actual reasoners often diverge from these standards because of cognitive biases, heuristics, or other mental limitations.
Traditionally, it was often assumed that actual human reasoning should follow the rules described in normative theories. In this view, any discrepancy is a form of irrationality that should be avoided. However, this usually ignores the human limitations of the mind. Given these limitations, various discrepancies may be necessary (and in this sense rational) to get the most useful results. For example, the ideal rational norms of decision theory demand that the agent should always choose the option with the highest expected value. However, calculating the expected value of each option may take a very long time in complex situations and may not be worth the trouble. This is reflected in the fact that actual reasoners often settle for an option that is good enough without making certain that it is really the best option available. A further difficulty in this regard is Hume’s law, which states that one cannot deduce what ought to be based on what is. So just because a certain heuristic or cognitive bias is present in a specific case, it should not be inferred that it should be present. One approach to these problems is to hold that descriptive and normative theories talk about different types of rationality. This way, there is no contradiction between the two and both can be correct in their own field. Similar problems are discussed in so-called naturalized epistemology.
Conservatism and foundationalism
Rationality is usually understood as conservative in the sense that rational agents do not start from zero but already possess many beliefs and intentions. Reasoning takes place on the background of these pre-existing mental states and tries to improve them. This way, the original beliefs and intentions are privileged: one keeps them unless a reason to doubt them is encountered. Some forms of epistemic foundationalism reject this approach. According to them, the whole system of beliefs is to be justified by self-evident beliefs. Examples of such self-evident beliefs may include immediate experiences as well as simple logical and mathematical axioms.
An important difference between conservatism and foundationalism concerns their differing conceptions of the burden of proof. According to conservativism, the burden of proof is always in favor of already established belief: in the absence of new evidence, it is rational to keep the mental states one already has. According to foundationalism, the burden of proof is always in favor of suspending mental states. For example, the agent reflects on their pre-existing belief that the Taj Mahal is in Agra but is unable to access any reason for or against this belief. In this case, conservatives think it is rational to keep this belief while foundationalists reject it as irrational due to the lack of reasons. In this regard, conservatism is much closer to the ordinary conception of rationality. One problem for foundationalism is that very few beliefs, if any, would remain if this approach was carried out meticulously. Another is that enormous mental resources would be required to constantly keep track of all the justificatory relations connecting non-fundamental beliefs to fundamental ones.
Types
Rationality is discussed in a great variety of fields, often in very different terms. While some theorists try to provide a unifying conception expressing the features shared by all forms of rationality, the more common approach is to articulate the different aspects of the individual forms of rationality. The most common distinction is between theoretical and practical rationality. Other classifications include categories for ideal and bounded rationality as well as for individual and social rationality.
Theoretical and practical
The most influential distinction contrasts theoretical or epistemic rationality with practical rationality. Its theoretical side concerns the rationality of beliefs: whether it is rational to hold a given belief and how certain one should be about it. Practical rationality, on the other hand, is about the rationality of actions, intentions, and decisions. This corresponds to the distinction between theoretical reasoning and practical reasoning: theoretical reasoning tries to assess whether the agent should change their beliefs while practical reasoning tries to assess whether the agent should change their plans and intentions.
Theoretical
Theoretical rationality concerns the rationality of cognitive mental states, in particular, of beliefs. It is common to distinguish between two factors. The first factor is about the fact that good reasons are necessary for a belief to be rational. This is usually understood in terms of evidence provided by the so-called sources of knowledge, i.e. faculties like perception, introspection, and memory. In this regard, it is often argued that to be rational, the believer has to respond to the impressions or reasons presented by these sources. For example, the visual impression of the sunlight on a tree makes it rational to believe that the sun is shining. In this regard, it may also be relevant whether the formed belief is involuntary and implicit
The second factor pertains to the norms and procedures of rationality that govern how agents should form beliefs based on this evidence. These norms include the rules of inference discussed in regular logic as well as other norms of coherence between mental states. In the case of rules of inference, the premises of a valid argument offer support to the conclusion and make therefore the belief in the conclusion rational. The support offered by the premises can either be deductive or non-deductive. In both cases, believing in the premises of an argument makes it rational to also believe in its conclusion. The difference between the two is given by how the premises support the conclusion. For deductive reasoning, the premises offer the strongest possible support: it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. The premises of non-deductive arguments also offer support for their conclusion. But this support is not absolute: the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Instead, the premises make it more likely that the conclusion is true. In this case, it is usually demanded that the non-deductive support is sufficiently strong if the belief in the conclusion is to be rational.
An important form of theoretical irrationality is motivationally biased belief, sometimes referred to as wishful thinking. In this case, beliefs are formed based on one’s desires or what is pleasing to imagine without proper evidential support. Faulty reasoning in the form of formal and informal fallacies is another cause of theoretical irrationality.
Practical
All forms of practical rationality are concerned with how we act. It pertains both to actions directly as well as to mental states and events preceding actions, like intentions and decisions. There are various aspects of practical rationality, such as how to pick a goal to follow and how to choose the means for reaching this goal. Other issues include the coherence between different intentions as well as between beliefs and intentions.
Some theorists define the rationality of actions in terms of beliefs and desires. In this view, an action to bring about a certain goal is rational if the agent has the desire to bring about this goal and the belief that their action will realize it. A stronger version of this view requires that the responsible beliefs and desires are rational themselves. A very influential conception of the rationality of decisions comes from decision theory. In decisions, the agent is presented with a set of possible courses of action and has to choose one among them. Decision theory holds that the agent should choose the alternative that has the highest expected value. Practical rationality includes the field of actions but not of behavior in general. The difference between the two is that actions are intentional behavior, i.e. they are performed for a purpose and guided by it. In this regard, intentional behavior like driving a car is either rational or irrational while non-intentional behavior like sneezing is outside the domain of rationality.
For various other practical phenomena, there is no clear consensus on whether they belong to this domain or not. For example, concerning the rationality of desires, two important theories are proceduralism and substantivism. According to proceduralism, there is an important distinction between instrumental and noninstrumental desires. A desire is instrumental if its fulfillment serves as a means to the fulfillment of another desire. For example, Jack is sick and wants to take medicine to get healthy again. In this case, the desire to take the medicine is instrumental since it only serves as a means to Jack’s noninstrumental desire to get healthy. Both proceduralism and substantivism usually agree that a person can be irrational if they lack an instrumental desire despite having the corresponding noninstrumental desire and being aware that it acts as a means. Proceduralists hold that this is the only way a desire can be irrational. Substantivists, on the other hand, allow that noninstrumental desires may also be irrational. In this regard, a substantivist could claim that it would be irrational for Jack to lack his noninstrumental desire to be healthy. Similar debates focus on the rationality of emotions.
Relation between the two
Theoretical and practical rationality are often discussed separately and there are many differences between them. In some cases, they even conflict with each other. However, there are also various ways in which they overlap and depend on each other.
It is sometimes claimed that theoretical rationality aims at truth while practical rationality aims at goodness. According to John Searle, the difference can be expressed in terms of “direction of fit“. On this view, theoretical rationality is about how the mind corresponds to the world by representing it. Practical rationality, on the other hand, is about how the world corresponds to the ideal set up by the mind and how it should be changed. Another difference is that arbitrary choices are sometimes needed for practical rationality. For example, there may be two equally good routes available to reach a goal. On the practical level, one has to choose one of them if one wants to reach the goal. It would even be practically irrational to resist this arbitrary choice, as exemplified by Buridan’s ass. But on the theoretical level, one does not have to form a belief about which route was taken upon hearing that someone reached the goal. In this case, the arbitrary choice for one belief rather than the other would be theoretically irrational. Instead, the agent should suspend their belief either way if they lack sufficient reasons. Another difference is that practical rationality is guided by specific goals and desires, in contrast to theoretical rationality. So it is practically rational to take medicine if one has the desire to cure a sickness. But it is theoretically irrational to adopt the belief that one is healthy just because one desires this. This is a form of wishful thinking.
In some cases, the demands of practical and theoretical rationality conflict with each other. For example, the practical reason of loyalty to one’s child may demand the belief that they are innocent while the evidence linking them to the crime may demand a belief in their guilt on the theoretical level.
But the two domains also overlap in certain ways. For example, the norm of rationality known as enkrasia links beliefs and intentions. It states that “rationality requires of you that you intend to F if you believe your reasons require you to F”. Failing to fulfill this requirement results in cases of irrationality known as akrasia or weakness of the will. Another form of overlap is that the study of the rules governing practical rationality is a theoretical matter. And practical considerations may determine whether to pursue theoretical rationality on a certain issue as well as how much time and resources to invest in the inquiry. It is often held that practical rationality presupposes theoretical rationality. This is based on the idea that to decide what should be done, one needs to know what is the case. But one can assess what is the case independently of knowing what should be done. So in this regard, one can study theoretical rationality as a distinct discipline independent of practical rationality but not the other way round. However, this independence is rejected by some forms of doxastic voluntarism. They hold that theoretical rationality can be understood as one type of practical rationality. This is based on the controversial claim that we can decide what to believe. It can take the form of epistemic decision theory, which states that people try to fulfill epistemic aims when deciding what to believe. A similar idea is defended by Jesús Mosterín. He argues that the proper object of rationality is not belief but acceptance. He understands acceptance as a voluntary and context-dependent decision to affirm a proposition.
Ideal and bounded
Various theories of rationality assume some form of ideal rationality, for example, by demanding that rational agents obey all the laws and implications of logic. This can include the requirement that if the agent believes a proposition, they should also believe in everything that logically follows from this proposition. However, many theorists reject this form of logical omniscience as a requirement for rationality. They argue that, since the human mind is limited, rationality has to be defined accordingly to account for how actual finite humans possess some form of resource-limited rationality.
According to the position of bounded rationality, theories of rationality should take into account cognitive limitations, such as incomplete knowledge, imperfect memory, and limited capacities of computation and representation. An important research question in this field is about how cognitive agents use heuristics rather than brute calculations to solve problems and make decisions. According to the satisficing heuristic, for example, agents usually stop their search for the best option once an option is found that meets their desired achievement level. In this regard, people often do not continue to search for the best possible option, even though this is what theories of ideal rationality commonly demand. Using heuristics can be highly rational as a way to adapt to the limitations of the human mind, especially in complex cases where these limitations make brute calculations impossible or very time- and resource-intensive.
Individual and social
Most discussions and research in the academic literature focus on individual rationality. This concerns the rationality of individual persons, for example, whether their beliefs and actions are rational. But the question of rationality can also be applied to groups as a whole on the social level. This form of social or collective rationality concerns both theoretical and practical issues like group beliefs and group decisions. And just like in the individual case, it is possible to study these phenomena as well as the processes and structures that are responsible for them. On the social level, there are various forms of cooperation to reach a shared goal. In theoretical cases, a group of jurors may first discuss and then vote to determine whether the defendant is guilty. Or in the practical case, politicians may cooperate to implement new regulations to combat climate change. These forms of cooperation can be judged on their social rationality depending on how they are implemented and on the quality of the results they bear. Some theorists try to reduce social rationality to individual rationality by holding that the group processes are rational to the extent that the individuals participating in them are rational. But such a reduction is frequently rejected.
Various studies indicate that group rationality often outperforms individual rationality. For example, groups of people working together on the Wason selection task usually perform better than individuals by themselves. This form of group superiority is sometimes termed “wisdom of crowds” and may be explained based on the claim that competent individuals have a stronger impact on the group decision than others. However, this is not always the case and sometimes groups perform worse due to conformity or unwillingness to bring up controversial issues.
Others
Many other classifications are discussed in the academic literature. One important distinction is between approaches to rationality based on the output or on the process. Process-oriented theories of rationality are common in cognitive psychology and study how cognitive systems process inputs to generate outputs. Output-oriented approaches are more common in philosophy and investigate the rationality of the resulting states. Another distinction is between relative and categorical judgments of rationality. In the relative case, rationality is judged based on limited information or evidence while categorical judgments take all the evidence into account and are thus judgments all things considered. For example, believing that one’s investments will multiply can be rational in a relative sense because it is based on one’s astrological horoscope. But this belief is irrational in a categorical sense if the belief in astrology is itself irrational.
Importance
Rationality is central to solving many problems, both on the local and the global scale. This is often based on the idea that rationality is necessary to act efficiently and to reach all kinds of goals. This includes goals from diverse fields, such as ethical goals, humanist goals, scientific goals, and even religious goals. The study of rationality is very old and has occupied many of the greatest minds since ancient Greek. This interest is often motivated by discovering the potentials and limitations of our minds. Various theorists even see rationality as the essence of being human, often in an attempt to distinguish humans from other animals. However, this strong affirmation has been subjected to many criticisms, for example, that humans are not rational all the time and that non-human animals also show diverse forms of intelligence.
The topic of rationality is relevant to a variety of disciplines. It plays a central role in philosophy, psychology, Bayesianism, decision theory, and game theory. But it is also covered in other disciplines, such as artificial intelligence, behavioral economics, microeconomics, and neuroscience. Some forms of research restrict themselves to one specific domain while others investigate the topic in an interdisciplinary manner by drawing insights from different fields.
Paradoxes of rationality
The term paradox of rationality has a variety of meanings. It is often used for puzzles or unsolved problems of rationality. Some are just situations where it is not clear what the rational person should do. Others involve apparent faults within rationality itself, for example, where rationality seems to recommend a suboptimal course of action. A special case are so-called rational dilemmas, in which it is impossible to be rational since two norms of rationality conflict with each other. Examples of paradoxes of rationality include Pascal’s Wager, the Prisoner’s dilemma, Buridan’s ass, and the St. Petersburg paradox.
History
Max Weber
The German scholar Max Weber proposed an interpretation of social action that distinguished between four different idealized types of rationality.
The first, which he called Zweckrational or purposive/instrumental rationality, is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment. These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were “rationally pursued and calculated.” The second type, Weber called Wertrational or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motives, independent of whether it will lead to success. The third type was affectual, determined by an actor’s specific affect, feeling, or emotion—to which Weber himself said that this was a kind of rationality that was on the borderline of what he considered “meaningfully oriented.” The fourth was traditional or conventional, determined by ingrained habituation. Weber emphasized that it was very unusual to find only one of these orientations: combinations were the norm. His usage also makes clear that he considered the first two as more significant than the others, and it is arguable that the third and fourth are subtypes of the first two.
The advantage in Weber’s interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that ground or motive can be given—for religious or affect reasons, for example—that may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that fits the Zweckrational orientation of means and ends. The opposite is therefore also true: some means-ends explanations will not satisfy those whose grounds for action are Wertrational.
Weber’s constructions of rationality have been critiqued both from a Habermasian (1984) perspective (as devoid of social context and under-theorised in terms of social power) and also from a feminist perspective (Eagleton, 2003) whereby Weber’s rationality constructs are viewed as imbued with masculine values and oriented toward the maintenance of male power. An alternative position on rationality (which includes both bounded rationality, as well as the affective and value-based arguments of Weber) can be found in the critique of Etzioni (1988), who reframes thought on decision-making to argue for a reversal of the position put forward by Weber. Etzioni illustrates how purposive/instrumental reasoning is subordinated by normative considerations (ideas on how people ‘ought’ to behave) and affective considerations (as a support system for the development of human relationships).
Richard Brandt
Richard Brandt proposed a “reforming definition” of rationality, arguing someone is rational if their notions survive a form of cognitive-psychotherapy.
Robert Audi
Robert Audi developed a comprehensive account of rationality that covers both the theoretical and the practical side of rationality. This account centers on the notion of a ground: a mental state is rational if it is “well-grounded” in a source of justification. Irrational mental states, on the other hand, lack a sufficient ground. For example, the perceptual experience of a tree when looking outside the window can ground the rationality of the belief that there is a tree outside.
Audi is committed to a form of foundationalism: the idea that justified beliefs, or in his case, rational states in general, can be divided into two groups: the foundation and the superstructure. The mental states in the superstructure receive their justification from other rational mental states while the foundational mental states receive their justification from a more basic source. For example, the above-mentioned belief that there is a tree outside is foundational since it is based on a basic source: perception. Knowing that trees grow in soil, we may deduce that there is soil outside. This belief is equally rational, being supported by an adequate ground, but it belongs to the superstructure since its rationality is grounded in the rationality of another belief. Desires, like beliefs, form a hierarchy: intrinsic desires are at the foundation while instrumental desires belong to the superstructure. In order to link the instrumental desire to the intrinsic desire an extra element is needed: a belief that the fulfillment of the instrumental desire is a means to the fulfillment of the intrinsic desire.
Audi asserts that all the basic sources providing justification for the foundational mental states come from experience. As for beliefs, there are four types of experience that act as sources: perception, memory, introspection, and rational intuition. The main basic source of the rationality of desires, on the other hand, comes in the form of hedonic experience: the experience of pleasure and pain. So, for example, a desire to eat ice-cream is rational if it is based on experiences in which the agent enjoyed the taste of ice-cream, and irrational if it lacks such a support. Because of its dependence on experience, rationality can be defined as a kind of responsiveness to experience.
Actions, in contrast to beliefs and desires, do not have a source of justification of their own. Their rationality is grounded in the rationality of other states instead: in the rationality of beliefs and desires. Desires motivate actions. Beliefs are needed here, as in the case of instrumental desires, to bridge a gap and link two elements. Audi distinguishes the focal rationality of individual mental states from the global rationality of persons. Global rationality has a derivative status: it depends on the focal rationality. Or more precisely: “Global rationality is reached when a person has a sufficiently integrated system of sufficiently well-grounded propositional attitudes, emotions, and actions”. Rationality is relative in the sense that it depends on the experience of the person in question. Since different people undergo different experiences, what is rational to believe for one person may be irrational to believe for another person. That a belief is rational does not entail that it is true.
In various fields
Ethics and morality
The problem of rationality is relevant to various issues in ethics and morality. Many debates center around the question of whether rationality implies morality or is possible without it. Some examples based on common sense suggest that the two can come apart. For example, some immoral psychopaths are highly intelligent in the pursuit of their schemes and may, therefore, be seen as rational. However, there are also considerations suggesting that the two are closely related to each other. For example, according to the principle of universality, “one’s reasons for acting are acceptable only if it is acceptable that everyone acts on such reasons”. A similar formulation is given in Immanuel Kant‘s categorical imperative: “act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”. The principle of universality has been suggested as a basic principle both for morality and for rationality. This is closely related to the question of whether agents have a duty to be rational. Another issue concerns the value of rationality. In this regard, it is often held that human lives are more important than animal lives because humans are rational.
Psychology
Many psychological theories have been proposed to describe how reasoning happens and what underlying psychological processes are responsible. One of their goals is to explain how the different types of irrationality happen and why some types are more prevalent than others. They include mental logic theories, mental model theories, and dual process theories. An important psychological area of study focuses on cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are systematic tendencies to engage in erroneous or irrational forms of thinking, judging, and acting. Examples include the confirmation bias, the self-serving bias, the hindsight bias, and the Dunning–Kruger effect. Some empirical findings suggest that metacognition is an important aspect of rationality. The idea behind this claim is that reasoning is carried out more efficiently and reliably if the responsible thought processes are properly controlled and monitored.
The Wason selection task is an influential test for studying rationality and reasoning abilities. In it, four cards are placed before the participants. Each has a number on one side and a letter on the opposite side. In one case, the visible sides of the four cards are A, D, 4, and 7. The participant is then asked which cards need to be turned around in order to verify the conditional claim “if there is a vowel on one side of the card, then there is an even number on the other side of the card”. The correct answer is A and 7. But this answer is only given by about 10%. Many choose card 4 instead even though there is no requirement on what letters may appear on its opposite side. An important insight from using these and similar tests is that the rational ability of the participants is usually significantly better for concrete and realistic cases than for abstract or implausible cases. Various contemporary studies in this field use Bayesian probability theory to study subjective degrees of belief, for example, how the believer’s certainty in the premises is carried over to the conclusion through reasoning.
In the psychology of reasoning, psychologists and cognitive scientists have defended different positions on human rationality. One prominent view, due to Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M. J. Byrne among others is that humans are rational in principle but they err in practice, that is, humans have the competence to be rational but their performance is limited by various factors. However, it has been argued that many standard tests of reasoning, such as those on the conjunction fallacy, on the Wason selection task, or the base rate fallacy suffer from methodological and conceptual problems. This has led to disputes in psychology over whether researchers should (only) use standard rules of logic, probability theory and statistics, or rational choice theory as norms of good reasoning. Opponents of this view, such as Gerd Gigerenzer, favor a conception of bounded rationality, especially for tasks under high uncertainty. The concept of rationality continues to be debated by psychologists, economists and cognitive scientists.
The psychologist Jean Piaget gave an influential account of how the stages in human development from childhood to adulthood can be understood in terms of the increase of rational and logical abilities. He identifies four stages associated with rough age groups: the sensorimotor stage below the age of two, the preoperational state until the age of seven, the concrete operational stage until the age of eleven, and the formal operational stage afterward. Rational or logical reasoning only takes place in the last stage and is related to abstract thinking, concept formation, reasoning, planning, and problem-solving.
Emotions
According to A. C. Grayling, rationality “must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts”. Certain findings in cognitive science and neuroscience show that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example, an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference. In his book, The Edge of Reason: A Rational Skeptic in an Irrational World, British philosopher Julian Baggini sets out to debunk myths about reason (e.g., that it is “purely objective and requires no subjective judgment”).
Cognitive and behavioral sciences
Cognitive and behavioral sciences try to describe, explain, and predict how people think and act. Their models are often based on the assumption that people are rational. For example, classical economics is based on the assumption that people are rational agents that maximize expected utility. However, people often depart from the ideal standards of rationality in various ways. For example, they may only look for confirming evidence and ignore disconfirming evidence. Another factor studied in this regard are the limitations of human intellectual capacities. Many discrepancies from rationality are caused by limited time, memory, or attention. Often heuristics and rules of thumb are used to mitigate these limitations, but they may lead to new forms of irrationality.
Logic
Theoretical rationality is closely related to logic, but not identical to it. Logic is often defined as the study of correct arguments. This concerns the relation between the propositions used in the argument: whether its premises offer support to its conclusion. Theoretical rationality, on the other hand, is about what to believe or how to change one’s beliefs. The laws of logic are relevant to rationality since the agent should change their beliefs if they violate these laws. But logic is not directly about what to believe. Additionally, there are also other factors and norms besides logic that determine whether it is rational to hold or change a belief. The study of rationality in logic is more concerned with epistemic rationality, that is, attaining beliefs in a rational manner, than instrumental rationality.
Decision theory
An influential account of practical rationality is given by decision theory. Decisions are situations where a number of possible courses of action are available to the agent, who has to choose one of them. Decision theory investigates the rules governing which action should be chosen. It assumes that each action may lead to a variety of outcomes. Each outcome is associated with a conditional probability and a utility. The expected gain of an outcome can be calculated by multiplying its conditional probability with its utility. The expected utility of an act is equivalent to the sum of all expected gains of the outcomes associated with it. From these basic ingredients, it is possible to define the rationality of decisions: a decision is rational if it selects the act with the highest expected utility. While decision theory gives a very precise formal treatment of this issue, it leaves open the empirical problem of how to assign utilities and probabilities. So decision theory can still lead to bad empirical decisions if it is based on poor assignments.
According to decision theorists, rationality is primarily a matter of internal consistency. This means that a person’s mental states like beliefs and preferences are consistent with each other or do not go against each other. One consequence of this position is that people with obviously false beliefs or perverse preferences may still count as rational if these mental states are consistent with their other mental states. Utility is often understood in terms of self-interest or personal preferences. However, this is not a necessary aspect of decisions theory and it can also be interpreted in terms of goodness or value in general.
Game theory
Game theory is closely related to decision theory and the problem of rational choice. Rational choice is based on the idea that rational agents perform a cost-benefit analysis of all available options and choose the option that is most beneficial from their point of view. In the case of game theory, several agents are involved. This further complicates the situation since whether a given option is the best choice for one agent may depend on choices made by other agents. Game theory can be used to analyze various situations, like playing chess, firms competing for business, or animals fighting over prey. Rationality is a core assumption of game theory: it is assumed that each player chooses rationally based on what is most beneficial from their point of view. This way, the agent may be able to anticipate how others choose and what their best choice is relative to the behavior of the others. This often results in a Nash equilibrium, which constitutes a set of strategies, one for each player, where no player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing their strategy.
Bayesianism
A popular contemporary approach to rationality is based on Bayesian epistemology. Bayesian epistemology sees belief as a continuous phenomenon that comes in degrees. For example, Daniel is relatively sure that the Boston Celtics will win their next match and absolutely certain that two plus two equals four. In this case, the degree of the first belief is weaker than the degree of the second belief. These degrees are usually referred to as credences and represented by numbers between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds to full disbelief, 1 corresponds to full belief and 0.5 corresponds to suspension of belief. Bayesians understand this in terms of probability: the higher the credence, the higher the subjective probability that the believed proposition is true. As probabilities, they are subject to the laws of probability theory. These laws act as norms of rationality: beliefs are rational if they comply with them and irrational if they violate them. For example, it would be irrational to have a credence of 0.9 that it will rain tomorrow together with another credence of 0.9 that it will not rain tomorrow. This account of rationality can also be extended to the practical domain by requiring that agents maximize their subjective expected utility. This way, Bayesianism can provide a unified account of both theoretical and practical rationality.
Economics
Rationality plays a key role in economics and there are several strands to this. Firstly, there is the concept of instrumentality—basically the idea that people and organisations are instrumentally rational—that is, adopt the best actions to achieve their goals. Secondly, there is an axiomatic concept that rationality is a matter of being logically consistent within your preferences and beliefs. Thirdly, people have focused on the accuracy of beliefs and full use of information—in this view, a person who is not rational has beliefs that do not fully use the information they have.
Debates within economic sociology also arise as to whether or not people or organizations are “really” rational, as well as whether it makes sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded rationality makes more sense for such models.
Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in economic models who is logically consistent but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view. Behavioral economics aims to account for economic actors as they actually are, allowing for psychological biases, rather than assuming idealized instrumental rationality.
Artificial intelligence
The field of artificial intelligence is concerned, among other things, with how problems of rationality can be implemented and solved by computers. Within artificial intelligence, a rational agent is typically one that maximizes its expected utility, given its current knowledge. Utility is the usefulness of the consequences of its actions. The utility function is arbitrarily defined by the designer, but should be a function of “performance”, which is the directly measurable consequences, such as winning or losing money. In order to make a safe agent that plays defensively, a nonlinear function of performance is often desired, so that the reward for winning is lower than the punishment for losing. An agent might be rational within its own problem area, but finding the rational decision for arbitrarily complex problems is not practically possible. The rationality of human thought is a key problem in the psychology of reasoning.
International relations
There is an ongoing debate over the merits of using “rationality” in the study of international relations (IR). Some scholars hold it indispensable. Others are more critical. Still, the pervasive and persistent usage of “rationality” in political science and IR is beyond dispute. “Rationality” remains ubiquitous in this field. Abulof finds that Some 40% of all scholarly references to “foreign policy” allude to “rationality”—and this ratio goes up to more than half of pertinent academic publications in the 2000s. He further argues that when it comes to concrete security and foreign policies, IR employment of rationality borders on “malpractice”: rationality-based descriptions are largely either false or unfalsifiable; many observers fail to explicate the meaning of “rationality” they employ; and the concept is frequently used politically to distinguish between “us and them.”
Criticism
The concept of rationality has been subject to criticism by various philosophers who question its universality and capacity to provide a comprehensive understanding of reality and human existence.
Friedrich Nietzsche, in his work “Beyond Good and Evil” (1886), criticized the overemphasis on rationality and argued that it neglects the irrational and instinctual aspects of human nature. Nietzsche advocated for a reevaluation of values based on individual perspectives and the will to power, stating, “There are no facts, only interpretations.”
Martin Heidegger, in “Being and Time” (1927), offered a critique of the instrumental and calculative view of reason, emphasizing the primacy of our everyday practical engagement with the world. Heidegger challenged the notion that rationality alone is the sole arbiter of truth and understanding.
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, in their seminal work “Dialectic of Enlightenment“ (1947), questioned the Enlightenment‘s rationality. They argued that the dominance of instrumental reason in modern society leads to the domination of nature and the dehumanization of individuals. Horkheimer and Adorno highlighted how rationality narrows the scope of human experience and hinders critical thinking.
Michel Foucault, in “Discipline and Punish” (1975) and “The Birth of Biopolitics” (1978), critiqued the notion of rationality as a neutral and objective force. Foucault emphasized the intertwining of rationality with power structures and its role in social control. He famously stated, “Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategic situation in a particular society.”
These philosophers’ critiques of rationality shed light on its limitations, assumptions, and potential dangers. Their ideas challenge the universal application of rationality as the sole framework for understanding the complexities of human existence and the world.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Rationality, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250614
Empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another person’s perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience. There are more (sometimes conflicting) definitions of empathy that include but are not limited to social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others. Often times, empathy is considered to be a broad term, and broken down into more specific concepts and types that include cognitive empathy, emotional (or affective) empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.
Empathy is still a topic of research. The major areas of research include the development of empathy, the genetics and neuroscience of empathy, cross-species empathy, and the impairment of empathy. Some researchers have made efforts to quantify empathy through different methods, such as from questionnaires where participants can fill out and then be scored on their answers.
The ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated process. However, the basic capacity to recognize emotions in others may be innate and may be achieved unconsciously. Empathy is not all-or-nothing; rather, a person can be more or less empathic toward another and empirical research supports a variety of interventions that are able to improve empathy.
The English word empathy is derived from the Ancient Greek ἐμπάθεια (empatheia, meaning “physical affection or passion”). That word derives from ἐν (en, “in, at”) and πάθος (pathos, “passion” or “suffering”). Theodor Lipps adapted the German aesthetic term Einfühlung (“feeling into”) to psychology in 1903,: ch. 1 and Edward B. Titchener translated Einfühlung into English as “empathy” in 1909. In modern Greek εμπάθεια may mean, depending on context, prejudice, malevolence, malice, or hatred.
Definitions
Since its introduction into the English language, empathy has had a wide range of (sometimes conflicting) definitions among both researchers and laypeople. Empathy definitions encompass a broad range of phenomena, including caring for other people and having a desire to help them, experiencing emotions that match another person’s, discerning what another person is thinking or feeling, and making less distinct the differences between the self and the other.
Since empathy involves understanding the emotional states of other people, the way it is characterized derives from the way emotions are characterized. For example, if emotions are characterized by bodily feelings, then understanding the bodily feelings of another will be considered central to empathy. On the other hand, if emotions are characterized by a combination of beliefs and desires, then understanding those beliefs and desires will be more essential to empathy.
Paradigmatically, a person exhibits empathy when they communicate an accurate recognition of the significance of another person’s ongoing intentional actions, associated emotional states, and personal characteristics in a manner that seems accurate and tolerable to the recognized person. This is a nuanced perspective on empathy which assists in the understanding of complex human emotions and interactions. Acknowledging subjective experiences highlights the need for balance and understanding when engaging in empathy.
One’s ability to recognize the bodily feelings or emotions of another is related to one’s imitative capacities, and seems to be grounded in an innate capacity to associate the bodily movements and facial expressions one sees in another with the proprioceptive feelings of producing those corresponding movements or expressions oneself.
Distinctions between empathy and related concepts
Compassion and sympathy are terms associated with empathy. A person feels compassion when they notice others are in need, and this feeling motivates that person to help. Like empathy, compassion has a wide range of definitions and purported facets (which overlap with some definitions of empathy). Sympathy is a feeling of care and understanding for someone in need. Some include in sympathy an empathic concern for another person, and the wish to see them better off or happier.
Empathy is also related to pity and emotional contagion. One feels pity towards others who might be in trouble or in need of help. This feeling is described as “feeling sorry” for someone. Emotional contagion is when a person (especially an infant or a member of a mob) imitatively “catches” the emotions that others are showing without necessarily recognizing this is happening.
Alexithymia describes a deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing one’s own emotions (unlike empathy which is about someone else’s emotions).
Classification
Empathy has two major components:
Affective empathy, also called emotional empathy, is the ability to respond with an appropriate emotion to another’s mental states. Our ability to empathize emotionally is based on emotional contagion: being affected by another’s emotional or arousal state. Affective empathy can be subdivided into the following scales:
– Empathic concern: sympathy and compassion for others in response to their suffering.
– Personal distress: feelings of discomfort and anxiety in response to another’s suffering. There is no consensus regarding whether personal distress is a form of empathy or instead is something distinct from empathy. There may be a developmental aspect to this subdivision. Infants respond to the distress of others by getting distressed themselves; only when they are two years old do they start to respond in other-oriented ways: trying to help, comfort, and share.
– Affective mentalizing: uses clues like body language, facial expressions, knowledge about the other’s beliefs & situation, and context to understand more about what one is empathizing with.
Cognitive empathy is the ability to understand another’s perspective or mental state. The terms empathic accuracy, social cognition, perspective-taking, theory of mind, and mentalizing are often used synonymously, but due to a lack of studies comparing theory of mind with types of empathy, it is unclear whether these are equivalent. Although measures of cognitive empathy include self-report questionnaires and behavioral measures, a 2019 meta-analysis found only a negligible association between self-report and behavioral measures, suggesting that people are generally not able to accurately assess their own cognitive empathy abilities. Cognitive empathy can be subdivided into the following scales:
– Perspective-taking: the tendency to spontaneously adopt others’ psychological perspectives.
– Fantasy: the tendency to identify with fictional characters.
– Tactical (or strategic) empathy: the deliberate use of perspective-taking to achieve certain desired ends.
– Emotion regulation: a damper on the emotional contagion process that allows you to empathize without being overwhelmed by the emotion you are empathizing with.
The scientific community has not coalesced around a precise definition of these constructs, but there is consensus about this distinction. Affective and cognitive empathy are also independent from one another; someone who strongly empathizes emotionally is not necessarily good in understanding another’s perspective.
Additional constructs that have been proposed include behavioral empathy (which governs how one chooses to respond to feelings of empathy), social empathy (in which the empathetic person integrates their understanding of broader social dynamics into their empathetic modeling), and ecological empathy (which encompasses empathy directed towards the natural world).
In addition, Fritz Breithaupt emphasizes the importance of empathy suppression mechanisms in healthy empathy.
Measurement
Efforts to measure empathy go back to at least the mid-twentieth century. Researchers approach the measurement of empathy from a number of perspectives.
Behavioral measures normally involve raters assessing the presence or absence of certain behaviors in the subjects they are monitoring. Both verbal and non-verbal behaviors have been captured on video by experimenters. Other experimenters required subjects to comment upon their own feelings and behaviors, or those of other people involved in the experiment, as indirect ways of signaling their level of empathic functioning to the raters.
Physiological responses tend to be captured by elaborate electronic equipment that has been physically connected to the subject’s body. Researchers then draw inferences about that person’s empathic reactions from the electronic readings produced.
Bodily or “somatic” measures can be seen as behavioral measures at a micro level. They measure empathy through facial and other non-verbally expressed reactions. Such changes are presumably underpinned by physiological changes brought about by some form of “emotional contagion” or mirroring. These reactions, while they appear to reflect the internal emotional state of the empathizer, could also, if the stimulus incident lasted more than the briefest period, reflect the results of emotional reactions based on cognitions associated with role-taking (“if I were him I would feel…”).
Picture or puppet-story indices for empathy have been adopted to enable even very young, pre-school subjects to respond without needing to read questions and write answers. Dependent variables (variables that are monitored for any change by the experimenter) for younger subjects have included self reporting on a seven-point smiley face scale and filmed facial reactions.
In some experiments, subjects are required to watch video scenarios (either staged or authentic) and to make written responses which are then assessed for their levels of empathy; scenarios are sometimes also depicted in printed form.
Self-report measures
Measures of empathy also frequently require subjects to self-report upon their own ability or capacity for empathy, using Likert-style numerical responses to a printed questionnaire that may have been designed to reveal the affective, cognitive-affective, or largely cognitive substrates of empathic functioning. Some questionnaires claim to reveal both cognitive and affective substrates. However, a 2019 meta analysis questions the validity of self-report measures of cognitive empathy, finding that such self-report measures have negligibly small correlations with corresponding behavioral measures. Balancing subjective self-perceptions along with observable behaviors can help to contribute to a more reliable assessment of empathy.
Such measures are also vulnerable to measuring not empathy but the difference between a person’s felt empathy and their standards for how much empathy is appropriate. For example, one researcher found that students scored themselves as less empathetic after taking her empathy class. After learning more about empathy, the students became more exacting in how they judged their own feelings and behavior, expected more from themselves, and so rated themselves more severely.
In the field of medicine, a measurement tool for carers is the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, Health Professional Version (JSPE-HP).
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is among the oldest published measurement tools still in frequent use (first published in 1983) that provides a multi-dimensional assessment of empathy. It comprises a self-report questionnaire of 28 items, divided into four seven-item scales covering the subdivisions of affective and cognitive empathy described above. More recent self-report tools include The Empathy Quotient (EQ) created by Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright which comprises a self-report questionnaire consisting of 60 items. Another multi-dimensional scale is the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE, first published in 2011).
The Empathic Experience Scale is a 30-item questionnaire that measures empathy from a phenomenological perspective on intersubjectivity, which provides a common basis for the perceptual experience (vicarious experience dimension) and a basic cognitive awareness (intuitive understanding dimension) of others’ emotional states.
It is difficult to make comparisons over time using such questionnaires because of how language changes. For example, one study used a single questionnaire to measure 13,737 college students between 1979 and 2009, and found that empathy scores fell substantially over that time. A critic noted these results could be because the wording of the questionnaire had become anachronistically quaint (it used idioms no longer in common use, like “tender feelings”, “ill at ease”, “quite touched”, or “go to pieces” that today’s students might not identify with).
Development
Ontogenetic development
By the age of two, children normally begin to exhibit fundamental behaviors of empathy by having an emotional response that corresponds with another person’s emotional state. Even earlier, at one year of age, infants have some rudiments of empathy; they understand that, as with their own actions, other people’s actions have goals. Toddlers sometimes comfort others or show concern for them. During their second year, they play games of falsehood or pretend in an effort to fool others. Such actions require that the child knows what others believe in order that the child can manipulate those beliefs.
According to researchers at the University of Chicago who used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), children between the ages of seven and twelve, when seeing others being injured, experience brain activity similar that which would occur if the child themself had been injured. Their findings are consistent with previous fMRI studies of pain empathy with adults, and previous findings that vicarious experiencing, particularly of others’ distress, is hardwired and present early in life. The research found additional areas of the brain, associated with social and moral cognition, were activated when young people saw another person intentionally hurt by somebody, including regions involved in moral reasoning.
Although children are capable of showing some signs of empathy, including attempting to comfort a crying baby, from as early as 18 months to two years, most do not demonstrate a full theory of mind until around the age of four. Theory of mind involves the ability to understand that other people may have beliefs that are different from one’s own, and is thought to involve the cognitive component of empathy. Children usually can pass false-belief tasks (a test for a theory of mind) around the age of four. It is theorised that people with autism find using a theory of mind to be very difficult, but there is quite a bit of controversy on this subject. (e.g. the Sally–Anne test).
Empathic maturity is a cognitive-structural theory developed at the Yale University School of Nursing. It addresses how adults conceive or understand the personhood of patients. The theory, first applied to nurses and since applied to other professions, postulates three levels of cognitive structures. The third and highest level is a meta-ethical theory of the moral structure of care. Adults who operate with level-III understanding synthesize systems of justice and care-based ethics.
Individual differences
The Empathic Concern scale assesses other-oriented feelings of sympathy and concern and the Personal Distress scale measures self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and unease. Researchers have used behavioral and neuroimaging data to analyze extraversion and agreeableness. Both are associated with empathic accuracy and increased brain activity in two brain regions that are important for empathic processing (medial prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal junction).
Sex differences
On average, females score higher than males on measures of empathy, such as the Empathy Quotient (EQ), while males tend to score higher on the Systemizing Quotient (SQ). Both males and females with autistic spectrum disorders usually score lower on the EQ and higher on SQ (see below for more detail on autism and empathy).
Other studies show no significant sex differences, and instead suggest that gender differences are the result of motivational differences, such as upholding stereotypes. Gender stereotypes about men and women can affect how they express emotions. The sex difference is small to moderate, somewhat inconsistent, and is often influenced by the person’s motivations or social environment. Bosson et al. say “physiological measures of emotion and studies that track people in their daily lives find no consistent sex differences in the experience of emotion”, which “suggests that women may amplify certain emotional expressions, or men may suppress them”.
However, a 2014 review from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews reported that there is evidence that “sex differences in empathy have phylogenetic and ontogenetic roots in biology and are not merely cultural byproducts driven by socialization.” The review found sex differences in empathy from birth, growing larger with age, and consistent and stable across lifespan. Females, on average, had higher empathy than males, while children with higher empathy, regardless of gender, continue to be higher in empathy throughout development. Analysis of brain event-related potentials found that females who saw human suffering tended to have higher ERP waveforms than males. An investigation of N400 amplitudes found, on average, higher N400 in females in response to social situations, which positively correlated with self-reported empathy. Structural fMRI studies also found females to have larger grey matter volumes in posterior inferior frontal and anterior inferior parietal cortex areas which are correlated with mirror neurons in fMRI literature. Females also tended to have a stronger link between emotional and cognitive empathy. The researchers believe that the stability of these sex differences in development are unlikely to be explained by environmental influences but rather by human evolution and inheritance. Throughout prehistory, women were the primary nurturers and caretakers of children; so this might have led to an evolved neurological adaptation for women to be more aware and responsive to non-verbal expressions. According to the “Primary Caretaker Hypothesis”, prehistoric men did not have such selective pressure as primary caretakers. This might explain modern day sex differences in emotion recognition and empathy.
A review published in Neuropsychologia found that females tended to be better at recognizing facial affects, expression processing, and emotions in general. Males tended to be better at recognizing specific behaviors such as anger, aggression, and threatening cues. A 2014 meta-analysis, in Cognition and Emotion, found a small female advantage in non-verbal emotional recognition.
Environmental influences
Some research theorizes that environmental factors, such as parenting style and relationships, affect the development of empathy in children. Empathy promotes pro-social relationships and helps mediate aggression.
Caroline Tisot studied how environmental factors like parenting style, parent empathy, and prior social experiences affect the development of empathy in young children. The children studied were asked to complete an effective empathy measure, while the children’s parents completed a questionnaire to assess parenting style and the Balanced Emotional Empathy scale. The study found that certain parenting practices, as opposed to parenting style as a whole, contributed to the development of empathy in children. These practices include encouraging the child to imagine the perspectives of others and teaching the child to reflect on his or her own feelings. The development of empathy varied based on the gender of the child and parent. Paternal warmth was significantly positively related to empathy in children, especially boys. Maternal warmth was negatively related to empathy in children, especially girls.
Empathy may be disrupted due to brain trauma such as stroke. In most cases, empathy is impaired if a lesion or stroke occurs on the right side of the brain. Damage to the frontal lobe, which is primarily responsible for emotional regulation, can profoundly impact a person’s capacity to experience empathy. People with an acquired brain injury also show lower levels of empathy. More than half of those people with a traumatic brain injury self-report a deficit in their empathic capacity.
There is some evidence that empathy is a skill that one can improve in with training.
Evolution across species
Studies in animal behavior and neuroscience indicate that empathy is not restricted to humans (however the interpretation of such research depends in part on how expansive a definition of empathy researchers adopt).
Empathy-like behaviors have been observed in primates, both in captivity and in the wild, and in particular in bonobos, perhaps the most empathic primate.
One study demonstrated prosocial behavior elicited by empathy in rodents. Rodents demonstrate empathy for cagemates (but not strangers) in pain.
An influential study on the evolution of empathy by Stephanie Preston and Frans de Waal discusses a neural perception-action mechanism and postulates a bottom-up model of empathy that ties together all levels, from state matching to perspective-taking.
University of Chicago neurobiologist Jean Decety agrees that empathy is not exclusive to humans, but that empathy has deep evolutionary, biochemical, and neurological underpinnings, and that even the most advanced forms of empathy in humans are built on more basic forms and remain connected to core mechanisms associated with affective communication, social attachment, and parental care. Neural circuits involved in empathy and caring include the brainstem, the amygdala, hypothalamus, basal ganglia, insula, and orbitofrontal cortex.
Other animals and empathy between species
Researchers Zanna Clay and Frans de Waal studied the socio-emotional development of the bonobo chimpanzee. They focused on the interplay of numerous skills such as empathy-related responding, and how different rearing backgrounds of the juvenile bonobo affected their response to stressful events—events related to themselves (e.g. loss of a fight) as well as stressful events of others. They found that bonobos sought out body contact with one another as a coping mechanism. Bonobos sought out more body contact after watching an event distress other bonobos than after their individually experienced stressful event. Mother-reared bonobos sought out more physical contact than orphaned bonobos after a stressful event happened to another. This finding shows the importance of mother-child attachment and bonding in successful socio-emotional development, such as empathic-like behaviors. De Waal suggests the advantages provided to mothers who understand the needs of their children are the reason empathy evolved in the first place.
Empathic-like behavior has been observed in chimpanzees in different aspects of their natural behaviors. For example, chimpanzees spontaneously contribute comforting behaviors to victims of aggressive behavior in both natural and unnatural settings, a behavior recognized as consolation. Researchers led by Teresa Romero observed these empathic and sympathetic-like behaviors in chimpanzees in two separate outdoor housed groups. Acts of consolation were observed in both groups. This behavior is also found in humans, particularly in human infants. Another similarity found between chimpanzees and humans is that empathic-like responding was disproportionately provided to kin. Although comforting towards non-family chimpanzees was also observed, as with humans, chimpanzees showed the majority of comfort and concern to close/loved ones. Another similarity between chimpanzee and human expression of empathy is that females provided more comfort than males on average. The only exception to this discovery was that high-ranking males showed as much empathy-like behavior as their female counterparts. This is believed to be because of policing-like behavior and the authoritative status of high-ranking male chimpanzees.
Dogs have been hypothesized to share empathic-like responding towards humans. Researchers Custance and Mayer put individual dogs in an enclosure with their owner and a stranger. When the participants were talking or humming, the dog showed no behavioral changes; however when the participants were pretending to cry, the dogs oriented their behavior toward the person in distress whether it be the owner or stranger. The dogs approached the participants when crying in a submissive fashion, by sniffing, licking, and nuzzling the distressed person. The dogs did not approach the participants in the usual form of excitement, tail wagging, or panting. Since the dogs did not direct their empathic-like responses only towards their owner, it is hypothesized that dogs generally seek out humans showing distressing body behavior. Although this could suggest that dogs have the cognitive capacity for empathy, it could also mean that domesticated dogs have learned to comfort distressed humans through generations of being rewarded for that specific behavior.
When witnessing chicks in distress, domesticated hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) show emotional and physiological responding. Researchers found that in conditions where the chick was susceptible to danger, the mother hen’s heart rate increased, she sounded vocal alarms, she decreased her personal preening, and her body temperature increased. This responding happened whether or not the chick felt as if it were in danger. Mother hens experienced stress-induced hyperthermia only when the chick’s behavior correlated with the perceived threat.
Humans can empathize with other species. One study of a sample of organisms showed that the strength of human empathic perceptions (and compassionate reactions) toward an organism is negatively correlated with how long ago our species’ had a common ancestor. In other words, the more phylogenetically close a species is to us, the more likely we are to feel empathy and compassion towards it.
Genetics
Measures of empathy show evidence of being genetically influenced. For example, carriers of the deletion variant of ADRA2B show more activation of the amygdala when viewing emotionally arousing images. The gene 5-HTTLPR seems to influence sensitivity to negative emotional information and is also attenuated by the deletion variant of ADRA2b. Carriers of the double G variant of the OXTR gene have better social skills and higher self-esteem. A gene located near LRRN1 on chromosome 3 influences the human ability to read, understand, and respond to emotions in others.
Neuroscientific basis of empathy
Contemporary neuroscience offers insights into the neural basis of the mind’s ability to understand and process emotion. Studies of mirror neurons attempt to measure the neural basis for human mind-reading and emotion-sharing abilities and thereby to explain the basis of the empathy reaction. People who score high on empathy tests have especially busy mirror neuron systems. Empathy is a spontaneous sharing of affect, provoked by witnessing and sympathizing with another’s emotional state. The empathic person mirrors or mimics the emotional response they would expect to feel if they were in the other person’s place. Unlike personal distress, empathy is not characterized by aversion to another’s emotional response. This distinction is vital because empathy is associated with the moral emotion sympathy, or empathic concern, and consequently also prosocial or altruistic action.
Empathy involves two interconnected elements: cognitive empathy, which is understanding or recognising the emotions another person is experiencing, and affective empathy, which refers to actually feeling or sharing those emotions yourself. For social beings, negotiating interpersonal decisions is as important to survival as being able to navigate the physical landscape.
Meta-analysis of fMRI studies of empathy confirms that different brain areas are activated during affective-perceptual empathy than during cognitive-evaluative empathy. Affective empathy is correlated with increased activity in the insula while cognitive empathy is correlated with activity in the mid cingulate cortex and adjacent dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. A study with patients who experienced different types of brain damage confirmed the distinction between emotional and cognitive empathy. Specifically, the inferior frontal gyrus appears to be responsible for emotional empathy, and the ventromedial prefrontal gyrus seems to mediate cognitive empathy.
fMRI has been employed to investigate the functional anatomy of empathy. Observing another person’s emotional state activates parts of the neuronal network that are involved in processing that same state in oneself, whether it is disgust, touch, or pain. As these emotional states are being observed, the brain is able activate a network of the brain that is involved in empathy. There are two separate systems of the brain involved with the feeling of empathy: a cognitive system and an emotional system. The cognitive system helps an individual understand another’s perspective while the emotional system enables our ability to empathize emotionally. The neuronal network that is activated controls the observers response to these emotional states thus prompting an empathetic response.
The study of the neural underpinnings of empathy received increased interest following a paper published by S.D. Preston and Frans de Waal after the discovery of mirror neurons in monkeys that fire both when the creature watches another perform an action and when they themselves perform it. Researchers suggest that paying attention to perceiving another individual’s state activates neural representations, and that this activation primes or generates the associated autonomic and somatic responses (perception-action coupling), unless inhibited. This mechanism resembles the common coding theory between perception and action.
Another study provides evidence of separate neural pathways activating reciprocal suppression in different regions of the brain associated with the performance of “social” and “mechanical” tasks. These findings suggest that the cognition associated with reasoning about the “state of another person’s mind” and “causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects” are neurally suppressed from occurring at the same time.
Mirroring-behavior in motor neurons during empathy may help duplicate feelings. Such sympathetic action may afford access to sympathetic feelings and, perhaps, trigger emotions of kindness and forgiveness.
Impairment
A difference in distribution between affective and cognitive empathy has been observed in various conditions. Psychopathy and narcissism are associated with impairments in affective but not cognitive empathy, whereas bipolar disorder is associated with deficits in cognitive but not affective empathy. People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may suffer from impairments in cognitive empathy as well as fluctuating affective empathy, although this topic is controversial. Schizophrenia, too, is associated with deficits in both types of empathy. However, even in people without conditions such as these, the balance between affective and cognitive empathy varies.
Atypical empathic responses are associated with some personality disorders such as psychopathy, borderline, narcissistic, and schizoid personality disorders; conduct disorder; schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; and depersonalization. Sex offenders who had been raised in an environment where they were shown a lack of empathy and had endured abuse of the sort they later committed, felt less affective empathy for their victims.
Autism and controversy
The subject of whether autism affects empathy is a controversial and complex area of study. Several different factors are proposed to be at play, such as mirror neurons, alexithymia, and more. The double empathy problem theory proposes that prior studies on autism and empathy may have been misinterpreted and that autistic people show the same levels of empathy towards one another as non-autistic people do.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is often correlated to problems with empathy and social communication skills. However, like ASD itself, these issues are often found to be on a spectrum. The suggestion that people with autism are likely to have issues with personal relationships and empathy is a complex issue that has been addressed in many studies. Various research has been exploring these concepts for more than twenty years.
Certain studies, like this one from 2004 found connections between ASD and empathy issues. Another study found that empathy problems may be associated to the comorbidity of alexithymia (a struggle to feel emotions) and ASD. However, a more recent study from 2022 found that there were, in fact, no significant differences between the brain sections (medial prefrontal cortex and amygdala) that are associated with empathy.
Another study (2023) focusing on ASD and empathy with regards to mirror neurons also reflected on the theory that mirror neurons “may be dysfunctional in ASD.” However, as the researchers state, this connection is not clear and although mirror neurons are correlated to ASD, there is no proven causational relationship between dysfunctional mirror neurons and ASD. The study from 2023 might be considered contradictory to an earlier (2006) study on mirror neurons that found that high-functioning autistic children showed reduced mirror neuron activity in the brain’s inferior frontal gyrus while imitating and observing emotional expressions in other children who were considered non-autistic.
The correlation between ASD and empathy is a focus for researchers and many relevant articles can be found in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Psychopathy
Psychopathy is a personality construct partly characterized by antisocial and aggressive behaviors, as well as emotional and interpersonal deficits including shallow emotions and a lack of remorse and empathy. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) list antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder, stating that these have been referred to as or include what is referred to as psychopathy.
Psychopathy is associated with atypical responses to distress cues (e.g. facial and vocal expressions of fear and sadness), including decreased activation of the fusiform and extrastriate cortical regions, which may partly account for impaired recognition of and reduced autonomic responsiveness to expressions of fear, and impairments of empathy. Studies on children with psychopathic tendencies have also shown such associations. The underlying biological surfaces for processing expressions of happiness are functionally intact in psychopaths, although less responsive than in those of controls. The neuroimaging literature is unclear as to whether deficits are specific to particular emotions such as fear. Some fMRI studies report that emotion perception deficits in psychopathy are pervasive across emotions (positives and negatives).
One study on psychopaths found that, under certain circumstances, they could willfully empathize with others, and that their empathic reaction initiated the same way it does for controls. Psychopathic criminals were brain-scanned while watching videos of a person harming another individual. The psychopaths’ empathic reaction initiated the same way it did for controls when they were instructed to empathize with the harmed individual, and the area of the brain relating to pain was activated when the psychopaths were asked to imagine how the harmed individual felt. The research suggests psychopaths can switch empathy on at will, which would enable them to be both callous and charming. The team who conducted the study say they do not know how to transform this willful empathy into the spontaneous empathy most people have, though they propose it might be possible to rehabilitate psychopaths by helping them to activate their “empathy switch”. Others suggested that it remains unclear whether psychopaths’ experience of empathy was the same as that of controls, and also questioned the possibility of devising therapeutic interventions that would make the empathic reactions more automatic.
One problem with the theory that the ability to turn empathy on and off constitutes psychopathy is that such a theory would classify socially sanctioned violence and punishment as psychopathy, as these entail suspending empathy towards certain individuals and/or groups. The attempt to get around this by standardizing tests of psychopathy for cultures with different norms of punishment is criticized in this context for being based on the assumption that people can be classified in discrete cultures while cultural influences are in reality mixed and every person encounters a mosaic of influences. Psychopathy may be an artefact of psychiatry’s standardization along imaginary sharp lines between cultures, as opposed to an actual difference in the brain.
Work conducted by Professor Jean Decety with large samples of incarcerated psychopaths offers additional insights. In one study, psychopaths were scanned while viewing video clips depicting people being intentionally hurt. They were also tested on their responses to seeing short videos of facial expressions of pain. The participants in the high-psychopathy group exhibited significantly less activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and periaqueductal gray parts of the brain, but more activity in the striatum and the insula when compared to control participants. In a second study, individuals with psychopathy exhibited a strong response in pain-affective brain regions when taking an imagine-self perspective, but failed to recruit the neural circuits that were activated in controls during an imagine-other perspective—in particular the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala—which may contribute to their lack of empathic concern.
Researchers have investigated whether people who have high levels of psychopathy have sufficient levels of cognitive empathy but lack the ability to use affective empathy. People who score highly on psychopathy measures are less likely to exhibit affective empathy. There was a strong negative correlation, showing that psychopathy and lack of affective empathy correspond strongly. The DANVA-2 found those who scored highly on the psychopathy scale do not lack in recognising emotion in facial expressions. Therefore, such individuals do not lack in perspective-talking ability but do lack in compassion regarding the experiences of others.
Neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio and his colleagues showed that subjects with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex lack the ability to empathically feel their way to moral answers, and that when confronted with moral dilemmas, these brain-damaged patients coldly came up with “end-justifies-the-means” answers, leading Damasio to conclude that the point was not that they reached immoral conclusions, but that when they were confronted by a difficult issue – in this case as whether to shoot down a passenger plane hijacked by terrorists before it hits a major city – these patients appear to reach decisions without the anguish that afflicts those with normally functioning brains. According to Adrian Raine, a clinical neuroscientist also at the University of Southern California, one of this study’s implications is that society may have to rethink how it judges immoral people: “Psychopaths often feel no empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of accountability?”
Despite studies suggesting psychopaths have deficits in emotion perception and imagining others in pain, professor Simon Baron-Cohen claims psychopathy is associated with intact cognitive empathy, which would imply an intact ability to read and respond to behaviors, social cues, and what others are feeling. Psychopathy is, however, associated with impairment in the other major component of empathy—affective (emotional) empathy—which includes the ability to feel the suffering and emotions of others (emotional contagion), and those with the condition are therefore not distressed by the suffering of their victims. Such a dissociation of affective and cognitive empathy has been demonstrated for aggressive offenders.
Other conditions
Atypical empathic responses are also correlated with a variety of other conditions.
Borderline personality disorder is characterized by extensive behavioral and interpersonal difficulties that arise from emotional and cognitive dysfunction. Dysfunctional social and interpersonal behavior plays a role in the emotionally intense way people with borderline personality disorder react. While individuals with borderline personality disorder may show their emotions excessively, their ability to feel empathy is a topic of much dispute with contradictory findings. Some studies assert impairments in cognitive empathy in BPD patients yet no affective empathy impairments, while other studies have found impairments in both affective and cognitive empathy. Fluctuating empathy, fluctuating between normal range of empathy, reduced sense of empathy, and a lack of empathy has been noted to be present in BPD patients in multiple studies, although more research is needed to determine its prevalence, although it is believed to be at least not uncommon and may be a very common phenomenon. BPD is a very heterogenous disorder, with symptoms including empathy ranging wildly between patients.
One diagnostic criterion of narcissistic personality disorder is a lack of empathy and an unwillingness or inability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
Characteristics of schizoid personality disorder include emotional coldness, detachment, and impaired affect corresponding with an inability to be empathic and sensitive towards others.
A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder demonstrate atypical empathic responses when viewing others in pain. Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others but, unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.
Schizophrenia is characterized by impaired affective empathy, as well as severe cognitive and empathy impairments as measured by the Empathy Quotient (EQ). These empathy impairments are also associated with impairments in social cognitive tasks.
Bipolar individuals have impaired cognitive empathy and theory of mind, but increased affective empathy. Despite cognitive flexibility being impaired, planning behavior is intact. Dysfunctions in the prefrontal cortex could result in the impaired cognitive empathy, since impaired cognitive empathy has been related with neurocognitive task performance involving cognitive flexibility.
Dave Grossman, in his book On Killing, reports on how military training artificially creates depersonalization in soldiers, suppressing empathy and making it easier for them to kill other people.
A deadening of empathic response to workmates, customers and the like is one of the three key components of occupational burnout, according to the conceptualization behind its primary diagnostic instrument, the Maslach Burnout Inventory.
The term Empathy Deficit Disorder (EDD) has gained popularity online, but it is not a diagnosis under the DSM-5. The term was coined in an article by Douglas LaBier. In the article, he acknowledges that he “made it up, so you won’t find it listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” and that his conclusions are derived from personal experience alone. His conclusions have not been validated through clinical studies, nor have studies identified EDD as a separate disorder rather than a symptom associated with previously established diagnoses that do appear in the DSM-5.
Effects
The capacity to empathize is a revered trait in society. Empathy is considered a motivating factor for unselfish, prosocial behavior, whereas a lack of empathy is related to antisocial behavior.
Apart from the automatic tendency to recognize the emotions of others, one may also deliberately engage in empathic reasoning. Such empathic engagement helps an individual understand and anticipate the behavior of another. Two general methods have been identified: An individual may mentally simulate fictitious versions of the beliefs, desires, character traits, and context of another individual to see what emotional feelings this provokes. Or, an individual may simulate an emotional feeling and then analyze the environment to discover a suitable reason for the emotional feeling to be appropriate for that specific environment.
An empathizer’s emotional background may affect or distort how they perceive the emotions in others. Societies that promote individualism have lower ability for empathy. The judgments that empathy provides about the emotional states of others are not certain ones. Empathy is a skill that gradually develops throughout life, and which improves the more contact we have with the person with whom one empathizes.
Empathizers report finding it easier to take the perspective of another person in a situation when they have experienced a similar situation, and that they experience greater empathic understanding. Research regarding whether similar past experience makes the empathizer more accurate is mixed.
The extent to which a person’s emotions are publicly observable, or mutually recognized as such has significant social consequences. Empathic recognition may or may not be welcomed or socially desirable. This is particularly the case when we recognize the emotions that someone has towards us during real time interactions. Based on a metaphorical affinity with touch, philosopher Edith Wyschogrod claims that the proximity entailed by empathy increases the potential vulnerability of either party.
Benefits of empathizing
People who score more highly on empathy questionnaires also report having more positive relationships with other people. Supporting this, a 2017 study measuring dispositional empathy with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) found that individuals with higher empathic concern report having a greater number of close relationships. They report “greater life satisfaction, more positive affect, less negative affect, and less depressive symptoms than people who had lower empathy scores”.
Children who exhibit more empathy also have more resilience. Research by Allemand, Steiger, and Fend (2015) support this by showing many benefits that come with the early development of empathy in adolescence. The main findings of the research indicate that early development of empathy in adolescence will help “predict social competencies in adulthood.” In other words, their future ability to work well in groups, build relationships, and communicate effectively. Others include the development of social skills, cooperation, and positive relations in life, which further proves the benefit of Empathy.
Empathy can be an aesthetic pleasure, “by widening the scope of that which we experience… by providing us with more than one perspective of a situation, thereby multiplying our experience… and… by intensifying that experience.” People can use empathy to borrow joy from the joy of children discovering things or playing make-believe, or to satisfy our curiosity about other people’s lives.
Empathic inaccuracy and empathic bias
People can severely overestimate how much they understand others. When people empathize with another, they may oversimplify that other person in order to make them more legible. It may improve empathic accuracy for the empathizer to explicitly ask the person empathized with for confirmation of the empathic hypothesis. However, people may be reluctant to abandon their empathic hypotheses even when they are explicitly denied.
When people empathize with others, they may oversimplify them to make them easier to understand. This can lead to misperceiving how cohesive others are and to feeling, by comparison, that they themselves lack a strong, unified self. Fritz Breithaupt calls this the “empathic endowment effect”. Because the empathic person must temporarily dampen their own sense of self in order to empathize with the other, and because the other seems to have a magnified and extra-cohesive sense of self, the empathic person may suffer from this and may “project onto others the self that they are lacking” and envy “that which they must give up in order to be able to feel empathy: a strong self”.
Some research suggests that people are more able and willing to empathize with those most similar to themselves. In particular, empathy increases with similarities in culture and living conditions. Empathy is more likely to occur between individuals whose interaction is more frequent. A measure of how well a person can infer the specific content of another person’s thoughts and feelings was developed by William Ickes. In one experiment, researchers gave two groups of men wristbands according to which football team they supported. Each participant received a mild electric shock, then watched another go through the same pain. When the wristbands matched, both brains flared with pain, and empathic pain. If they supported opposing teams, the observer was found to have little empathy.
Disadvantages of empathy
Psychologist Paul Bloom, author of Against Empathy, points out that empathic bias can result in tribalism and violent responses in the name of helping people of the same “tribe” or social group, for example when empathic bias is exploited by demagogues. He proposes “rational compassion” as an alternative; one example is using effective altruism to decide on charitable donations rationally, rather than by relying on emotional responses to images in the media.
Higher empathy tends to reduce the accuracy of deception detection, and emotion recognition training does not improve deception detection.
Empathy can also be exploited by sympathetic beggars. Bloom points to the example of street children in India, who can get many donations because they are adorable but this results in their enslavement by organized crime. Bloom says that though someone might feel better about themselves and find more meaning in life than they give to the person in front of them, in some cases they would do less harm and in many cases do more good in the world by giving to an effective charity through an impersonal website. Bloom believes improper use of empathy and social intelligence can lead to shortsighted actions and parochialism.
Bloom points out that parents who have too much short-term empathy might create long-term problems for their children, by neglecting discipline, helicopter parenting, or deciding not to get their children vaccinated because of the short-term discomfort. People experiencing too much empathy after a disaster may continue to send donations like canned goods or used clothing even after being asked to stop or to send cash instead, and this can make the situation worse by creating the need to dispose of useless donations and taking resources away from helpful activities. Bloom also finds empathy can encourage unethical behavior when it causes people to care more about attractive people than ugly people, or people of one’s own race vs. people of a different race. The attractiveness bias can also affect wildlife conservation efforts, increasing the amount of money devoted and laws passed to protect cute and photogenic animals, while taking attention away from species that are more ecologically important.
Manipulation and Instrumental Use
While empathy is generally associated with prosocial behavior, scholars have noted that it can be manipulated or used disingenuously. This form of strategic or performative empathy, sometimes colloquially referred to as “fake empathy,” can be employed to gain trust, manage impressions, or influence others emotionally without genuine concern for their well-being. Though not widely used in academic literature, the idea overlaps with the concept of instrumental empathy, in which empathic expressions are used to achieve non-empathic goals, such as persuasion, manipulation, or social control.
Additionally, excessive empathic engagement can lead to emotional exhaustion or empathic distress fatigue, particularly in caregiving professions. This form of burnout can impair moral judgment, reduce caregiving effectiveness, and contribute to depersonalization.
Selective empathy—when emotional concern is reserved for in-group members—has been linked to in-group favoritism and out-group dehumanization, particularly in political or wartime contexts. Paul Bloom and others have argued that such biased empathy may exacerbate social division and lead to ethically problematic decisions, suggesting that rational compassion may offer a more consistent moral framework.
Empathy and power
People tend to empathize less when they have more social or political power. For example, people from lower-class backgrounds exhibit better empathic accuracy than those from upper-class backgrounds. In a variety of “priming” experiments, people who were asked to recall a situation in which they had power over someone else then demonstrated reduced ability to mirror others, to comprehend their viewpoints, or to learn from their perspectives.
Empathy and violence
Bloom says that although psychopaths have low empathy, the correlation between low empathy and violent behavior as documented in scientific studies is “zero”. Other measures are much more predictive of violent behavior, such as lack of self-control.
Compassion fatigue
Excessive empathy can lead to “empathic distress fatigue”, especially if it is associated with pathological altruism. The medical risks are fatigue, occupational burnout, guilt, shame, anxiety, and depression. Tania Singer says that health care workers and caregivers must be objective regarding the emotions of others. They should not over-invest their own emotions in the other, at the risk of draining away their own resourcefulness. Paul Bloom points out that high-empathy nurses tend to spend less time with their patients, to avoid feeling negative emotions associated with witnessing suffering.
Empathy backfire
Despite empathy being often portrayed as a positive attribute, whether or not the people who express empathy are viewed favorably depends on who they show empathy for. Such is the case in which a third party observes a subject showing empathy for someone of questionable character or generally viewed as unethical; that third party might not like or respect the subject for it. This is called “empathy backfire”.
Influence on helping behavior
Investigators into the social response to natural disasters researched the characteristics associated with individuals who help victims. Researchers found that cognitive empathy, rather than emotional empathy, predicted helping behavior towards victims. Taking on the perspectives of others (cognitive empathy) may allow these helpers to better empathize with victims without as much discomfort, whereas sharing the emotions of the victims (emotional empathy) can cause emotional distress, helplessness, and victim-blaming, and may lead to avoidance rather than helping.
Individuals who expressed concern for the vulnerable (i.e. affective empathy) were more willing to accept the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown measures that create distress.
People who understand how empathic feelings evoke altruistic motivation may adopt strategies for suppressing or avoiding such feelings. Such numbing, or loss of the capacity to feel empathy for clients, is a possible factor in the experience of burnout among case workers in helping professions. People can better cognitively control their actions the more they understand how altruistic behavior emerges, whether it is from minimizing sadness or the arousal of mirror neurons.
Empathy-induced altruism may not always produce pro-social effects. For example, it could lead one to exert oneself on behalf of those for whom empathy is felt at the expense of other potential pro-social goals, thus inducing a type of bias. Researchers suggest that individuals are willing to act against the greater collective good or to violate their own moral principles of fairness and justice if doing so will benefit a person for whom empathy is felt.
Empathy-based socialization differs from inhibition of egoistic impulses through shaping, modeling, and internalized guilt. Therapeutic programs to foster altruistic impulses by encouraging perspective-taking and empathic feelings might enable individuals to develop more satisfactory interpersonal relations, especially in the long-term. Empathy-induced altruism can improve attitudes toward stigmatized groups, racial attitudes, and actions toward people with AIDS, the homeless, and convicts. Such resulting altruism also increases cooperation in competitive situations.
Empathy is good at prompting prosocial behaviors that are informal, unplanned, and directed at someone who is immediately present, but is not as good at prompting more abstractly-considered, long-term prosocial behavior.
Empathy can not only be a precursor to one’s own helpful acts, but can also be a way of inviting help from others. If you mimic the posture, facial expressions, and vocal style of someone you are with, you can thereby encourage them to help you and to form a favorable opinion of you.
Conflict Resolution
Empathy plays a crucial role in resolving conflicts by shifting the focus to understanding the other person’s viewpoint, preventing miscommunication, and taking away biases. Being able to understand the other party’s side of the argument gives them a different idea of what is creating the conflict. This helps in communicating the problem in a way that will take away any biases and allow for collaboration that will help resolve the conflict. While empathy can play an effective role in conflict resolution, there are situations where it may not have a significant impact.
While empathy can foster understanding and aid in resolving conflicts, some scholars argue that its effects are context-dependent and not universally positive. Empathy is not inherently moral and can be directed disproportionately toward in-groups, sometimes leading to empathic bias that exacerbates intergroup tensions. This phenomenon, often referred to as empathic tribalism, can intensify hostility toward perceived out-groups and be manipulated in political or nationalistic rhetoric. For example, empathy for the suffering of one’s own group has historically been used to justify retaliatory aggression or military interventions.
Moreover, in conflict or wartime settings, empathy may be selectively disengaged, allowing individuals to maintain moral self-regard while endorsing or participating in violence against others. This process, known as moral disengagement, creates psychological distance from the suffering of out-groups while reinforcing loyalty to in-group members. These critiques suggest that while empathy plays a critical role in many conflict-resolution contexts, it is not a universal good and may, under certain conditions, contribute to moral bias, polarization, or even the justification of violence. Scholars such as Paul Bloom have argued for a more measured or rational approach to compassion that avoids the pitfalls of emotionally biased empathy.
Empathic anger and distress
Anger
Empathic anger is an emotion, a form of empathic distress. Empathic anger is felt in a situation where someone else is being hurt by another person or thing.
Empathic anger affects desires to help and to punish. Two sub-categories of empathic anger are state empathic anger (current empathic anger) and trait empathic anger (tendency or predisposition to experience empathic anger).
The higher a person’s perspective-taking ability, the less angry they are in response to a provocation. Empathic concern does not, however, significantly predict anger response, and higher personal distress is associated with increased anger.
Distress
Empathic distress is feeling the perceived pain of another person. This feeling can be transformed into empathic anger, feelings of injustice, or guilt. These emotions can be perceived as pro-social; however, views differ as to whether they serve as motives for moral behavior.
Stoic philosophers believed that to condition your emotional disposition on the emotions or fortunes of someone else is foolish. Cicero said that someone who feels distress at another’s misfortune is committing as much of an error as an envious person who feels distress at another’s good fortune.
Disciplinary approaches
Philosophy
Ethics
In the 2007 book The Ethics of Care and Empathy, philosopher Michael Slote introduces a theory of care-based ethics that is grounded in empathy. He claims that moral motivation does, and should, stem from a basis of empathic response, and that our natural reaction to situations of moral significance are explained by empathy. He explains that the limits and obligations of empathy, and in turn morality, are natural. These natural obligations include a greater empathic and moral obligation to family and friends and to those close to us in time and space. Our moral obligation to such people seems naturally stronger to us than that to strangers at a distance. Slote explains that this is due to the natural process of empathy. He asserts that actions are wrong if and only if they reflect or exhibit a deficiency of fully developed empathic concern for others on the part of the agent. In a 2011 article, philosopher Michael Slote delves deeply into how empathy plays a role in moral judgment, suggesting that our ability to understand and determine right from wrong is influenced by empathy. He further stated that being able to empathize with others helps us stay away from behaviors that some deem to be unreasonable or heartless, which can happen because of a lack of empathy.
Phenomenology
In phenomenology, empathy describes the experience of something from the other’s viewpoint, without confusion between self and other. This is based on the concept of agency. In the most basic sense, phenomenology is the experience of the other’s body as “my body over there.” In most other respects, however, it is an experience viewed through the person’s own eyes; in experiencing empathy, what is experienced is not “my” experience, even though I experience it. Empathy is also considered to be the condition of intersubjectivity and, as such, the source of the constitution of objectivity.
History
Some postmodernist historians such as Keith Jenkins have debated whether or not it is possible to empathize with people from the past. Jenkins argues that empathy only enjoys such a privileged position in the present because it corresponds harmoniously with the dominant liberal discourse of modern society and can be connected to John Stuart Mill’s concept of reciprocal freedom. Jenkins argues the past is a foreign country and as we do not have access to the epistemological conditions of bygone ages we are unable to empathize with those who lived then.
Psychotherapy
Heinz Kohut introduced the principle of empathy in psychoanalysis. His principle applies to the method of gathering unconscious material.
Business and management
Because empathy seems to have potential to improve customer relations, employee morale, and personnel management capability, it has been studied in a business context.
In the 2009 book Wired to Care, strategy consultant Dev Patnaik argues that a major flaw in contemporary business practice is a lack of empathy inside large corporations. He states that without empathy people inside companies struggle to make intuitive decisions, and often get fooled into believing they understand their business if they have quantitative research to rely upon. He says that companies can create a sense of empathy for customers, pointing to Nike, Harley-Davidson, and IBM as examples of “Open Empathy Organizations”. Such companies, he claims, see new opportunities more quickly than competitors, adapt to change more easily, and create workplaces that offer employees a greater sense of mission in their jobs.
In the 2011 book The Empathy Factor, organizational consultant Marie Miyashiro similarly argues for bringing empathy to the workplace, and suggests Nonviolent Communication as an effective mechanism for achieving this.
In studies by the Management Research Group, empathy was found to be the strongest predictor of ethical leadership behavior out of 22 competencies in its management model, and empathy was one of the three strongest predictors of senior executive effectiveness. The leadership consulting firm Development Dimensions International found in 2016 that 20% of U.S. employers offered empathy training to managers. A study by the Center for Creative Leadership found empathy to be positively correlated to job performance among employees as well.
Patricia Moore pioneered using empathic techniques to better understand customers. For example, she used makeup and prosthetics to simulate the experience of elderly people, and used the insights from this to inspire friendlier products for that customer segment. Design engineers at Ford Motor Company wore prosthetics to simulate pregnancy and old age, to help them design cars that would work better for such customers. Fidelity Investments trains its telephone customer service employees in a virtual reality app that puts them in a (dramatized) customer’s home so they can experience what it is like to be on the other side of their conversations.
Evolution of cooperation
Empathic perspective-taking plays important roles in sustaining cooperation in human societies, as studied by evolutionary game theory. In game theoretical models, indirect reciprocity refers to the mechanism of cooperation based on moral reputations that are assigned to individuals based on their perceived adherence a set of moral rules called social norms. It has been shown that if reputations are relative and individuals disagree on the moral standing of others (for example, because they use different moral evaluation rules or make errors of judgement), then cooperation will not be sustained. However, when individuals have the capacity for empathic perspective-taking, altruistic behavior can once again evolve. Moreover, evolutionary models also revealed that empathic perspective-taking itself can evolve, promoting prosocial behavior in human populations.
In educational contexts
Another growing focus of investigation is how empathy manifests in education between teachers and learners. Research shows that empathy is important in developing classroom dynamics, fostering student engagement, and enhancing academic outcomes. In 2022, a systematic review of empathy’s effectiveness in teaching shows that empathetic teacher-student relationships can result in a positive learning environment. Also, a study at Stanford University found that when a teacher applies active listening and emotional awareness approaches, it can lead to a significant (50%) decrease in suspension rates. It also shows empathy’s ability to lessen discipline issues and create desirable academic outcomes.
Despite the positive outcomes, The Philosophy of Empathy emphasizes that empathy is deeply connected to morality, which helps us understand that developing empathy in teachers is challenging. Learning by teaching is one method used to teach empathy. Research also found that it is difficult to develop empathy in trainee teachers. Learning by teaching is one method used to teach empathy. Students transmit new content to their classmates, so they have to reflect continuously on those classmates’ mental processes. This develops the students’ feeling for group reactions and networking. Carl R. Rogers pioneered research in effective psychotherapy and teaching which espoused that empathy coupled with unconditional positive regard or caring for students and authenticity or congruence were the most important traits for a therapist or teacher to have. Other research and meta-analyses corroborated the importance of these person-centered traits.
Within medical education, a hidden curriculum appears to dampen or even reduce medical student empathy.
In intercultural contexts
According to one theory, empathy is one of seven components involved in the effectiveness of intercultural communication. This theory also states that empathy is learnable. However, research also shows that people experience more difficulty empathizing with others who are different from them in characteristics such as status, culture, religion, language, skin colour, gender, and age.
To build intercultural empathy in others, psychologists employ empathy training. Researchers William Weeks, Paul Pedersen, et al. state that people who develop intercultural empathy can interpret experiences or perspectives from more than one worldview. Intercultural empathy can also improve self-awareness and critical awareness of one’s own interaction style as conditioned by one’s cultural views and promote a view of self-as-process.
In fiction
“The greatest benefits we owe to the artist, whether painter, poet, or novelist, is the extension of our sympathies. Appeals founded on generalizations and statistics require a sympathy ready-made, a moral sentiment already in activity; but a picture of human life such as a great artist can give, surprises even the trivial and the selfish into that attention to what is apart from themselves, which may be called the raw material of moral sentiment.… Art is the nearest thing to life; it is a mode of amplifying experience and extending our contact with our fellow-men beyond the bounds of our personal lot.”
— George Eliot
Lynn Hunt argued in Inventing Human Rights: A History that the concept of human rights developed how it did and when it did in part as a result of the influence of mid-eighteenth-century European novelists, particularly those whose use of the epistolatory novel form gave readers a more vivid sense that they were gaining access to the candid details of a real life. “The epistolatory novel did not just reflect important cultural and social changes of the time. Novel reading actually helped create new kinds of feelings including a recognition of shared psychological experiences, and these feelings then translated into new cultural and social movements including human rights.”
The power of empathy has become a frequent ability in fiction, specifically in that of superhero media. “Empaths” have the ability to sense/feel the emotions and bodily sensations of others and, in some cases, influence or control them. Although sometimes a specific power held by specific characters such as the Marvel Comics character Empath, the power has also been frequently linked to that of telepathy such as in the case of Jean Grey.
The rebooted television series Charmed portrays the character Maggie Vera as a witch with the power of empathy. Her powers later expand to allow her to control the emotions of others as well as occasionally concentrate emotion into pure energy. In season four she learns to replicate people’s powers by empathically understanding them.
In the 2013 NBC television show reinterpretation of Hannibal we are introduced in the first episode to Will Graham. Graham is unique in that he seems to have exceptionally high levels of both cognitive and emotional empathy, combined with an eidetic memory and imagination. These abilities help him understand the motives of some of the most depraved killers. Hannibal Lecter calls his ability “pure empathy”. Graham can assume the viewpoint of virtually anyone he meets, even viewpoints that sicken him. When evaluating a crime scene, he uses his imagination and empathy to almost become the killer, feeling what they were feeling during a murder.
Empathy is a Skill in the 2019 game Disco Elysium. It passively reveals what other characters are feeling.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Empathy, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250611
Zion National Park is a national park of the United States located in southwestern Utah near the town of Springdale. Located at the junction of the Colorado Plateau, Great Basin, and Mojave Desert regions, the park has a unique geography and a variety of life zones that allow for unusual plant and animal diversity. Numerous plant species as well as 289 species of birds, 75 mammals (including 19 species of bat), and 32 reptiles inhabit the park’s four life zones: desert, riparian, woodland, and coniferous forest. Zion National Park includes mountains, canyons, buttes, mesas, monoliths, rivers, slot canyons, and natural arches. The lowest point in the park is 3,666 ft (1,117 m) at Coalpits Wash and the highest peak is 8,726 ft (2,660 m) at Horse Ranch Mountain. A prominent feature of the 229-square-mile (590 km2) park is Zion Canyon, which is 15 miles (24 km) long and up to 2,640 ft (800 m) deep. The canyon walls are reddish and tan-colored Navajo Sandstone eroded by the North Fork of the Virgin River. The park attracted 5 million visitors in 2023.
Human habitation of the area started about 8,000 years ago with small family groups of Native Americans, one of which was the semi-nomadic Basketmaker Ancestral Puebloans (who used to be called Anasazi by early non-indigenous archeologists) (c. 300 CE). Subsequently, what has been called the Virgin Anasazi culture (c. 500) and the Parowan Fremont group developed as the Basketmakers settled in permanent communities. Both groups moved away by 1300 and were replaced by the Parrusits and several other Southern Paiute subtribes. Mormons came into the area in 1858 and settled there in the early 1860s.
Name change
In 1909, President William Howard Taft named the area Mukuntuweap National Monument in order to protect the canyon. In 1918, the acting director of the newly created National Park Service, Horace Albright, drafted a proposal to enlarge the existing monument and change the park’s name to Zion National Monument, Zion being a term used by the Mormons. According to historian Hal Rothman: “The name change played to a prevalent bias of the time. Many believed that Spanish and Indian names would deter visitors who, if they could not pronounce the name of a place, might not bother to visit it. The new name, Zion, had greater appeal to an ethnocentric audience.” On November 19, 1919, Congress redesignated the monument as Zion National Park, and the act was signed by President Woodrow Wilson. The Kolob section was proclaimed a separate Zion National Monument in 1937, but was incorporated into the national park in 1956. Congress designated 85% of the park a wilderness area in 2009.
The geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area includes nine formations that together represent 150 million years of mostly Mesozoic-aged sedimentation. At various periods in that time warm, shallow seas, streams, ponds and lakes, vast deserts, and dry near-shore environments covered the area. Uplift associated with the creation of the Colorado Plateau lifted the region 10,000 feet (3,000 m) starting 13 million years ago.
Park purpose
As stated in the foundation document:
The purpose of Zion National Park is to preserve the dramatic geology including Zion Canyon and a labyrinth of deep and brilliantly colored Navajo sandstone canyons formed by extraordinary processes of erosion at the margin of the Colorado Plateau; to safeguard the park’s wilderness character and its wild and scenic river values; to protect evidence of human history; and to provide for scientific research and the enjoyment and enlightenment of the public.
Geography
The park is located in southwestern Utah mostly in unincorporated areas in Washington, Iron, and Kane counties. The territory of Springdale extends into the park.
Geomorphically, it is located on the Markagunt and Kolob plateaus, at the intersection of three North American geographic provinces: the Colorado Plateau, the Great Basin, and the Mojave Desert. The northern part of the park is known as the Kolob Canyons section and is accessible from Interstate 15, exit 40.
The 8,726-foot (2,660 m) summit of Horse Ranch Mountain is the highest point in the park; the lowest point is the 3,666-foot (1,117 m) elevation of Coal Pits Wash, creating a relief of about 5,100 feet (1,600 m).
Streams in the area take rectangular paths because they follow jointing planes in the rocks. The stream gradient of the Virgin River, whose North Fork flows through Zion Canyon in the park, ranges from 50 to 80 feet per mile (9.5 to 15.2 m/km) (0.9–1.5%)—one of the steepest stream gradients in North America.
The road into Zion Canyon is 6 miles (9.7 km) long, ending at the Temple of Sinawava, which is named for the coyote god of the Paiute Indians. The canyon becomes more narrow near the Temple and a hiking trail continues to the mouth of The Narrows, a gorge only 20 feet (6 m) wide and up to 2,000 feet (610 m) tall. The Zion Canyon road is served by a free shuttle bus from early April to late October and by private vehicles the other months of the year. Other roads in Zion are open to private vehicles year-round.
The east side of the park is served by Zion – Mount Carmel Highway (SR-9), which passes through the Zion – Mount Carmel Tunnel and ends at US 89 at Mount Carmel Junction. Park features on the east side of the park include Checkerboard Mesa and The East Temple.
The Kolob Terrace area, northwest of Zion Canyon, features a slot canyon called The Subway, and a panoramic view of the entire area from Lava Point. The Kolob Canyons section, further to the northwest near Cedar City, features Tucupit Point and one of the world’s longest natural arches, Kolob Arch.
Other notable geographic features of Zion Canyon include Angels Landing, The Great White Throne, the Court of the Patriarchs, The Sentinel, The West Temple, Towers of the Virgin, the Altar of Sacrifice, The Watchman, Weeping Rock, and the Emerald Pools.
Spring weather is unpredictable, with stormy, wet days being common, mixed with occasional warm, sunny weather. Precipitation is normally heaviest in March. Spring wildflowers bloom from April through June, peaking in May. Fall days are usually clear and mild; nights are often cool. Summer days are hot (95 to 110 °F; 35 to 43 °C), but overnight lows are usually comfortable (65 to 70 °F; 18 to 21 °C). Afternoon thunderstorms are common from mid-July through mid-September. Storms may produce waterfalls as well as flash floods. Autumn tree-color displays begin in September in the high country; in Zion Canyon, autumn colors usually peak in late October. Winter in Zion Canyon is fairly mild. Winter storms bring rain or light snow to Zion Canyon and heavier snow to the higher elevations. Clear days may become quite warm, reaching 60 °F (16 °C); nights are often 20 to 40 °F (−7 to 4 °C). Winter storms can last several days and make roads icy. Zion roads are plowed, except the Kolob Terrace Road which is closed when covered with snow. Winter driving conditions last from November through March.
Climate
Zion National Park has a BSk (Köppen climate classification) cold semi-arid climate consisting of very hot summers and mild winters with a limited amount of precipitation throughout the year.
History
Archaeologists have divided the long span of Zion’s human history into three cultural periods: the Archaic, Protohistoric and Historic periods. Each period is characterized by distinctive technological and social adaptations.
Archaic period
The first human presence in the region dates to 8,000 years ago when family groups camped where they could hunt or collect plants and seeds. About 2,000 years ago, some groups began growing corn and other crops, leading to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. Later groups in this period built permanent villages called pueblos. Archaeologists call this the Archaic period and it lasted until c. 500. Baskets, cordage nets, and yucca fiber sandals have been found and dated to this period. The Archaic toolkits included flaked stone knives, drills, and stemmed dart points. The dart points were attached to wooden shafts and propelled by throwing devices called atlatls.
By c. 300, some of the archaic groups developed into an early branch of seminomadic Anasazi, the Basketmakers. Basketmaker sites have grass- or stone-lined storage cists and shallow, partially underground dwellings called pithouses. They were hunters and gatherers who supplemented their diet with limited agriculture. Locally collected pine nuts were important for food and trade.
Protohistoric period
Both the Virgin Anasazi and the Parowan Fremont disappeared from the archaeological record of southwestern Utah by c. 1300. Extended droughts in the 11th and 12th centuries, interspersed with catastrophic flooding, may have made horticulture impossible in this arid region.
Tradition and archaeological evidence hold that their replacements were Numic-speaking cousins of the Virgin Anasazi, such as the Southern Paiute and Ute. The newcomers migrated on a seasonal basis up and down valleys in search of wild seeds and game animals. Some, particularly the Southern Paiute, also planted fields of corn, sunflowers, and squash to supplement their diet. These more sedentary groups made brownware vessels that were used for storage and cooking.
Exploration and settlement
The Historic period begins in the late 18th century with the exploration of southern Utah by padre Silvestre Vélez de Escalante and padre Francisco Atanasio Domínguez. The padres passed near what is now the Kolob Canyons Visitor Center on October 13, 1776, becoming the first people of European descent known to visit the area. In 1825, trapper and trader Jedediah Smith explored some of the downstream areas while under contract with the American Fur Company.
In 1847, Mormon farmers from the Salt Lake area became the first people of European descent to settle the Virgin River region. In 1851, the Parowan and Cedar City areas were settled by Mormons who used the Kolob Canyons area for timber, and for grazing cattle, sheep, and horses. They prospected for mineral deposits, and diverted Kolob water to irrigate crops in the valley below. Mormon settlers named the area Kolob which in Mormon scripture is the heavenly place nearest the residence of God.
Settlements had expanded 30 miles (48 km) south to the lower Virgin River by 1858. That year, a Southern Paiute guide led young Mormon missionary and interpreter Nephi Johnson into the upper Virgin River area and Zion Canyon. Johnson wrote a favorable report about the agricultural potential of the upper Virgin River basin, and returned later that year to found the town of Virgin. In 1861 or 1862, Joseph Black made the arduous journey to Zion Canyon and was very impressed by its beauty.
The floor of Zion Canyon was settled in 1863 by Isaac Behunin, who farmed corn, tobacco, and fruit trees. The Behunin family lived in Zion Canyon near the site of today’s Zion Lodge during the summer, and wintered in Springdale. Behunin is credited with naming Zion, a reference to the place of peace mentioned in the Bible. Two more families settled Zion Canyon in the next couple of years, bringing with them cattle and other domesticated animals. The canyon floor was farmed until Zion became a Monument in 1909.
The Powell Geographic Expedition of 1869 entered the area after their first trip through the Grand Canyon. John Wesley Powell visited Zion Canyon in 1872 and named it Mukuntuweap, under the impression that that was the Paiute name. Powell Survey photographers John K. Hillers and James Fennemore first visited the Zion Canyon and Kolob Plateau region in the spring of 1872. Hillers returned in April 1873 to add more photographs to the “Virgin River Series” of photographs and stereographs. Hillers described wading the canyon for four days and nearly freezing to death to take his photographs.
Protection and tourism
Paintings of the canyon by Frederick S. Dellenbaugh were exhibited at the Saint Louis World’s Fair in 1904, followed by a favorable article in Scribner’s Magazine the next year. The article and paintings, along with previously created photographs, paintings, and reports, led to President William Howard Taft’s proclamation on July 31, 1909, that created Mukuntuweap National Monument. In 1917, the acting director of the newly created National Park Service visited the canyon and proposed changing its name from the locally unpopular Mukuntuweap to Zion, a name used by the local Mormon community. The United States Congress added more land and established Zion National Park on November 19, 1919. A separate Zion National Monument, the Kolob Canyons area, was proclaimed on January 22, 1937, and was incorporated into the park on July 11, 1956.
Travel to the area before it was a national park was rare due to its remote location, lack of accommodations, and the absence of real roads in southern Utah. Old wagon roads were upgraded to the first automobile roads starting about 1910, and the road into Zion Canyon was built in 1917 leading to the Grotto, short of the present road that now ends at the Temple of Sinawava.
Touring cars could reach Zion Canyon by the summer of 1917. The first visitor lodging in Zion Canyon, called Wylie Camp, was established that same year as a tent camp. The Utah Parks Company, a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad, acquired Wylie Camp in 1923, and offered ten-day rail/bus tours to Zion, nearby Bryce Canyon, the Kaibab Plateau, and the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The Zion Lodge complex was built in 1925 at the site of the Wylie tent camp. Architect Gilbert Stanley Underwood designed the Zion Lodge in a rustic architectural style, while the Utah Parks Company funded the construction.
Infrastructure improvements
Work on the Zion – Mount Carmel Highway started in 1927 to enable reliable access between Springdale and the east side of the park. The road opened in 1930 and park visit and travel in the area greatly increased. The most famous feature of the Zion – Mount Carmel Highway is its 1.1-mile (1.8 km) tunnel, which has six large windows cut through the massive sandstone cliff.
In 1896, local rancher John Winder improved the Native American footpath up Echo Canyon, which later became the East Rim Trail. Entrepreneur David Flanigan used this trail in 1900 to build cableworks that lowered lumber into Zion Canyon from Cable Mountain. More than 200,000 board feet (470 m3) of lumber were lowered by 1906. The auto road was extended to the Temple of Sinawava, and a trail built from there 1 mile (1.6 km) to the start of the Narrows. Angel’s Landing Trail was constructed in 1926 and two suspension bridges were built over the Virgin River. Other trails were constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the 1930s.
More recent history
Zion National Park has been featured in numerous films, including The Deadwood Coach (1924), Arizona Bound (1927), Nevada (1927), Ramrod (1947) and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).
Zion Canyon Scenic Drive provides access to Zion Canyon. Traffic congestion in the narrow canyon was recognized as a major problem in the 1990s and a public transportation system using propane-powered shuttle buses was instituted in the year 2000. As part of its shuttle fleet, Zion has two electric trams each holding up to 36 passengers. Usually from early April through late October, the scenic drive in Zion Canyon is closed to private vehicles and visitors ride the shuttle buses. The National Park Service has contracted the management of the shuttle bus system to transit operator RATP Dev.
On April 12, 1995, heavy rains triggered a landslide that blocked the Virgin River in Zion Canyon. Over a period of two hours, the river carved away part of the only exit road from the canyon, trapping 450 guests and employees at the Zion Lodge. A one-lane, temporary road was constructed within 24 hours to allow evacuation of the Lodge. A more stable albeit temporary road was completed on May 25, 1995, to allow summer visitors to access the canyon. This road was replaced with a permanent road during the first half of 1996.
The Zion – Mount Carmel Highway can be travelled year-round. Access for oversized vehicles requires a special permit, and is limited to daytime hours, as traffic through the tunnel must be one way to accommodate large vehicles. The 5-mile (8.0 km)-long Kolob Canyons Road was built to provide access to the Kolob Canyons section of the park. This road often closes in the winter.
In March 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which designated and further protected 124,406 acres (50,345 ha) of park land, about 85% of the park, as the Zion Wilderness.
In 2011, Zion National Park was featured in the Honest Hearts downloadable content pack for the game Fallout: New Vegas.
In September 2015, flooding trapped a party of seven in Keyhole Canyon, a slot canyon in the park. The flash flood killed all seven members of the group, whose remains were located after a search lasting several days.
In 2017, some scenes from the TV series Extinct were shot in the park.
On March 25, 2020, the park campgrounds were closed to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
On February 2, 2024, a hiker fell to their death while traversing one of the park’s steep trails, highlighting the ongoing risks associated with the park’s rugged terrain. This incident brings the total recorded deaths in the park to 60 since 2007, with many fatalities resulting from falls, heat-related illnesses, and flash floods. These events highlight the importance of preparation and safety when visiting the park’s challenging landscape.
Geology
The nine known exposed geologic formations in Zion National Park are part of a super-sequence of rock units called the Grand Staircase. Together, these formations represent about 150 million years of mostly Mesozoic-aged sedimentation in that part of North America. The formations exposed in the Zion area were deposited as sediment in very different environments:
– The warm, shallow (sometimes advancing or retreating) sea of the Kaibab and Moenkopi formations
– Streams, ponds, and lakes of the Chinle, Moenave, and Kayenta formations
– The vast desert of the Navajo and Temple Cap formations
– The dry near-shore environment of the Carmel Formation
Uplift affected the entire region, known as the Colorado Plateaus, by slowly raising these formations more than 10,000 feet (3,000 m) higher than where they were deposited. This steepened the stream gradient of the ancestral Virgin and other rivers on the plateau.
The faster-moving streams took advantage of uplift-created joints in the rocks. Eventually, all Cenozoic-aged formations were removed and gorges were cut into the plateaus. Zion Canyon was cut by the North Fork of the Virgin River in this way. During the later part of this process, lava flows and cinder cones covered parts of the area.
High water volume in wet seasons does most of the downcutting in the main canyon. These flood events are responsible for transporting most of the 3 million short tons (2.7 million metric tons) of rock and sediment that the Virgin River transports yearly. The Virgin cuts away its canyon faster than its tributaries can cut away their own streambeds, so tributaries end in waterfalls from hanging valleys where they meet the Virgin. The valley between the peaks of the Twin Brothers is a notable example of a hanging valley in the canyon.
Biology
The Great Basin, Mojave Desert, and Colorado Plateau converge at Zion and the Kolob canyons. This, along with the varied topography of canyon–mesa country, differing soil types, and uneven water availability, provides diverse habitat for the equally diverse mix of plants and animals that live in the area. The park is home to 289 bird, 79 mammals, 28 reptiles, 7 fish, and 6 amphibian species. These organisms make their homes in one or more of four life zones found in the park: desert, riparian, woodland, and coniferous forest.
Desert conditions persist on canyon bottoms and rocky ledges away from perennial streams. Sagebrush, prickly pear cactus, and rabbitbrush, along with sacred datura and Indian paintbrush, are common. Utah penstemon and golden aster can also be found. Milkvetch and prince’s plume are found in pockets of selenium-rich soils.
Common daytime animals include mule deer, rock squirrels, pinyon jays, and whiptail and collared lizards. Desert cottontails, jackrabbits, and Merriam’s kangaroo rats come out at night. Cougars, bobcats, coyotes, badgers, gray foxes, and ring-tail cats are the top predators.
Cooler conditions persist at mid-elevation slopes, from 3,900 to 5,500 feet (1,200 to 1,700 m). Stunted forests of pinyon pine and juniper coexist here with manzanita shrubs, cliffrose, serviceberry, scrub oak, and yucca. Stands of ponderosa pine, Gambel oak, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, White fir, manzanita and aspen populate the mesas and cliffs above 6,000 feet (1,800 m).
Golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, peregrine falcons, and white-throated swifts can be seen in the area. Desert bighorn sheep were reintroduced in the park in 1973. California condors were reintroduced in the Arizona Strip and in 2014 the first successful breeding of condors in the park was confirmed. Nineteen species of bat also live in the area.
Boxelder, Fremont cottonwood, maple, and willow dominate riparian plant communities. Animals such as bank beavers, flannel-mouth suckers, gnatcatchers, dippers, canyon wrens, the virgin spinedace, and water striders all make their homes in the riparian zones.
Activities
Rangers at the visitor centers in Zion Canyon and Kolob Canyons can help visitors plan their stay. Guided horseback riding trips, nature walks, and evening programs are available from late March to early November. The Junior Ranger Program for children ages 4 and up is active year-round at the Nature Center, Human History Museum, and the visitor centers. A bookstore attached to the Zion Canyon visitor center offers books, maps, and souvenirs. The Grotto in Zion Canyon, the visitor center, and the viewpoint at the end of Kolob Canyons Road have the only designated picnic sites. The visitor center also utilizes multiple types of environmental technology, including windcatchers for passive cooling and cross ventilation, which bring the center’s temperature down during hot summer weather, a trombe wall to keep heat in during the winter, and solar panels for an electrical source (excess energy goes to the power grid).
Trails
Seven trails with round-trip times of half an hour (Weeping Rock) to 4 hours (Angels Landing) are found in Zion Canyon. Two popular trails, Taylor Creek (4 hours round trip) and Kolob Arch (8 hours round trip), are in the Kolob Canyons section of the park, near Cedar City. Hiking up into The Narrows from the Temple of Sinawava is popular in summer, but hiking beyond Big Springs requires a permit. The entire Narrows from Chamberlain’s Ranch is a 16-mile one way trip that typically takes 12 hours of strenuous hiking. A shorter alternative is to enter the Narrows via Orderville Canyon. Both Orderville and the full Narrows require a back country permit. Entrance to the Parunuweap Canyon section of the park downstream of Labyrinth Falls is prohibited. Other often-used backcountry trails include the West Rim and LaVerkin Creek. The more primitive sections of Zion include the Kolob Terrace and the Kolob Canyons. A network of trails totaling 50 miles in distance connect Zion’s northwest corner of the park (Lee Pass Trailhead) to its southeast section (East Rim Trailhead). Popularly known as the Zion Traverse, the route offers backpackers a diverse experience of the park.
Zion is a center for rock climbing, with short walls like Spaceshot, Moonlight Buttress, Prodigal Son, Ashtar Command, and Touchstone being the most popular, highly rated routes.
Camping and lodging
Lodging in the park is available at Zion Lodge, located halfway through Zion Canyon. Just outside the park more lodging is available in Springdale.
Zion has three campgrounds: South and Watchman at the far southern side of the park, and a primitive site at Lava Point in the middle of the park off Kolob Terrace Road. Overnight camping in the backcountry requires permits.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Zion National Park, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250607
Just a break from random articles for a little update. Saw another solid month according to the stats; thank you. And while I can’t be bothered to go through them all, because I honestly don’t care, I’m almost certain the babysitters are among them. So while it has been explained elsewhere, I will remind those of you here again that there will be nothing more shared on this site. You all need to understand that if I am content being silenced here, that it really is for the best of reasons. And while the threat made against the children is a very big part of that, it isn’t the only reason. I gave my word about sharing things on this site, and I believe that it will be important for my friend’s children to see what actual integrity, and genuine loyalty, to my friend, and them, looks like.
I also agreed not to share anything here so as not to diminish the work of the professional, because I have complete faith in her efforts and goals. While I am frustrated at the time she is taking, I understand and appreciate how thorough she has been. Honestly, she’s like a bloodhound, chasing down everything she can. Where I saw and focused on a handful of obvious things, she’s dissected things down to the DNA level. If you’ve never witnessed how women can take apart someone’s bullshit with laser like precision, I don’t know what to tell you. Her work so far has been enlightening, to say the least, and I probably wouldn’t have agreed to work with her had I not been silenced here. So again, it’s for the best.
Other things in the works still. If anybody is a graphics artist, I’m looking for someone to do some pro bono, or at least reasonably priced, graphics work for the new adventures project while I get it up and running. Hit the contact page if you can help. I’ve got some trips planned over the next month that will kick things off.
That’s it for now. Thank you all.
20250601
Death Valley National Park is a national park of the United States that straddles the California–Nevada border, east of the Sierra Nevada. The park boundaries include Death Valley, the northern section of Panamint Valley, the southern section of Eureka Valley and most of Saline Valley.
The park occupies an interface zone between the arid Great Basin and Mojave deserts, protecting the northwest corner of the Mojave Desert and its diverse environment of salt-flats, sand dunes, badlands, valleys, canyons and mountains.
Death Valley is the largest national park in the contiguous United States, as well as the hottest, driest and lowest of all the national parks in the United States. It contains Badwater Basin, the second-lowest point in the Western Hemisphere and lowest in North America at 282 feet (86 m) below sea level. More than 93% of the park is a designated wilderness area.
The park is home to many species of plants and animals which have adapted to the harsh desert environment including creosote bush, Joshua tree, bighorn sheep, coyote, and the endangered Death Valley pupfish, a survivor from much wetter times. UNESCO included Death Valley as the principal feature of its Mojave and Colorado Deserts Biosphere Reserve in 1984.
A series of Native American groups inhabited the area from as early as 7000 BC, most recently the Timbisha around 1000 AD who migrated between winter camps in the valleys and summer grounds in the mountains. A group of European-Americans, lost in the valley in 1849 while looking for a shortcut to the gold fields of California, gave this valley its grim name, even though only one of their group died there.
Several short-lived boom towns sprang up during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to mine gold and silver. The only long-term profitable ore to be mined was borax, which was transported out of the valley with twenty-mule teams. The valley later became the subject of books, radio programs, television series, and movies. Tourism expanded in the 1920s when resorts were built around Stovepipe Wells and Furnace Creek. Death Valley National Monument was declared in 1933 and the park was substantially expanded and became a national park in 1994.
The natural environment of the area has been shaped largely by its geology. The valley is actually a graben with the oldest rocks being extensively metamorphosed and at least 1.7 billion years old. Ancient, warm, shallow seas deposited marine sediments until rifting opened the Pacific Ocean. Additional sedimentation occurred until a subduction zone formed off the coast. The subduction uplifted the region out of the sea and created a line of volcanoes. Later the crust started to pull apart, creating the current Basin and Range landform. Valleys filled with sediment and, during the wet times of glacial periods, with lakes, such as Lake Manly.
Death Valley is the fifth-largest American national park and the largest in the contiguous United States. It is also larger than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware combined, and nearly as large as Puerto Rico. In 2013, Death Valley National Park was designated as a dark sky park by the International Dark-Sky Association.
Geographic setting
There are two major valleys in the park, Death Valley and Panamint Valley. Both of these valleys were formed within the last few million years and both are bounded by north–south-trending mountain ranges. These and adjacent valleys follow the general trend of Basin and Range topography with one modification: there are parallel strike-slip faults that perpendicularly bound the central extent of Death Valley. The result of this shearing action is additional extension in the central part of Death Valley which causes a slight widening and more subsidence there.
Uplift of surrounding mountain ranges and subsidence of the valley floor are both occurring. The uplift on the Black Mountains is so fast that the alluvial fans (fan-shaped deposits at the mouth of canyons) there are small and steep compared to the huge alluvial fans coming off the Panamint Range. Fast uplift of a mountain range in an arid environment often does not allow its canyons enough time to cut a classic V-shape all the way down to the stream bed. Instead, a V-shape ends at a slot canyon halfway down, forming a ‘wine glass canyon.’ Sediment is deposited on a small and steep alluvial fan.
At 282 feet (86 m) below sea level at its lowest point, Badwater Basin on Death Valley’s floor is the second-lowest depression in the Western Hemisphere (behind Laguna del Carbón in Argentina), while Mount Whitney, only 85 miles (137 km) to the west, rises to 14,505 feet (4,421 m) and is the tallest mountain in the contiguous United States. This topographic relief is the greatest elevation gradient in the contiguous United States and is the terminus point of the Great Basin’s southwestern drainage. Although the extreme lack of water in the Great Basin makes this distinction of little current practical use, it does mean that in wetter times the lake that once filled Death Valley (Lake Manly) was the last stop for water flowing in the region, meaning the water there was saturated in dissolved materials. Thus, the salt pans in Death Valley are among the largest in the world and are rich in minerals, such as borax and various salts and hydrates. The largest salt pan in the park extends 40 miles (64 km) from the Ashford Mill Site to the Salt Creek Hills, covering some 200 square miles (520 km2) of the valley floor. The best known playa in the park is the Racetrack, known for its moving rocks.
Climate
According to the Köppen climate classification system, Death Valley National Park has a hot desert climate (BWh). The plant hardiness zone at Badwater Basin is 9b with an average annual extreme minimum temperature of 28.0 °F (−2.2 °C).
Death Valley is the hottest and driest place in North America due to its lack of surface water and low relief. It is so frequently the hottest spot in the United States that many tabulations of the highest daily temperatures in the country omit Death Valley as a matter of course.
On the afternoon of July 10, 1913, the United States Weather Bureau recorded a high temperature of 134 °F (57 °C) at Greenland Ranch (now Furnace Creek) in Death Valley. This temperature stands as the highest ambient air temperature ever recorded at the surface of the Earth. (A report of a temperature of 58 °C (136 °F) recorded in Libya in 1922 was later determined to be inaccurate.) Daily summer temperatures of 120 °F (49 °C) or greater are common, as well as below freezing nightly temperatures in the winter. July is the hottest month, with an average high of 117 °F (47 °C) and an average low of 91 °F (33 °C). December is the coldest month, with an average high of 66 °F (19 °C) and an average low of 41 °F (5 °C). The record low is 15 °F (−9.4 °C). There are an average of 197.3 days annually with highs of 90 °F (32.2 °C) or higher and 146.9 days annually with highs of 100 °F (37.8 °C) or higher. Freezing temperatures of 32 °F (0 °C) or lower occur on an average of 8.6 days annually.
Several of the larger Death Valley springs derive their water from a regional aquifer, which extends as far east as southern Nevada and Utah. Much of the water in this aquifer has been there for many thousands of years, since the Pleistocene ice ages, when the climate was cooler and wetter. Today’s drier climate does not provide enough precipitation to recharge the aquifer at the rate at which water is being withdrawn.
The highest range within the park is the Panamint Range, with Telescope Peak being its highest point at 11,049 feet (3,368 m). The Death Valley region is a transitional zone in the northernmost part of the Mojave Desert and consists of five mountain ranges removed from the Pacific Ocean. Three of these are significant barriers: the Sierra Nevada, the Argus Range, and the Panamint Range. Air masses tend to lose moisture as they are forced up over mountain ranges, in what climatologists call a rainshadow effect.
The exaggerated rain shadow effect for the Death Valley area makes it North America’s driest spot, receiving about 1.5 inches (38 mm) of rainfall annually at Badwater, and some years fail to register any measurable rainfall. Annual average precipitation varies from 1.92 inches (49 mm) overall below sea level to over 15 inches (380 mm) in the higher mountains that surround the valley. When rain does arrive it often does so in intense storms that cause flash floods which remodel the landscape and sometimes create very shallow ephemeral lakes.
The hot, dry climate makes it difficult for soil to form. Mass wasting, the down-slope movement of loose rock, is therefore the dominant erosive force in mountainous areas, resulting in “skeletonized” ranges (mountains with very little soil on them). Sand dunes in the park, while famous, are not nearly as widespread as their fame or the dryness of the area may suggest. The Mesquite Flat dune field is the most easily accessible from the paved road just east of Stovepipe Wells in the north-central part of the valley and is primarily made of quartz sand. Another dune field is just 10 miles (16 km) to the north but is instead mostly composed of travertine sand. The highest dunes in the park, and some of the highest in North America, are located in the Eureka Valley about 50 miles (80 km) to the north of Stovepipe Wells, while the Panamint Valley dunes and the Saline Valley dunes are located west and northwest of the town, respectively. The Ibex dune field is near the seldom-visited Ibex Hill in the southernmost part of the park, just south of the Saratoga Springs marshland. All the latter four dune fields are accessible only via unpaved roads. Prevailing winds in the winter come from the north, and prevailing winds in the summer come from the south. Thus, the overall position of the dune fields remains more or less fixed.
There are rare exceptions to the dry nature of the area. In 2005, an unusually wet winter created a ‘lake’ in the Badwater Basin and led to the greatest wildflower season in the park’s history. In October 2015, a “1000 year flood event” with over three inches of rain caused major damage in Death Valley National Park. A similar widespread storm in August 2022 damaged pavement and deposited debris on nearly every road, trapping 1,000 residents and visitors overnight.
Human history
Early inhabitants and transient populations
Four Native American cultures are known to have lived in the area during the last 10,000 years. The first known group, the Nevares Spring People, were hunters and gatherers who arrived in the area perhaps 9,000 years ago (7000 BC) when there were still small lakes in Death Valley and neighboring Panamint Valley. A much milder climate persisted at that time, and large game animals were still plentiful. By 5,000 years ago (3000 BC) the Mesquite Flat People displaced the Nevares Spring People. Around 2,000 years ago the Saratoga Spring People moved into the area, which by then was probably already a hot, dry desert. This culture was more advanced at hunting and gathering and was skillful at handcrafts. They also left mysterious stone patterns in the valley.
One thousand years ago, the nomadic Timbisha (formerly called Shoshone and also known as Panamint or Koso) moved into the area and hunted game and gathered mesquite beans along with pinyon pine nuts. Because of the wide altitude differential between the valley bottom and the mountain ridges, especially on the west, the Timbisha practiced a vertical migration pattern. Their winter camps were located near water sources in the valley bottoms. As the spring and summer progressed and the weather warmed, grasses and other plant food sources ripened at progressively higher altitudes. November found them at the very top of the mountain ridges where they harvested pine nuts before moving back to the valley bottom for winter.
The California Gold Rush brought the first people of European descent known to visit the immediate area. In December 1849 two groups of California Gold Country-bound travelers with perhaps 100 wagons total stumbled into Death Valley after getting lost on what they thought was a shortcut off the Old Spanish Trail. Called the Bennett-Arcane Party, they were unable to find a pass out of the valley for weeks; they were able to find fresh water at various springs in the area, but were forced to eat several of their oxen to survive. They used the wood of their wagons to cook the meat and make jerky. The place where they did this is today referred to as “Burnt Wagons Camp” and is located near Stovepipe Wells.
After abandoning their wagons, they eventually were able to hike out of the valley. Just after leaving the valley, one of the women in the group turned and said, “Goodbye Death Valley,” giving the valley its name. Included in the party was William Lewis Manly whose autobiographical book Death Valley in ’49 detailed this trek and popularized the area (geologists later named the prehistoric lake that once filled the valley after him).
Boom and bust
The ores that are most famously associated with the area were also the easiest to collect and the most profitable: evaporite deposits such as salts, borate, and talc. Borax was found by Rosie and Aaron Winters near The Ranch at Death Valley (then called Greenland) in 1881. Later that same year, the Eagle Borax Works became Death Valley’s first commercial borax operation. William Tell Coleman built the Harmony Borax Works plant and began to process ore in late 1883 or early 1884, continuing until 1888. This mining and smelting company produced borax to make soap and for industrial uses. The end product was shipped out of the valley 165 miles (266 km) to the Mojave railhead in 10-ton-capacity wagons pulled by “twenty-mule teams” that were actually teams of 18 mules and two horses each.
The teams averaged two miles (3.2 km) an hour and required about 30 days to complete a round trip. The trade name 20-Mule Team Borax was established by Francis Marion Smith’s Pacific Coast Borax Company after Smith acquired Coleman’s borax holdings in 1890. A memorable advertising campaign used the wagon’s image to promote the Boraxo brand of granular hand soap and the Death Valley Days radio and television programs. In 1914, the Death Valley Railroad was built to serve mining operations on the east side of the valley. Mining continued after the collapse of Coleman’s empire, and by the late 1920s the area was the world’s number one source of borax. Some four to six million years old, the Furnace Creek Formation is the primary source of borate minerals gathered from Death Valley’s playas.
Other visitors stayed to prospect for and mine deposits of copper, gold, lead, and silver. These sporadic mining ventures were hampered by their remote location and the harsh desert environment. In December 1903, two men from Ballarat were prospecting for silver. One was an out-of-work Irish miner named Jack Keane and the other was a one-eyed Basque butcher named Domingo Etcharren. Quite by accident, Keane discovered an immense ledge of free-milling gold by the duo’s work site and named the claim the Keane Wonder Mine. This started a minor and short-lived gold rush into the area. The Keane Wonder Mine, along with mines at Rhyolite, Skidoo and Harrisburg, were the only ones to extract enough metal ore to make them worthwhile. Outright shams such as Leadfield also occurred, but most ventures quickly ended after a short series of prospecting mines failed to yield evidence of significant ore (these mines now dot the entire area and are a significant hazard to anyone who enters them). The boom towns which sprang up around these mines flourished during the first decade of the 1900s, but soon declined after the Panic of 1907.
Early tourism
The first documented tourist facilities in Death Valley were a set of tent houses built in the 1920s where Stovepipe Wells is now located. People flocked to resorts built around natural springs thought to have curative and restorative properties. In 1927, Pacific Coast Borax turned the crew quarters of its Furnace Creek Ranch into a resort, creating the Furnace Creek Inn and resort. The spring at Furnace Creek was harnessed to develop the resort, and as the water was diverted, the surrounding marshes and wetlands started to shrink.
Soon the valley was a popular winter destination. Other facilities started off as private getaways but were later opened to the public. Most notable among these was Death Valley Ranch, better known as Scotty’s Castle. This large ranch home built in the Spanish Revival style became a hotel in the late 1930s and, largely because of the fame of Death Valley Scotty, a tourist attraction. Death Valley Scotty, whose real name was Walter Scott, was a gold miner who pretended to be the owner of “his castle”, which he claimed to have built with profits from his gold mine. Neither claim was true, but the real owner, Chicago millionaire Albert Mussey Johnson, encouraged the myth. When asked by reporters what his connection was to Walter Scott’s castle, Johnson replied that he was Mr. Scott’s banker.
Protection and later history
President Herbert Hoover proclaimed a national monument in and around Death Valley on February 11, 1933, setting aside almost two million acres (8,100 km2) of southeastern California and small parts of Nevada.
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) developed infrastructure in Death Valley National Monument during the Great Depression and on into the early 1940s. The CCC built barracks, graded 500 miles (800 km) of roads, installed water and telephone lines, and a total of 76 buildings. Trails in the Panamint Range were built to points of scenic interest, and an adobe village, laundry and trading post were constructed for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. Five campgrounds, restrooms, an airplane landing field and picnic facilities were also built.
The creation of the monument resulted in a temporary closing of the lands to prospecting and mining. However, Death Valley was quickly reopened to mining by Congressional action in June 1933. As improvements in mining technology allowed lower grades of ore to be processed, and new heavy equipment allowed greater amounts of rock to be moved, mining in Death Valley changed. Gone were the days of the “single-blanket, jackass prospector” long associated with the romantic west. Open pit and strip mines scarred the landscape as international mining corporations bought claims in highly visible areas of the national monument. The public outcry that ensued led to greater protection for all national park and monument areas in the United States. In 1976, Congress passed the Mining in the Parks Act, which closed Death Valley National Monument to the filing of new mining claims, banned open-pit mining and required the National Park Service to examine the validity of tens of thousands of pre-1976 mining claims. Mining was allowed to resume on a limited basis in 1980 with stricter environmental standards. The last mine in the park, Billie Mine, closed in 2005.
In 1952 President Harry Truman added the Devils Hole to Death Valley National Monument; it is the only habitat of the Devils Hole pupfish.
Death Valley National Monument was designated a biosphere reserve in 1984. On October 31, 1994, the monument was expanded by 1.3 million acres (5,300 km2) and re-designated as a national park, via congressional passage of the California Desert Protection Act (Public Law 103–433). Consequently, the elevated status for Death Valley made it the largest national park in the contiguous United States. On March 12, 2019, the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act added 35,292 acres (55 sq mi; 143 km2) to the park.
Many of the larger cities and towns within the boundary of the regional groundwater flow system that the park and its plants and animals rely upon are experiencing some of the fastest growth rates of any place in the United States. Notable examples within a 100-mile (160 km) radius of Death Valley National Park include Las Vegas and Pahrump, Nevada. In the case of Las Vegas, the local Chamber of Commerce estimates that 6,000 people are moving to the city every month. Between 1985 and 1995, the population of the Las Vegas Valley increased from 550,700 to 1,138,800.
In 1977, parts of Death Valley were used by director George Lucas as a filming location for Star Wars, providing the setting for the fictional planet Tatooine.
Geologic history
The park has a diverse and complex geologic history. Since its formation, the area that comprises the park has experienced at least four major periods of extensive volcanism, three or four periods of major sedimentation, and several intervals of major tectonic deformation where the crust has been reshaped. Two periods of glaciation (a series of ice ages) have also had effects on the area, although no glaciers ever existed in the ranges now in the park.
Basement and Pahrump Group
Little is known about the history of the oldest exposed rocks in the area due to extensive metamorphism (alteration of rock by heat and pressure). Radiometric dating gives an age of 1,700 million years for the metamorphism during the Proterozoic. About 1,400 million years ago a mass of granite now in the Panamint Range intruded this complex. Uplift later exposed these rocks to nearly 500 million years of erosion.
The Proterozoic sedimentary formations of the Pahrump Group were deposited on these basement rocks. This occurred following uplift and erosion of any earlier sediments from the Proterozoic basement rocks. The Pahrump is composed of arkose conglomerate (quartz clasts in a concrete-like matrix) and mudstone in its lower part, followed by dolomite from carbonate banks topped by algal mats as stromatolites, and finished with basin-filling sediment derived from the above, including possible glacial till from the hypothesized Snowball Earth glaciation. The very youngest rocks in the Pahrump Group are basaltic lava flows.
Rifting and deposition
A rift opened and subsequently flooded the region as part of the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia in the Neoproterozoic (by about 755 million years ago) and the creation of the Pacific Ocean. A shoreline similar to the present Atlantic Ocean margin of the United States lay to the east. An algal mat-covered carbonate bank was deposited, forming the Noonday Dolomite. Subsidence of the region occurred as the continental crust thinned and the newly formed Pacific widened, forming the Ibex Formation. An angular unconformity (an uneven gap in the geologic record) followed.
A true ocean basin developed to the west, breaking all the earlier formations along a steep front. A wedge of clastic sediment then began to accumulate at the base of the two underwater precipices, starting the formation of opposing continental shelves. Three formations developed from sediment that accumulated on the wedge. The region’s first known fossils of complex life are found in the resulting formations. Notable among these are the Ediacara fauna and trilobites, the evolution of the latter being part of the Cambrian Explosion of life.
The sandy mudflats gave way about 550 million years ago to a carbonate platform (similar to the one around the present-day Bahamas), which lasted for the next 300 million years of Paleozoic time (refer to the middle of the timescale image). Death Valley’s position was then within ten or twenty degrees of the Paleozoic equator. Thick beds of carbonate-rich sediments were periodically interrupted by periods of emergence. Although details of geography varied during this immense interval of time, a north-northeastern coastline trend generally ran from Arizona up through Utah. The resulting eight formations and one group are 20,000 feet (6 km) thick and underlay much of the Cottonwood, Funeral, Grapevine, and Panamint ranges.
Compression and uplift
In the early-to-mid- Mesozoic the western edge of the North American continent was pushed against the oceanic plate under the Pacific Ocean, creating a subduction zone. A subduction zone is a type of contact between different crustal plates where heavier crust slides below lighter crust. Erupting volcanoes and uplifting mountains were created as a result, and the coastline was pushed to the west. The Sierran Arc started to form to the northwest from heat and pressure generated from subduction, and compressive forces caused thrust faults to develop.
A long period of uplift and erosion was concurrent with and followed the above events, creating a major unconformity, which is a large gap in the geologic record. Sediments worn off the Death Valley region were carried both east and west by wind and water. No Jurassic- to Eocene-aged sedimentary formations exist in the area, except for some possibly Jurassic-age volcanic rocks (see the top of the timescale image).
Stretching and lakes
Basin and Range-associated stretching of large parts of crust below southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico started around 16 million years ago and the region is still spreading. This stretching began to affect the Death and Panamint valleys area by 3 million years ago. Before this, rocks now in the Panamint Range were on top of rocks that would become the Black Mountains and the Cottonwood Mountains. Lateral and vertical transport of these blocks was accomplished by movement on normal faults. Right-lateral movement along strike-slip faults that run parallel to and at the base of the ranges also helped to develop the area. Torsional forces, probably associated with northwesterly movement of the Pacific plate along the San Andreas Fault (west of the region), is responsible for the lateral movement.
Igneous activity associated with this stretching occurred from 12 million to 4 million years ago. Sedimentation is concentrated in valleys (basins) from material eroded from adjacent ranges. The amount of sediment deposited has roughly kept up with this subsidence, resulting in the retention of more or less the same valley floor elevation over time.
Pleistocene ice ages started 2 million years ago, and melt from alpine glaciers on the nearby Sierra Nevada Mountains fed a series of lakes that filled Death and Panamint valleys and surrounding basins (see the top of the timescale image). The lake that filled Death Valley was the last of a chain of lakes fed by the Amargosa and Mojave Rivers, and possibly also the Owens River. The large lake that covered much of Death Valley’s floor, which geologists call Lake Manly, started to dry up 10,500 years ago. Salt pans and playas were created as ice age glaciers retreated, thus drastically reducing the lakes’ water source. Only faint shorelines are left.
Biology
Habitat varies from salt pan at 282 feet (86 m) below sea level to the sub-alpine conditions found on the summit of Telescope Peak, which rises to 11,049 feet (3,368 m). Vegetation zones include creosote bush, desert holly, and mesquite at the lower elevations and sage up through shadscale, blackbrush, Joshua tree, pinyon-juniper, to limber pine and bristlecone pine woodlands. The salt pan is devoid of vegetation, and the rest of the valley floor and lower slopes have sparse cover, although where water is available, an abundance of vegetation is usually present. These zones and the adjacent desert support a variety of wildlife species, including 51 species of native mammals, 307 species of birds, 36 species of reptiles, 3 species of amphibians, and 2 species of native fish.
Small mammals are more numerous than large mammals, such as bighorn sheep, coyotes, bobcats, kit foxes, cougars, and mule deer. Mule deer are present in the pinyon/juniper associations of the Grapevine, Cottonwood, and Panamint ranges. Bighorn sheep are a rare species of mountain-dwelling sheep that exist in isolated bands in the Sierra and in Death Valley. These are highly adaptable animals and can eat almost any plant. They have no known predators, but humans and burros compete for habitat.
The ancestors of the Death Valley pupfish swam to the area from the Colorado River via a long-since dried-up system of rivers and lakes (see Lake Manly). They now live in two separate populations: one in Salt Creek and another in Cottonball Marsh. Death Valley is one of the hottest and driest places in North America, yet it is home to over 1,000 species of plants; 23 of which, including the very rare rock lady (Holmgrenanthe), are not found anywhere else.
Adaptation to the dry environment is key. For example, creosote bush and mesquite have tap-root systems that can extend 50 feet (15 m) down in order to take advantage of a year-round supply of ground water. The diversity of Death Valley’s plant communities results partly from the region’s location in a transition zone between the Mojave Desert, the Great Basin Desert and the Sonoran Desert. This location, combined with the great relief found within the park, supports vegetation typical of three biotic life zones: the lower Sonoran, the Canadian, and the arctic/alpine in portions of the Panamint Range. Based on the Munz and Keck (1968) classifications, seven plant communities can be categorized within these life zones, each characterized by dominant vegetation and representative of three vegetation types: scrub, desert woodland, and coniferous forest. Microhabitats further subdivide some communities into zones, especially on the valley floor.
Unlike more typical locations across the Mojave Desert, many of the water-dependent Death Valley habitats possess a diversity of plant and animal species that are not found anywhere else in the world. The existence of these species is due largely to a unique geologic history and the process of evolution that has progressed in habitats that have been isolated from one another since the Pleistocene epoch.
Activities
Sightseeing is available by personal automobile, four-wheel drive, motorcycle, bicycle, mountain bike (on established roadways only), and hiking. State Route 190, the Badwater Road, the Scotty’s Castle Road, and paved roads to Dante’s View and Wildrose provide access to the major scenic viewpoints and historic points of interest. More than 350 miles (560 km) of unpaved and four-wheel-drive roads provide access to wilderness hiking, camping, and historical sites. Unlike many other national parks in the U.S. there are no formal entrance stations, and instead entry fees can be paid at the visitor centers, ranger stations, or various fee machines around the park. There are hiking trails of varying lengths and difficulties, but most backcountry areas are accessible only by cross-country hiking. The peak season for visiting the park is from October to May, avoiding summer extreme temperatures. Costumed living history tours of the historic Scotty’s Castle were suspended in October 2015 due to extensive flood damage to the buildings and grounds. It remains closed to the public.
There are nine designated campgrounds within the park, and overnight backcountry camping permits are available at the visitor center. Xanterra Parks & Resorts owns and operates a private resort, the Oasis at Death Valley, which comprises two separate and distinct hotels: the Inn at Death Valley is a four-star historic hotel, and the Ranch at Death Valley is a three-star ranch-style property reminiscent of the mining and prospecting days. Panamint Springs Resort is in the western part of the park. Death Valley Lodging Company operates the Stovepipe Wells Resort under a concession permit. There are a few motels near entrances to the park, in Shoshone, Death Valley Junction, Beatty, and Pahrump.
Furnace Creek Visitor Center is located on CA-190 and includes exhibits and a film about the park’s geology, climate, wildlife and natural history, as well as human history and pioneer experience. During the winter season—November through April—rangers offer interpretive tours and a variety of walks, talks, and presentations about Death Valley cultural and natural history. The Death Valley Natural History Association maintains a bookstore.
The northeast corner of Saline Valley has several developed hot spring pools accessible by several hours’ drive on unpaved roads or by flying a personal aircraft to the Chicken Strip—an uncharted airstrip a short walk from the springs.
Death Valley National Park is a popular location for stargazing as it has one of the darkest night skies in the United States. Despite its remote location, air quality and night visibility are threatened by civilization. In particular, light pollution is introduced by nearby Las Vegas. The darkest skies are located in the northwest of the park; Ubehebe Crater is a Bortle class 1 or “excellent dark sky” site. The Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy are visible to the unaided eye under these conditions, and the Milky Way casts shadows; optical phenomena such as zodiacal light or “false dawn” and gegenschein are also visible to the unaided eye under these conditions. Most southern regions of the park are Bortle class 2 or “average dark sky” sites.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Death Valley National Park, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250530
The neurodiversity paradigm is a framework for understanding human brain function that considers the diversity within sensory processing, motor abilities, social comfort, cognition, and focus as neurobiological differences. This diversity falls on a spectrum of neurocognitive differences. The neurodiversity paradigm argues that diversity in neurocognition is part of humanity and that some neurodivergences generally classified as disorders, such as autism, are differences with strengths and weaknesses as well as disabilities that are not necessarily pathological.
The neurodiversity movement started in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the start of Autism Network International. Much of the correspondence that led to the formation of the movement happened over autism conferences, namely the autistic-led Autreat, penpal lists, and Usenet. The framework grew out of the disability rights movement and builds on the social model of disability, arguing that disability partly arises from societal barriers and person-environment mismatch, rather than attributing disability purely to inherent deficits. It instead situates human cognitive variation in the context of biodiversity and the politics of minority groups. Some neurodiversity advocates and researchers including Judy Singer and Patrick Dwyer argue that the neurodiversity paradigm is the middle ground between a strong medical model and a strong social model.
Neurodivergent individuals face unique challenges in education and the workplace. The efficacy of accessibility and support programs in career development and higher education differs from individual to individual. Social media has introduced a platform where neurodiversity awareness and support has emerged, further promoting the neurodiversity movement.
The neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among disability advocates, especially proponents of the medical model of autism, with opponents arguing it risks downplaying the challenges associated with some disabilities (e.g., in those requiring little support becoming representative of the challenges caused by the disability, thereby making it more difficult to seek desired treatment), and that it calls for the acceptance of things some wish to be treated for. In recent years, to address these concerns, some neurodiversity advocates and researchers have attempted to reconcile what they consider different seemingly contradictory but arguably partially compatible perspectives. Some researchers have advocated for mixed or integrative approaches that involve both neurodiversity approaches and biomedical interventions or advancements, for example teaching functional communication (whether verbal or nonverbal) and treating self-injurious behaviors or co-occurring conditions like anxiety and depression with biomedical approaches.
History and developments
The word neurodiversity first appeared in publication in 1998, in an article by American journalist Harvey Blume, as a portmanteau of the words neurological diversity, which had been used as early as 1996 in online spaces such as InLv to describe the growing concept of a natural diversity in humanity’s neurological expression. The same year, it was published in Judy Singer’s sociology honors thesis, drawing on discussions on the independent living mailing list that included Blume. Singer has described herself as “likely somewhere on the autistic spectrum”.
Blume was an early advocate who predicted the role the Internet would play in fostering the international neurodiversity movement. In a New York Times piece on June 30, 1997, Blume described the foundation of neurodiversity using the term neurological pluralism. Some authors also credit the earlier work of autistic advocate Jim Sinclair in laying the foundation for the movement. Sinclair’s 1993 speech “Don’t Mourn For Us” emphasized autism as a way of being, claiming “it is not possible to separate the person from the autism.”
The Neurodiversity Movement grew largely from online interaction. The internet’s design lent well to the needs of many autistic people. People socialized over listservs and IRCs. Some of the websites used for organizing in the Neurodiversity Movement’s early days include sites like Autistics.Org and Autistic People Against Neuroleptic Abuse. Core principles were developed from there. Principles such as advocating for the rights and autonomy of all people with brain disabilities with a focus on autism. The main conflicts from the beginning were about who the real experts on autism are, what causes autism, what interventions are appropriate, and who gets to call themselves autistic. During the 2000s, people started blogs such as Mel Baggs’ Ballastexistenz and Kevin Leitch’s Left Brain Right Brain. Eventually, Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) was started by Ari Ne’eman and Scott Robertson to further align the Neurodiversity Movement with the greater disability rights movement. ASAN led the Ransom Notes Campaign to successfully remove stigmatizing disability ads posted by the NYU Child Study Center. This was a massive turning point for the Neurodiversity Movement.
From there, the Neurodiversity Movement continued to grow with the formation of more organizations in the early 2010s such as Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network and The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism. More autistic people were appointed to federal advisory boards like Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee and National Council on Disability. There were various campaigns like the ongoing #StopTheShock related to the use of aversive treatment at Judge Rotenberg Center and various protests against Autism Speaks. Various flashblogs popped up during the 2010s to support campaigns. Annual traditions were formed such as Disability Day of Mourning and Autistics Speaking Day.
Damian Milton notes that, in 2014, Nick Walker attempted to define neurodiversity, the neurodiversity movement, and the neurodiversity paradigm. Walker tied neurodiversity to the idea that “all brains are to a degree unique”. She also defined the movement as a rights movement, and the paradigm as a broader discussion of diversity, cultural constructions and social dynamics.
An important question is which neurodivergences traditionally viewed as disorders should be depathologized and exempt from attempts to remove them. Autistic advocate Nick Walker suggested preserving “forms of innate or largely innate neurodivergence, like autism” while conditions like epilepsy or traumatic brain injury could be removed from the person without fundamentally changing the person because these are not pervasively linked to the individual’s personality or perception of the world.
Scientific debates, research findings, and neurodiversity-based reforms
In recent years, the concept of neurodiversity and many related findings that challenged traditional knowledge and practices in the autism field have gained traction among many members of the scientific and professional communities, who have argued that autism researchers have sometimes been too ready to interpret differences as deficits. It has also been suggested that there are both ethical issues and practical risks in attempting to reduce or suppress some autistic traits (e.g. some stimming behaviors that do not cause harm to self or others, focused interests) that can sometimes be adaptive or instilling neurotypical social behaviors (e.g. eye contact, body language) through interventions. Researchers and advocates are concerned about such issues and risks as most recent studies and multiple systematic reviews have indicated that higher levels of masking, passing as neurotypical, or camouflaging are generally associated with poorer mental health outcomes including depression, clinical anxiety, and suicidality among autistic people (including children, adolescents, and adults) and across various regions or cultures. In addition, two reviews published in 2024 indicated some forms of repetitive behaviors can be adaptive for sensory regulation and emotional regulation of some autistic people, and masking or suppressing some autistic repetitive behaviors that can be adaptive may risk worsening mental health and well-being. One multiple-year longitudinal study found that autistic children who showed decrease in repetitive behaviors experienced more severe and worsening in mental health symptoms, whereas autistic children who showed increase in repetitive behaviors experienced less severe mental health challenges. Relatedly, qualitative studies have shown some forms of behavioral interventions increase camouflaging or masking of autistic traits (e.g. stimming) for some autistic people, with negative effects on mental health. In addition, quantitative evidence regarding adverse effects (e.g. in terms of trauma and reinforcement of masking) of some behavioral interventions is limited but emerging.Moreover, researchers have found that psychoeducation based on the medical model is associated with higher stigma. Another study found that endorsements of normalization and curative goals (goals of some medical models) are associated with heightened stigma. Similarly, some researchers and advocates also argue that a medicalizing approach can contribute to stigma and ableism, and that the persistent focus on biological research in autism based on deficit-based medical model is at odds with the priorities of those in the autism community.
The neurodiversity paradigm is controversial in autism advocacy. A prevalent criticism is that autistic people with higher support needs would continue to have challenges even if society was fully accommodating and accepting of them. Some critics of the neurodiversity paradigm, such as family members that are responsible for the care of such an autistic individual, think it might lead to overlooking or downplaying these challenges. In response, it has been stated that neurodiversity does not deny disability and support needs and that not having certain abilities or needing support is not intrinsically a bad thing, because notions of normal functioning are culturally and economically relative and historically contingent and there are cultures in which questions like “Will my child ever be able to live independently?” or “Who will care for my child after I die?” do not arise because support is provided by other members of the community as a matter of course.Autistic self-advocate and researcher Ari Ne’eman has suggested a trait-based approach, where elements of the medical (or pathology) model can be applied in treating certain traits, behaviors, or conditions that are intrinsically harmful (e.g. self-injury behaviors, epilepsy, or other co-occurring health conditions), while neurodiversity approaches can be applied to non-harmful or sometimes adaptive autistic traits (e.g. some stimming behaviors that do not result in self-injury, intense interests) of the same individual. Relatedly, some neurodiversity researchers, as well as autistic people, advocates and researchers, have advocated for application and sometimes integration or combination of both neurodiversity approaches and biomedical research plus practice.
In recent years, researchers, providers of various support services, and neurodivergent people have advocated for more neurodiversity-affirming interventions, with both new intervention strategies being developed and advancements or reforms of existing intervention strategies (e.g. social skills training, ABA interventions, occupational therapy) informed by experiences, strengths, interests, preferences, and feedback of autistic people as well as neurodiversity approaches and findings, with some evidence for beneficial effects. In addition, some researchers and advocates have called for more neurodiversity-affirming psychoeducation and stigma reduction methods.
Neurodiversity-lite
As the neurodiversity paradigm has gained traction in mainstream discourse, a diluted form has emerged—commonly referred to as “neurodiversity-lite”. This version retains the vocabulary of neurodiversity but strips it of its original political and disability rights roots. Instead of emphasizing systemic ableism, access barriers, or the need for structural change, neurodiversity-lite frames cognitive difference as a benign form of diversity—something novel, even fashionable.
Positives: rebranding difference
At first glance, neurodiversity-lite appears to offer an important cultural shift. It reframes conditions like autism and ADHD in a more positive light, emphasizing strengths such as creativity, attention to detail, hyperfocus, or out-of-the-box thinking. In doing so, it counters the historically deficit-based narratives that have dominated psychology and medicine. This framing can help reduce stigma, encourage self-acceptance, and support hiring initiatives that recognize neurodivergent talent. For many, this more affirming view has opened doors—both personally and professionally.
Negatives: from movement to marketing
However, this surface-level positivity comes at a cost. Critics argue that neurodiversity-lite risks overemphasizing exceptional abilities while erasing the real-world challenges many neurodivergent individuals face—especially those with high support needs, intellectual disabilities, or non-speaking communication. It is most visible in corporate or media narratives that promote the idea of neurodivergence as a “superpower”, particularly when it serves productivity and innovation—often framing autistic individuals as ideal workers in tech and STEM fields. These narratives selectively uplift individuals who can “perform” in neurotypical environments with little to no accommodation, leaving behind those who do not fit this mold. In doing so, they reproduce existing inequities under the guise of inclusion.
Moreover, by focusing only on traits that align with institutional value—like tech aptitude or problem-solving—neurodiversity-lite enables a form of inclusion without accountability. It avoids confronting structural ableism, fails to advocate for accessibility, and silences those whose support needs challenge the productivity-first mindset of modern institutions. In short, it reduces neurodiversity from a justice-oriented framework into a branding strategy.
According to Kassiane Asasumasu, who coined the terms in the year 2000, neurodivergent/neurodivergence refers to those “whose neurocognitive functioning diverges from dominant societal norms in multiple ways”. She emphasized that it should not be used to exclude people but rather to include them and therefore intended for these terms to apply to a broad variety of people, not just people with neurodevelopmental differences, such as autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and dyslexia. It is also used as an umbrella term to describe people with atypical mental and behavioral traits, such as mood, personality, and eating disorders. However, people with non-cognitive neurological conditions, such as cerebral palsy, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis, are normally excluded.
Under the neurodiversity framework, these differences are often referred to as “neurodivergences”, in an effort to move away from the medical model of disability (sometimes referred to in the neurodiversity community as the “pathology paradigm”). This term provided activists a way to advocate for increased rights and accessibility for non-autistic people who do not have a neurocognitive functioning that is considered typical.
Neurotypical (an abbreviation of neurologically typical, sometimes NT) is a neologism widely used in the neurodiversity movement as a label for anyone who has a neurotype that fits into the norm of thinking patterns. Thus, the term “neurotypical” includes anyone who is not autistic, and does not have ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety, or any other difference that would be considered neurodivergent. The term has been adopted by both the neurodiversity movement and some members of the scientific community.
Neuroscience writer Mo Costandi views terms like “neurotypical” as not being of use in neuroscience, while others, including Uta Frith and Francesca Happé, use the term freely. Ginny Russell mentions that there is no clear bimodal distribution separating autistic and non-autistic people because many non-autistic people have some autistic traits. Another criticism, that “neurotypical” was a dubious construct because there is nobody who could be considered truly neurotypical, has been said by Nick Walker to reflect a misunderstanding of the term because it is meant to describe those who can adapt to society’s norms without much effort, not to imply that all neurotypical people’s brains are the same.
Early definitions described neurotypicals as individuals who are not autistic. Early uses of NT were often satirical, as in the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, but it has been adopted by the neurodiversity movement too, and is now used in a serious manner.
In contrast to some of the shortcomings of terms like “neurotypical” (such as its underlying assumption that neurodivergent experiences are an anomaly, i.e. not typical), a growing group of advocates in the neurodivergent movement prefer other terms such as “neuroconforming”. The term “allistic” is also used, meaning “not autistic”.
Double empathy theory
The theory of the double empathy problem argues that autistic people do not inherently lack empathy as often supposed by people who see autism as pathological, but most autistic people may struggle in understanding and empathizing for non-autistic people whereas most non-autistic people also lack understanding and empathy for autistic people. It was originally conceived in 2012 by autistic scholar Damian Milton. The theory argues that characteristics and experiences of autistic and non-autistic people are so different that it is hard for one to understand how the other thinks and empathize with each other; for example, non-autistic people may not understand when an autistic person is overwhelmed.
An increasing number of studies in the 2010s and 2020s found support for double empathy theory and related concepts such as bidirectional social interaction. One study comparing the conversations and socialization of autistic groups, non-autistic groups, and mixed groups found that autistic people were more able to build rapport with other autistic people than with non-autistic people, and at a level similar to the purely non-autistic group. A systematic review published in 2024 found that most autistic people have good interpersonal relations and social-communication experiences with most autistic people, and interactions between autistic people are associated with better quality of life across multiple domains, including mental health and emotional well-being.
The double empathy problem theory implies there is no simple fix that can help each group better empathize with each other, but it is worthwhile to bridge the double empathy gap through more equal contact and enhancing public understanding and empathy about autistic people based on neurodiversity-affirming approaches. The advantage of the theory is reducing pathologization of autistic people by identifying that most people struggle to empathize with people with different neurotypes. It can also help neurotypical individuals to better understand how neurodivergent people think and empathize and to recognize their own limitations in empathizing with autistic people. Jaswal and Akhtar (2019) highlight the difference between being socially uninterested and appearing socially uninterested, and challenge preconceived notions of a lack of social motivation. For example, testimonies from autistic individuals report that avoiding eye contact serves an important function of helping them to concentrate during conversation, and should not be interpreted as expressing social disinterest.
Within disability rights movements
The neurodiversity paradigm was developed and embraced first by autistic people, but has been applied to other conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, and sometimes mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and, somewhat more controversially, personality disorders such as antisocial personality disorder. Neurodiversity advocates and organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) do not agree with using medical interventions as a way to remove neurodevelopmental differences that are fundamentally linked to the personality and perception of the world, such as autism. Rather, they promote support systems such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support. The intention is for individuals to receive support that honors human diversity and feel that they are able to freely express themselves. Other forms of interventions may cause them to feel as though they are being coerced or forced to adapt to social norms, or to conform to a behavioral standard or clinical ideal.
Proponents of neurodiversity strive to reconceptualize autism and related conditions in society by acknowledging that neurodivergence is not something that needs to be cured and that the idea of curing it makes no conceptual sense because differences like autism are so pervasive that removing the autistic parts of the person is tantamount to replacing the autistic person by a different person. An important aim is also changing the language from the current “condition, disease, disorder, or illness”-based nomenclature, “broadening the understanding of healthy or independent living”, acknowledging new types of autonomy, and giving neurodivergent individuals more control over their interventions, including the type, timing, and whether there should be interventions at all.
Activists such as Jennifer White-Johnson have helped bring attention to the neurodiversity movement, by creating symbols of protest and recognition, including a combination of the black power fist and infinity symbol.
A 2009 study separated 27 students with conditions including autism, dyslexia, developmental coordination disorder, ADHD, and having suffered a stroke into two categories of self-view: “A ‘difference’ view—where neurodiversity was seen as a difference incorporating a set of strengths and weaknesses, or a ‘medical/deficit’ view—where neurodiversity was seen as a disadvantageous medical condition”. They found that, although all of the students reported uniformly difficult schooling careers involving exclusion, abuse, and bullying, those who viewed themselves from the “difference” view (41% of the study cohort) “indicated higher academic self-esteem and confidence in their abilities and many (73%) expressed considerable career ambitions with positive and clear goals”. Many of these students reported gaining this view of themselves through contact with neurodiversity advocates in online support groups.
A 2013 online survey which aimed to assess conceptions of autism and neurodiversity suggested that conception of autism as a difference, and not a deficit, is developmentally beneficial and “transcend[s] a false dichotomy between celebrating differences and ameliorating deficit”.
Neurodiversity advocate John Elder Robison argues that the disabilities and strengths conferred by neurological differences may be mutually inseparable. “When 99 neurologically identical people fail to solve a problem, it’s often the 1% fellow who’s different who holds the key. Yet that person may be disabled or disadvantaged most or all of the time. To neurodiversity proponents, people are disabled because they are at the edges of the bell curve, not because they are sick or broken.”
Higher education
There are several models that are used to understand disability. There is the medical model of disability that views people as needing to be treated or cured. Another model is the social model of disability, which puts emphasis on the way that society treats people with disabilities. Through the social model of disability, the experiences of neurodivergent students in higher education are partially influenced by the reactions and attitudes of other students and the institution itself.
Experiences of neurodivergent students
The emotional experiences of neurodivergent students in higher education depend on a combination of factors, including the type of disability, the level of support needs, and the student’s access to resources and accommodations. A common difficulty for neurodivergent students is maintaining social relationships, which can give rise to loneliness, anxiety, and depression. There is also the added stress and difficulty of transitioning into higher education, as well as the responsibilities and task management required in college. Many neurodivergent students may find that they need added support. As for academics, neurodivergent students may experience difficulties in learning, executive function, managing peer relationships in the classroom or in group work, and other difficulties that can affect academic performance and success in higher education. However, neurodivergent students may find that their differences are a strength and an integral part of their new social roles as adults.
Higher education institutions
The typical curriculum and format of higher education may pose as a challenge for neurodivergent students, and a lack of support and flexibility from staff may further complicate the university experience. Thus, reasonable adjustments are available to students who disclose their disabilities. However, these adjustments or accommodations may put an emphasis on academics, and less on the various challenges of higher education on neurodivergent students. For instance, neurodivergent students in higher education also report a need for non-academic supports, such as social mentorships and resources for strength-based interventions in order to further assist neurodivergent students in the social aspects of college life. Similarly, career preparation that is specifically targeted for neurodivergent students is lacking. There are several programs, such as supported employment, that exist to help assist neurodivergent individuals in finding and obtaining a job. However, many of these programs do not exist in schools. This can make it difficult for neurodivergent students to find a career path that they feel is attainable for them. Another consideration is the implementation of a universal design approach (UDL) when building learning spaces or communal areas that considers the needs of neurodivergent students. A UDL design incorporates a design that accommodates the needs of all students, including the neurodivergent population.
According to an article published in 2023, universities and post-secondary establishments would show more tolerance towards neurodivergent people. A tolerant environment can increase autonomy, leading to kindness and understanding among students. Higher education institutions offer counseling and support services to students. However, neurodivergent students face particular challenges that impair their ability to receive consistent support and care. Additionally, counseling and support services face a lack of funding, personnel, and specialists that can adequately support neurodivergent students. Overall, these services work for some students and not for others.
Nachman and colleagues reviewed several articles published by two-year community colleges and found some discrepancies in the way that they perceived and categorized “disabled” students and “non-disabled” students. They found that all of the articles were attempting to normalize disability. Many of them put a distinct separation between typical and atypical learners as well as their potential academic achievement. Nachman also found that many of the articles showed a lack of autonomy for neurodivergent students. They had little power in regard to academic choices and classroom management.
In the workplace
Neurodivergent individuals are subjected to bias when applying and interviewing for job positions. Specifically, neurodivergent individuals can have their social engagement style compared to neurotypical individuals, which can affect their ability to obtain a job position. Stigmas against neurodivergence (especially against autistic individuals) and cognition challenges in social situations can hinder an individual’s ability to perform well in a traditional job interview. Organizations such as Specialisterne aim to use neurodivergent employees’ particular skills – such as pattern recognition, detection of deviations, attention to detail, analytical thinking, and extended focus – in the workforce, as well as educate companies on supporting neurodivergent employees.
In a systematic review that considered developmental dyslexia as “an expression of neurodiversity”, it was suggested that neurodiversity is not yet an established concept in the workplace, and therefore, support from social relationships and work accommodations is minimal. Furthermore, another systematic review that focused on pharmacological and combined pharmacological/psychosocial interventions for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder found that there were few workplace-based intervention studies, and suggested that additional research needs to be conducted to figure out how to best support neurodivergent employees in the workplace.
A study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that neurodivergent individuals would benefit from remote work as it allowed them to engage in their interests, but that social engagement is still necessary for productivity and performance. Another study supported these findings and stressed the need for redesigned work and social conditions to be more inclusive for autistic individuals.
In social media
The increase in representation of the neurodiversity movement in the media came about with changes in the technology of the media platforms themselves. The recent addition of text-based options on various social media sites allows disabled users to communicate, enjoy, and share at a more accessible rate. Social media has a two-fold benefit to the neurodivergent community: it can help spread awareness and pioneer the neurodiversity movement, and it can also allow members of the communities themselves to connect.
Social media as a platform
Media platforms allow the connection of individuals of similar backgrounds to find a community of support with one another. Online networking and connections enable users to determine their comfort level in interactions, giving them control over their relationships with others. For the neurodivergent community, social media has proven to be a valuable tool for forming relationships, especially for those who find social situations challenging. By connecting neurodivergent users, media platforms provide “safe spaces” that are helpful in forming relationships. Some media developers have created platforms like Blossom that are designed specifically to connect neurodivergent users and families.
Social media as a driving force
Social media also allows users to spread awareness about the neurodiversity movement. Increasing awareness about mental conditions has been shown to increase the amount of factual information spread. The spread of information through social media exposure can assist the neurodiversity movement in educating the public about understanding disabilities such as autism and sifting out misinformation. By sharing neurodivergent experiences from a first-hand perspective, social media can educate the public and destigmatize certain conditions. Still, negative portrayals of neurodivergence can have an obstructive impact on members of the community.
Higher awareness and acceptance through social media can lead people to self-identify as neurodivergent. Generally, self-diagnosis is discouraged in psychiatry because it is thought to be wrong more often than a professional assessment and because it is said that it trivializes challenges by turning them into fashion labels. Robert Chapman, in contrast, questions the reliability of professional autism assessments as they often overlook the experiences of individuals who are not white cisgender male children and states that self-identification is not done for fashion purposes but because it helps understanding one’s strengths and challenges. Sue Fletcher-Watson argues that because autism should not be classified as a disorder and no treatment should follow a diagnosis, autistic individuals should have the autonomy to self-identify as autistic, liberating them from the power of medical professionals in defining autism and determining who belongs to the autistic community. A group of researchers created a preliminary self-report questionnaire for autistic people.
Challenges within media
Although representation of the neurodivergent community has grown with the help of social media platforms, those users are often criticized and misunderstood. Social media has not entirely removed the social barriers that restrict inclusion of neurodivergent people. Some have reported needing to conform to the mainstream view of their disability to be seen as “authentic” users. Doing so has indirectly made it more difficult for neurodivergent users to grow platforms. Non-disabled users assessing the authenticity of neurodivergent individuals based on stereotypes indicates that the neurodiversity movement has not achieved its goal of inclusion.
Clinical setting
Medicine and healthcare
Medical and healthcare professionals have begun to acknowledge neurodivergence among employees. Specifically, more groups are being created that are centered around advocacy and peer support among medical and healthcare professionals who associate themselves with neurodiversity, such as the Autistic Doctors International created by Dr. Mary Doherty. Another approach is the implementation of a 5-minute video summary (5MVS) for medical learners and physicians who have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It consists of a 5-minute recorded video summary in which an engaging speaker presents the relevant information from a scientific article about ADHD using a brief PowerPoint presentation shared using videoconferencing technology. The researchers state that providing this educational tool for helping medical learners and physicians with ADHD acquire relevant information from scientific articles could help in addressing their inattention, impulsivity or hyperactivity, and improve their development of critical appraisal skills when working in healthcare.
Similarly, healthcare systems may benefit from hiring neurodivergent individuals to gain a unique perspective when caring for patients. Some healthcare staff agree that inviting neurodivergent individuals to join patient advisory groups or hiring them as staff are essential steps to acceptance and integration in the workforce. Neurodivergent people’s unique strengths can be vital to health system innovation and improvement efforts. One example of the push toward this is the Stanford Neurodiversity Project, in which one of their goals is to discover the strengths of neurodivergent individuals and make use of their talents to increase innovation and productivity of their society, such as working in the field of healthcare and medicine.
Neurodiversity has also recently been investigated as a new way of working within neurodevelopmental clinics in the UK. A team of researchers in Portsmouth, England, have created an approach in aiding neurodivergent individuals known as PANDA, or the Portsmouth Alliance Neurodiversity Approach. This approach may help medical and healthcare professionals facilitate understanding, communication and early support for children who may identify as being neurodivergent.
Therapy
Neurodiversity and the role it plays in therapeutic settings has been a central focal point in recent years. Many therapists and mental health professionals have pushed for more inclusive psychotherapeutic frameworks appropriate for neurodivergent individuals. One example is neurodivergence-informed therapy, which reframes dysfunction as interconnectedness among society rather than strictly individual, advocating for acceptance and pride in the neurodiversity community, and the push for therapists to pursue humility regarding the knowledge and education associated with individuals who identify as neurodivergent. Similarly, neurodiversity affirming therapy supports neurodivergent differences, rather than viewing them as something that should be eliminated, and to offer ways to support the individual with difficult areas, while still appreciating their needs and strengths.
Therapeutic programs and interventions are also being investigated for the neurodivergent community. Self-determination programs to help neurodivergent individuals achieve goals in their life have been found to be successful, with neurodivergent participants finding it to be “appropriate, acceptable, and feasible”. Various approaches (e.g., eye-tracking, longitudinal data, computational modeling) in understanding perceptual decision-making in neurodivergent individuals are also being studied and the implications it may have in the therapeutic environment in working with the neurodivergent population.
Another form of therapeutic intervention in that has been investigated in neurodivergent individuals is the use of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBIs). NDBIs have been shown to have positive effects on language and social-communication while, at the same time, respecting individuals’ needs and autonomy. One of the key goals in this type of intervention is putting the focus of therapy on the neurodivergent individual themselves in the creation of intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes. In doing so, they are likely to be seen as more acceptable, useful, and effective to that individual.
In addition to support from neurodiversity advocates for affirming therapies, concerns have been raised about the role of certain approaches such as applied behavior analysis. Neurodivergent individuals and activists tend to emphasize that these interventions aim to enforce conformity with expectations of society rather than addressing the needs of the person receiving the intervention. While a large body of research on the role of ABA seems to support its efficacy in cognitive and behavioral outcomes, a meta-analysis by Sandbank et al. challenges the evidence. Additionally, there are concerns regarding long-term mental health impacts and with the measures used in determining social validity by those who have raised these concerns. In addition to advocates from within the neurodivergent community, some behavioral analysts have begun to reconsider the role of these therapies with the context of a neurodiversity framework.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Neurodiversity, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250526
Utah is a landlocked state in the Mountain West subregion of the Western United States. It is one of the Four Corners states, sharing a border with Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. It also borders Wyoming to the northeast, Idaho to the north, and Nevada to the west. In comparison to all the U.S. states and territories, Utah, with a population of just over three million, is the 13th largest by area, the 30th most populous, and the 11th least densely populated. Urban development is mostly concentrated in two regions: the Wasatch Front in the north-central part of the state, which includes the state capital, Salt Lake City, and is home to roughly two-thirds of the population; and Washington County in the southwest, which has approximately 180,000 residents. Most of the western half of Utah lies in the Great Basin.
Utah has been inhabited for thousands of years by various indigenous groups, such as the ancient Puebloans, the Navajo, and the Ute. The first Europeans to arrive – in the mid-16th century – were the Spanish. Because of the region’s challenging geography and harsh climate, it only became a peripheral part of New Spain (and later of Mexico). Even while it was Mexican territory, many of the Utah region’s earliest European settlers were from the United States; notable among these were Mormons who were fleeing marginalization and persecution in the United States and arrived via the so-called Mormon Trail. In 1848, after the Mexican–American War, the region was annexed by the U.S., becoming part of the Utah Territory, which included what later became Colorado and Nevada. Disputes between the dominant Mormon community and the federal government delayed Utah’s admission as a state: in 1896, after it agreed to outlaw polygamy, it was admitted as the 45th state.
People from Utah are known as Utahns. Slightly over half of all Utahns are Mormons, the vast majority of whom are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which has its world headquarters in Salt Lake City; Utah is the only state where a majority of the population belongs to a single church. The LDS Church greatly influences Utah’s culture, politics, and daily life, though since the 1990s the state has become more religiously diverse as well as secular.
Utah has a highly diversified economy, with major sectors including transportation, education, information technology and research, government services, mining, multi-level marketing, and tourism. Utah has been one of the fastest growing states since 2000, with the 2020 U.S. census confirming the fastest population growth in the nation since 2010. St. George was the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the United States from 2000 to 2005. It has the 12th-highest median average income and the least income inequality of any U.S. state. Over time and influenced by climate change, droughts in Utah have been increasing in frequency and severity, putting a further strain on Utah’s water security and impacting the state’s economy.
Etymology
The name Utah derives from the name of the Ute tribe, meaning ‘people of the mountains’. However, no such word exists in the Utes’ language, and the Utes refer to themselves as Noochee. The meaning of Utes as ‘the mountain people’ has been attributed to the neighboring Pueblo Indians, as well as to the Apache word Yuttahih, which means ‘one that is higher up’ or ‘those that are higher up’. In Spanish, it was pronounced Yuta; subsequently, English-speaking people may have adapted the word as Utah.
History
Pre-Columbian
Thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, the Ancestral Puebloans and the Fremont people lived in what is now known as Utah, some of which spoke languages of the Uto-Aztecan group. Ancestral Pueblo peoples built their homes through excavations in mountains, and the Fremont people built houses of straw before disappearing from the region around the 15th century.
Another group of Native Americans, the Navajo, settled in the region around the 18th century. In the mid-18th century, other Uto-Aztecan tribes, including the Goshute, the Paiute, the Shoshone, and the Ute people, also settled in the region. These five groups were present when the first European explorers arrived.
Spanish exploration (1540)
The southern Utah region was explored by the Spanish in 1540, led by Francisco Vázquez de Coronado while looking for the legendary Cíbola. A group led by two Catholic priests—sometimes called the Domínguez–Escalante expedition—left Santa Fe in 1776, hoping to find a route to the coast of California. The expedition traveled as far north as Utah Lake and encountered the native residents. The Spanish made further explorations in the region but were not interested in colonizing the area because of its desert nature. In 1821, the year Mexico achieved its independence from Spain, the region became known as part of its territory of Alta California.
European trappers and fur traders explored some areas of Utah in the early 19th century from Canada and the United States. The city of Provo, Utah, was named for one Étienne Provost, who visited the area in 1825. The city of Ogden, Utah, was named after Peter Skene Ogden, a Canadian explorer who traded furs in the Weber Valley.
In late 1824, Jim Bridger became the first known English-speaking person to sight the Great Salt Lake. Due to the high salinity of its waters, he thought he had found the Pacific Ocean; he subsequently learned this body of water was a giant salt lake. After the discovery of the lake, hundreds of American and Canadian traders and trappers established trading posts in the region. In the 1830s, thousands of migrants traveling from the Eastern United States to the American West began to make stops in the region of the Great Salt Lake, then known as Lake Youta.
Latter Day Saint settlement (1847)
Following the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, Brigham Young, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve, became the leader of the LDS Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. To address the growing conflicts between his people and their neighbors, Young agreed with Illinois Governor Thomas Ford in October 1845 that the Mormons would leave by the following year.
Young and the first group of Mormon pioneers reached the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. Over the next 22 years, more than 70,000 pioneers crossed the plains and settled in Utah. For the first few years, Brigham Young and the thousands of early settlers of Salt Lake City struggled to survive. The arid desert land was deemed desirable by the Mormons as a place where they could practice their religion without harassment.
Settlers buried thirty-six Native Americans in one grave after an outbreak of measles occurred during the winter of 1847.
The first group of settlers brought three African slaves with them, making Utah the only place in the western United States to have African slavery. The three slaves, Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby, came west with the first group of settlers in 1847.
Utah was a Mexican territory when the first pioneers arrived in 1847. Early in the Mexican–American War in late 1846, the United States had taken control of New Mexico and California. The entire Southwest became U.S. territory upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on March 11. Learning that California and New Mexico were applying for statehood, the settlers of the Utah area (originally having planned to petition for territorial status) applied for statehood with an ambitious plan for a State of Deseret.
The Mormon settlements provided pioneers for other settlements in the West. Salt Lake City became the hub of a “far-flung commonwealth” of Mormon settlements. With new church converts coming from the East and around the world, Church leaders often assigned groups of church members as missionaries to establish other settlements throughout the West. They developed irrigation to support fairly large pioneer populations along Utah’s Wasatch front (Salt Lake City, Bountiful and Weber Valley, and Provo and Utah Valley). Throughout the remainder of the 19th century, Mormon pioneers established hundreds of other settlements in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, California, Canada, and Mexico—including in Las Vegas, Nevada; Franklin, Idaho (the first European settlement in Idaho); San Bernardino, California; Mesa, Arizona; Star Valley, Wyoming; and Carson Valley, Nevada.
Prominent settlements in Utah included St. George, Logan, and Manti (where settlers completed the LDS Church’s first three temples in Utah, each started after but finished many years before the larger and better-known temple built in Salt Lake City was completed in 1893), as well as Parowan, Cedar City, Bluff, Moab, Vernal, Fillmore (which served as the territorial capital between 1850 and 1856), Nephi, Levan, Spanish Fork, Springville, Provo Bench (now Orem), Pleasant Grove, American Fork, Lehi, Sandy, Murray, Jordan, Centerville, Farmington, Huntsville, Kaysville, Grantsville, Tooele, Roy, Brigham City, and many other smaller towns and settlements. Young had an expansionist view of the territory that he and the Mormon pioneers were settling, calling it Deseret—which according to the Book of Mormon was an ancient word for “honeybee”. This is symbolized by the beehive on the Utah flag, and the state’s motto, “Industry”.
Utah Territory (1850–1896)
The Utah Territory was much smaller than the proposed state of Deseret, but it still contained all of the present states of Nevada and Utah as well as pieces of modern Wyoming and Colorado. It was created with the Compromise of 1850, and Fillmore, named after President Millard Fillmore, was designated the capital. The territory was given the name Utah after the Ute tribe of Native Americans. Salt Lake City replaced Fillmore as the territorial capital in 1856.
By 1850, there were around 100 black people in the territory, the majority of whom were slaves. In Salt Lake County, 26 slaves were counted. In 1852, the territorial legislature passed the Act in Relation to Service and the Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners formally legalizing slavery in the territory. Slavery was abolished in the territory during the Civil War.
In 1850, Salt Lake City sent out a force known as the Nauvoo Legion and engaged the Timpanogos in the Battle at Fort Utah.
Disputes between the Mormon inhabitants and the U.S. government intensified due to the practice of plural marriage, or polygamy, among members of the LDS Church. The Mormons were still pushing for the establishment of a State of Deseret with the new borders of the Utah Territory. Most, if not all, of the members of the U.S. government opposed the polygamous practices of the Mormons.
Members of the LDS Church were viewed as un-American and rebellious when news of their polygamous practices spread. In 1857, particularly heinous accusations of abdication of government and general immorality were leveled by former associate justice William W. Drummond, among others. The detailed reports of life in Utah caused the administration of James Buchanan to send a secret military “expedition” to Utah. When the supposed rebellion should be quelled, Alfred Cumming would take the place of Brigham Young as territorial governor. The resulting conflict is known as the Utah War, nicknamed “Buchanan’s Blunder” by the Mormon leaders.
In September 1857, about 120 American settlers of the Baker–Fancher wagon train, en route to California from Arkansas, were murdered by Utah Territorial Militia and some Paiute Native Americans in the Mountain Meadows massacre.
Before troops led by Albert Sidney Johnston entered the territory, Brigham Young ordered all residents of Salt Lake City to evacuate southward to Utah Valley and sent out the Nauvoo Legion to delay the government’s advance. Although wagons and supplies were burned, eventually the troops arrived in 1858, and Young surrendered official control to Cumming, although most subsequent commentators claim that Young retained true power in the territory. A steady stream of governors appointed by the president quit the position, often citing the traditions of their supposed territorial government. By agreement with Young, Johnston established Camp Floyd, 40 miles (60 km) away from Salt Lake City to the southwest.
Salt Lake City was the last link of the First Transcontinental Telegraph, completed in October 1861. Brigham Young was among the first to send a message, along with Abraham Lincoln and other officials.
Because of the American Civil War, federal troops were pulled out of Utah Territory in 1861. This was a boon to the local economy as the army sold everything in camp for pennies on the dollar before marching back east to join the war. The territory was then left in LDS hands until Patrick E. Connor arrived with a regiment of California volunteers in 1862. Connor established Fort Douglas just 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Salt Lake City and encouraged his people to discover mineral deposits to bring more non-Mormons into the territory. Minerals were discovered in Tooele County and miners began to flock to the territory.
Beginning in 1865, Utah’s Black Hawk War developed into the deadliest conflict in the territory’s history. Chief Antonga Black Hawk died in 1870, but fights continued to break out until additional federal troops were sent in to suppress the Ghost Dance of 1872. The war is unique among Indian Wars because it was a three-way conflict, with mounted Timpanogos Utes led by Antonga Black Hawk fighting federal and LDS authorities.
On May 10, 1869, the First transcontinental railroad was completed at Promontory Summit, north of the Great Salt Lake. The railroad brought increasing numbers of people into the territory and several influential businesspeople made fortunes there.
During the 1870s and 1880s laws were passed to punish polygamists due, in part, to stories from Utah. Notably, Ann Eliza Young—tenth wife to divorce Brigham Young, women’s advocate, national lecturer, and author of Wife No. 19 or My Life of Bondage—and Fanny Stenhouse, author of Tell It All: My Life in Mormonism, testified to the happiness of the very early Church members before polygamy. They independently published their books in 1875. These books and the lectures of Ann Eliza Young have been credited with the United States Congress’s passage of anti-polygamy laws by newspapers throughout the United States, as recorded in “The Ann Eliza Young Vindicator”, a pamphlet which detailed Ms. Young’s travels and warm reception throughout her lecture tour.
T. B. H. Stenhouse, former Utah Mormon polygamist, a Mormon missionary for thirteen years, and a Salt Lake City newspaper owner, finally left Utah and wrote The Rocky Mountain Saints. His book gives a witnessed account of life in Utah, both the good and the bad. He finally left Utah and Mormonism after financial ruin occurred when Brigham Young sent Stenhouse to relocate to Ogden, Utah, according to Stenhouse, to take over his thriving pro-Mormon Salt Lake Telegraph newspaper. In addition to these testimonies, The Confessions of John D. Lee, written by John D. Lee—alleged “Scapegoat” for the Mountain Meadow Massacre—also came out in 1877. The corroborative testimonies coming out of Utah from Mormons and former Mormons influenced Congress and the people of the United States.
In the 1890 Manifesto, the LDS Church banned polygamy. When Utah applied for statehood again, it was accepted. One of the conditions for granting Utah statehood was that a ban on polygamy be written into the state constitution. This was a condition required of other western states that were admitted into the Union later. Statehood was officially granted on January 4, 1896.
20th century to present
Beginning in the early 20th century, with the establishment of such national parks as Bryce Canyon National Park and Zion National Park, Utah became known for its natural beauty. Southern Utah became a popular filming spot for arid, rugged scenes featured in the popular mid-century western film genre. From such films, most US residents recognize such natural landmarks as Delicate Arch and “the Mittens” of Monument Valley. During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, with the construction of the Interstate highway system, accessibility to the southern scenic areas was made easier.
Since the establishment of Alta Ski Area in 1939 and the subsequent development of several ski resorts in the state’s mountains, Utah’s skiing has become world-renowned. The dry, powdery snow of the Wasatch Range is considered some of the best skiing in the world (the state license plate once claimed “the Greatest Snow on Earth”). Salt Lake City won the bid for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, and this served as a great boost to the economy. The ski resorts have increased in popularity, and many of the Olympic venues built along the Wasatch Front continue to be used for sporting events. Preparation for the Olympics spurred the development of the light-rail system in the Salt Lake Valley, known as TRAX, and the reconstruction of the freeway system around the city.
In 1957, Utah created the Utah State Parks Commission with four parks. Today, Utah State Parks manages 43 parks and several undeveloped areas totaling over 95,000 acres (380 km2) of land and more than 1,000,000 acres (4,000 km2) of water. Utah’s state parks are scattered throughout Utah, from Bear Lake State Park at the Utah/Idaho border to Edge of the Cedars State Park Museum deep in the Four Corners region and everywhere in between. Utah State Parks is also home to the state’s off highway vehicle office, state boating office, and the trails program.
During the late 20th century, the state grew quickly. In the 1970s growth was phenomenal in the suburbs of the Wasatch Front. Sandy was one of the fastest-growing cities in the country at that time. Today, many areas of Utah continue to see boom-time growth. Northern Davis, southern and western Salt Lake, Summit, eastern Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Washington counties are all growing very quickly. Management of transportation and urbanization are major issues in politics, as development consumes agricultural land and wilderness areas and transportation is a major reason for poor air quality in Utah.
On March 18, 2020, Utah suffered a 5.7 magnitude earthquake originating 3.7 mi (6.0 km) northeast of Magna, near Salt Lake City.
Geography and geology
Utah is known for its natural diversity and is home to features ranging from arid deserts with dunes to thriving pine forests in mountain valleys. It is a rugged and geographically diverse state at the convergence of three distinct geological regions: the Rocky Mountains, the Great Basin, and the Colorado Plateau.
Utah covers an area of 84,899 sq mi (219,890 km2). It is one of the Four Corners states and is bordered by Idaho in the north, Wyoming in the north and east, Colorado in the east, at a single point by New Mexico to the southeast, by Arizona in the south, and by Nevada in the west. Only three U.S. states (Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming) have exclusively latitude and longitude lines as boundaries.
One of Utah’s defining characteristics is the variety of its terrain. Running down the middle of the state’s northern third is the Wasatch Range, which rises to heights of almost 12,000 ft (3,700 m) above sea level. Utah is home to world-renowned ski resorts made popular by light, fluffy snow and winter storms that regularly dump up to three feet of it overnight. In the state’s northeastern section, running east to west, are the Uinta Mountains, which rise to heights of over 13,000 feet (4,000 m). The highest point in the state, Kings Peak, at 13,528 feet (4,123 m), lies within the Uinta Mountains.
At the western base of the Wasatch Range is the Wasatch Front, a series of valleys and basins that are home to the most populous parts of the state. It stretches approximately from Brigham City at the north end to Nephi at the south end. Approximately 75 percent of the state’s population lives in this corridor, and population growth is rapid.
Western Utah is a mostly arid desert with a basin and range topography. Small mountain ranges and rugged terrain punctuate the landscape. The Bonneville Salt Flats are an exception, being comparatively flat as a result of once forming the bed of ancient Lake Bonneville. Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, Sevier Lake, and Rush Lake are all remnants of this ancient freshwater lake, which once covered most of the eastern Great Basin. West of the Great Salt Lake, stretching to the Nevada border, lies the arid Great Salt Lake Desert. One exception to this aridity is Snake Valley, which is (relatively) lush due to large springs and wetlands fed from groundwater derived from snow melt in the Snake Range, Deep Creek Range, and other tall mountains to the west of Snake Valley. Great Basin National Park is just over the Nevada state line in the southern Snake Range. One of western Utah’s most impressive, but least visited attractions is Notch Peak, the tallest limestone cliff in North America, located west of Delta.
Much of the scenic southern and southeastern landscape (specifically the Colorado Plateau region) is sandstone, specifically Kayenta sandstone and Navajo sandstone. The Colorado River and its tributaries wind their way through the sandstone, creating some of the world’s most striking and wild terrain (the area around the confluence of the Colorado and Green Rivers was the last to be mapped in the lower 48 United States). Wind and rain have also sculpted the soft sandstone over millions of years. Canyons, gullies, arches, pinnacles, buttes, bluffs, and mesas are common sights throughout south-central and southeast Utah.
This terrain is the central feature of protected state and federal parks such as Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion national parks, Cedar Breaks, Grand Staircase–Escalante, Hovenweep, and Natural Bridges national monuments, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (site of the popular tourist destination, Lake Powell), Dead Horse Point and Goblin Valley state parks, and Monument Valley. The Navajo Nation also extends into southeastern Utah, and the tribe is part of the coalition that manages Bears Ears National Monument. Southeastern Utah is also punctuated by the remote, but lofty La Sal, Abajo, and Henry mountain ranges.
Eastern (northern quarter) Utah is a high-elevation area covered mostly by plateaus and basins, particularly the Tavaputs Plateau and San Rafael Swell, which remain mostly inaccessible, and the Uinta Basin, where the majority of eastern Utah’s population lives. Economies are dominated by mining, oil shale, oil, and natural gas-drilling, ranching, and recreation. Much of eastern Utah is part of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. The most popular destination within northeastern Utah is Dinosaur National Monument near Vernal.
Southwestern Utah is the lowest and hottest spot in Utah. It is known as Utah’s Dixie because early settlers were able to grow some cotton there. Beaverdam Wash in far southwestern Utah is the lowest point in the state, at 2,000 feet (610 m). The northernmost portion of the Mojave Desert is also located in this area. Dixie is quickly becoming a popular recreational and retirement destination, and the population is growing rapidly. Although the Wasatch Mountains end at Mount Nebo near Nephi, a complex series of mountain ranges extends south from the southern end of the range down the spine of Utah. Just north of Dixie and east of Cedar City is the state’s highest ski resort, Brian Head.
Like most of the western and southwestern states, the federal government owns much of the land in Utah. Over 70 percent of the land is either BLM land, Utah State Trustland, or U.S. National Forest, U.S. National Park, U.S. National Monument, National Recreation Area or U.S. Wilderness Area. Utah is the only state where every county contains some national forest.
Adjacent states
– Idaho (north)
– Wyoming (east and north)
– Colorado (east)
– Nevada (west)
– Arizona (south)
Climate
Utah features a dry, semi-arid to desert climate, although its many mountains feature a large variety of climates, with the highest points in the Uinta Mountains being above the timberline. The dry weather is a result of the state’s location in the rain shadow of the Sierra Nevada in California. The eastern half of the state lies in the rain shadow of the Wasatch Mountains. The primary source of precipitation for the state is the Pacific Ocean, with the state usually lying in the path of large Pacific storms from October to May. In summer, the state, especially southern and eastern Utah, lies in the path of monsoon moisture from the Gulf of California.
Most of the lowland areas receive less than 12 inches (305 mm) of precipitation annually, although the I-15 corridor, including the densely populated Wasatch Front, receives approximately 15 inches (381 mm). The Great Salt Lake Desert is the driest area of the state, with less than 5 inches (127 mm). Snowfall is common in all but the far southern valleys. Although St. George receives only about 3 inches (76 mm) per year, Salt Lake City sees about 60 inches (1,524 mm), enhanced by the lake-effect snow from the Great Salt Lake, which increases snowfall totals to the south, southeast, and east of the lake.
Some areas of the Wasatch Range in the path of the lake effect receive up to 500 inches (1,270 cm) per year. This micro climate of enhanced snowfall from the Great Salt Lake spans the entire proximity of the lake. The cottonwood canyons adjacent to Salt Lake City are located in the right position to receive more precipitation from the lake. The consistently deep powder snow led Utah’s ski industry to adopt the slogan “the Greatest Snow on Earth” in the 1980s. In the winter, temperature inversions are a common phenomenon across Utah’s low basins and valleys, leading to thick haze and fog that can last for weeks at a time, especially in the Uintah Basin. Although at other times of year, its air quality is good, winter inversions give Salt Lake City some of the worst wintertime pollution in the country.
Previous studies have indicated a widespread decline in snowpack over Utah accompanied by a decline in the snow–snow-precipitation ratio while anecdotal evidence claims have been put forward that measured changes in Utah’s snowpack are spurious and do not reflect actual change. A 2012 study found that the proportion of winter (January–March) precipitation falling as snow has decreased by nine percent during the last half century, a combined result of a significant increase in rainfall and a minor decrease in snowfall. Meanwhile, observed snow depth across Utah has decreased and is accompanied by consistent decreases in snow cover and surface albedo. Weather systems with the potential to produce precipitation in Utah have decreased in number with those producing snowfall decreasing at a considerably greater rate.
Utah’s temperatures are extreme, with cold temperatures in winter due to its elevation, and very hot summers statewide (except mountain areas and high mountain valleys). Utah is usually protected from major blasts of cold air by mountains lying north and east of the state, although major Arctic blasts can occasionally reach the state. Average January high temperatures range from around 30 °F (−1 °C) in some northern valleys to almost 55 °F (13 °C) in St. George.
Temperatures dropping below 0 °F (−18 °C) should be expected on occasion in most areas of the state most years, although some areas see it often (for example, the town of Randolph averages about fifty days per year with temperatures that low). In July, average highs range from about 85 to 100 °F (29 to 38 °C). However, the low humidity and high elevation typically lead to large temperature variations, leading to cool nights on most summer days. The record high temperature in Utah was 118 °F (48 °C), recorded south of St. George on July 4, 2007, and the record low was −69 °F (−56 °C), recorded at Peter Sinks in the Bear River Mountains of northern Utah on February 1, 1985. However, the record low for an inhabited location is −49 °F (−45 °C) at Woodruff on December 12, 1932.
Utah, like most of the western United States, has few days of thunderstorms. On average, there are fewer than 40 days of thunderstorm activity during the year, although these storms can be briefly intense when they do occur. They are most likely to occur during monsoon season from about mid-July through mid-September, especially in southern and eastern Utah. Dry lightning strikes and the generally dry weather often spark wildfires in summer, while intense thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding, especially in the rugged terrain of southern Utah. Although spring is the wettest season in northern Utah, late summer is the wettest period for much of the south and east of the state. Tornadoes are uncommon in Utah, with an average of two striking the state yearly, rarely higher than EF1 intensity.
One exception of note, however, was the unprecedented Salt Lake City Tornado that moved directly across downtown Salt Lake City on August 11, 1999. The F2 tornado killed one person, injured 60 others, and caused approximately $170 million in damage; it was the second strongest tornado in the state behind an F3 on August 11, 1993, in the Uinta Mountains. The only other reported tornado fatality in Utah’s history was a 7-year-old girl who was killed while camping in Summit County on July 6, 1884.
Wildlife
Utah is home to more than 600 vertebrate animal species as well as numerous invertebrates and insects.
Mammals
Mammals are found in every area of Utah. Non-predatory larger mammals include the plains bison, elk, moose, mountain goat, mule deer, pronghorn, and multiple types of bighorn sheep. Non-predatory small mammals include muskrat, and nutria. Large and small predatory mammals include the black bear, cougar, Canada lynx, bobcat, fox (gray, red, and kit), coyote, badger, black-footed ferret, mink, stoat, long-tailed weasel, raccoon, and otter.
The brown bear was formerly found within Utah, but has since been extirpated. There are no confirmed mating pairs of gray wolves in Utah, although there have been sightings in northeastern Utah along the Wyoming border.
Birds
As of January 2020, there were 466 species included in the official list managed by the Utah Bird Records Committee (UBRC). Of these, 119 are classed as accidental, 29 are classed as occasional, 57 are classed as rare, and 10 have been introduced to Utah or North America. Eleven of the accidental species are also classed as provisional.
Due to the “Miracle of the Gulls” incident in 1848, the most well-known bird in Utah is the California gull, which is also the Utah state bird. A monument in Salt Lake City commemorates the Miracle of the Gulls. Other gulls common to Utah include Bonaparte’s gull, the ring-billed gull, and Franklin’s gull.
Other birds commonly found include the American robin, the common starling, finches (black rosy, Cassin’s, and goldfinch), the black-billed magpie, mourning doves, sparrows (house, tree, black-chinned, black-throated, Brewer’s, and chipping), Clark’s grebe, the ferruginous hawk, geese (snow, cackling, and Canada), eagles (golden and bald), California quail, mountain bluebird, and hummingbirds (calliope, black-chinned, and broad-tailed).
Invertebrates
Utah is host to a wide variety of arachnids, insects, mollusks, and other invertebrates. Arachnids include the Arizona bark scorpion, Western black widow spiders, crab spiders, hobo spiders (Tegenaria agrestis), cellar spiders, American grass spiders, woodlouse spiders. Several spiders found in Utah are often mistaken for the brown recluse spider, including the desert recluse spider (found only in Washington County), the cellar spider, and crevice weaving spiders. The brown recluse spider has not been officially confirmed in Utah as of summer 2020.
One of the rarest insects in Utah is the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle, found only in Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park, near Kanab. It was proposed in 2012 to be listed as a threatened species, but the proposal was not accepted. Other insects include grasshoppers, green stink bugs, the Army cutworm, the monarch butterfly, and Mormon fritillary butterfly. The white-lined sphinx moth is common to most of the United States, but there have been reported outbreaks of large groups of their larvae damaging tomato, grape and garden crops in Utah. Four or five species of firefly are also found across the state.
In February 2009, Africanized honeybees were found in southern Utah. The bees had spread into eight counties in Utah, as far north as Grand and Emery counties by May 2017.
Vegetation
Several thousand plants are native to Utah, including a variety of trees, shrubs, cacti, herbaceous plants, and grasses. As of 2018, there are 3,930 species of plants in Utah, with 3,128 of those being indigenous and 792 being introduced through various means.
Common trees include pines/piñons (white fir, Colorado, single-leaf, Great Basin bristlecone, ponderosa, Engelmann spruce, Rocky Mountain white), and Acer grandidentatum, quaking aspen, bigtooth maple, Utah juniper, speckled alder, red birch, Gambel oak, desert willow, blue spruce, and Joshua trees. Utah has a number of named trees, including the Jardine Juniper, Pando, and the Thousand Mile Tree. Shrubs include a number of different ephedras (pitamoreal, Navajo, Arizona, Nevada, Torrey’s jointfir, and green Mormon tea), sagebrushes (little, Bigelow, silver, Michaux’s wormwood, black, pygmy, bud, and Great Basin), blue elderberry, Utah serviceberry, chokecherry, and skunkbush sumac. Western poison oak, poison sumac, and western poison ivy are all found in Utah.
There are many varieties of cacti in Utah’s varied deserts, especially in the southern and western parts of the state. Some of these include desert prickly pear, California barrel cactus, fishhook cactus, cholla, beavertail prickly pear, and Uinta Basin hookless cactus. Despite the desert climate, many different grasses are found in Utah, including Mormon needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, western alkali grass, squirreltail, desert saltgrass, and cheatgrass.
Several invasive species of plants are considered noxious weeds by the state, including Bermuda grass, field bindweed, henbane, jointed goatgrass, Canada thistle, Balkan and common toadflax, giant cane, couch grass, St. John’s wort, hemlock, sword grass, Russian olive, myrtle spurge, Japanese knotweed, salt cedar, and goat’s head.
Demographics
At the 2020 U.S. census, Utah had a population of 3,271,616. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of Utah was 3,205,958 on July 1, 2019, a 16.00% increase since the 2010 U.S. census. The center of population of Utah is located in Utah County in the city of Lehi. Much of the population lives in cities and towns along the Wasatch Front, a metropolitan region that runs north–south with the Wasatch Mountains rising on the eastern side. Growth outside the Wasatch Front is also increasing. The St. George metropolitan area is currently the second fastest-growing in the country after the Las Vegas metropolitan area, while the Heber micropolitan area is also the second fastest-growing in the country (behind Palm Coast, Florida).
Utah contains five metropolitan areas (Logan, Ogden-Clearfield, Salt Lake City, Provo-Orem, and St. George), and six micropolitan areas (Brigham City, Heber, Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Cedar City).
According to HUD’s 2022 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, there were an estimated 3,557 homeless people in Utah.
The majority of Utah’s immigrants come from Mexico.
Health and fertility
Utah ranks among the highest in total fertility rate, 47th in teenage pregnancy, lowest in percentage of births out of wedlock, lowest in number of abortions per capita, and lowest in percentage of teen pregnancies terminated in abortion. However, statistics relating to pregnancies and abortions may also be artificially low from teenagers going out of state for abortions because of parental notification requirements. Utah has the lowest child poverty rate in the country, despite its young demographics. According to the Gallup-Healthways Global Well-Being Index as of 2012, Utahns ranked fourth in overall well-being in the United States. A 2002 national prescription drug study determined that antidepressant drugs were “prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average”. The data shows that depression rates in Utah are no higher than the national average. In 2022, Utah had the lowest percent of births to unmarried women of any US state, at 20.3 percent.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Utah, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250522
Orion is a prominent set of stars visible during winter in the northern celestial hemisphere. It is one of the 88 modern constellations; it was among the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy. It is named after a hunter in Greek mythology.
Orion is most prominent during winter evenings in the Northern Hemisphere, as are five other constellations that have stars in the Winter Hexagon asterism. Orion’s two brightest stars, Rigel (β) and Betelgeuse (α), are both among the brightest stars in the night sky; both are supergiants and slightly variable. There are a further six stars brighter than magnitude 3.0, including three making the short straight line of the Orion’s Belt asterism. Orion also hosts the radiant of the annual Orionids, the strongest meteor shower associated with Halley’s Comet, and the Orion Nebula, one of the brightest nebulae in the sky.
Orion is bordered by Taurus to the northwest, Eridanus to the southwest, Lepus to the south, Monoceros to the east, and Gemini to the northeast. Covering 594 square degrees, Orion ranks twenty-sixth of the 88 constellations in size. The constellation boundaries, as set by Belgian astronomer Eugène Delporte in 1930, are defined by a polygon of 26 sides. In the equatorial coordinate system, the right ascension coordinates of these borders lie between 04h 43.3m and 06h 25.5m , while the declination coordinates are between 22.87° and −10.97°. The constellation’s three-letter abbreviation, as adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 1922, is “Ori”.
Orion is most visible in the evening sky from January to April, winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and summer in the Southern Hemisphere. In the tropics (less than about 8° from the equator), the constellation transits at the zenith.
In the period May–July (summer in the Northern Hemisphere, winter in the Southern Hemisphere), Orion is in the daytime sky and thus invisible at most latitudes. However, for much of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere’s winter months, the Sun is below the horizon even at midday. Stars (and thus Orion, but only the brightest stars) are then visible at twilight for a few hours around local noon, just in the brightest section of the sky low in the North where the Sun is just below the horizon. At the same time of day at the South Pole itself (Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station), Rigel is only 8° above the horizon, and the Belt sweeps just along it. In the Southern Hemisphere’s summer months, when Orion is normally visible in the night sky, the constellation is actually not visible in Antarctica because the sun does not set at that time of year south of the Antarctic Circle.
In countries close to the equator (e.g., Kenya, Indonesia, Colombia, Ecuador), Orion appears overhead in December around midnight and in the February evening sky.
Navigational aid
Orion is very useful as an aid to locating other stars. By extending the line of the Belt southeastward, Sirius (α CMa) can be found; northwestward, Aldebaran (α Tau). A line eastward across the two shoulders indicates the direction of Procyon (α CMi). A line from Rigel through Betelgeuse points to Castor and Pollux (α Gem and β Gem). Additionally, Rigel is part of the Winter Circle asterism. Sirius and Procyon, which may be located from Orion by following imaginary lines (see map), also are points in both the Winter Triangle and the Circle.
Features
Orion’s seven brightest stars form a distinctive hourglass-shaped asterism, or pattern, in the night sky. Four stars—Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix, and Saiph—form a large roughly rectangular shape, at the center of which lie the three stars of Orion’s Belt—Alnitak, Alnilam, and Mintaka. His head is marked by an additional 8th star called Meissa, which is fairly bright to the observer. Descending from the “belt” is a smaller line of three stars, Orion’s Sword (the middle of which is in fact not a star but the Orion Nebula), also known as the hunter’s sword.
Many of the stars are luminous hot blue supergiants, with the stars of the belt and sword forming the Orion OB1 association. Standing out by its red hue, Betelgeuse may nevertheless be a runaway member of the same group.
Bright stars
– Betelgeuse, also designated Alpha Orionis, is a massive M-type red supergiant star nearing the end of its life. It is the second brightest star in Orion, and is a semiregular variable star. It serves as the “right shoulder” of the hunter (assuming that he is facing the observer). It is generally the eleventh brightest star in the night sky, but this has varied between being the tenth brightest to the 23rd brightest by the end of 2019. The end of its life is expected to result in a supernova explosion that will be highly visible from Earth, possibly outshining the Moon and being visible during the day. This is most likely to occur within the next 100,000 years.
– Rigel, also known as Beta Orionis, is a B-type blue supergiant that is the seventh brightest star in the night sky. Similar to Betelgeuse, Rigel is fusing heavy elements in its core and will pass its supergiant stage soon (on an astronomical timescale), either collapsing in the case of a supernova or shedding its outer layers and turning into a white dwarf. It serves as the left foot of the hunter.
– Bellatrix is designated Gamma Orionis by Johann Bayer. It is the twenty-seventh brightest star in the night sky. Bellatrix is considered a B-type blue giant, though it is too small to explode in a supernova. Bellatrix’s luminosity is derived from its high temperature rather than a large radius. Bellatrix marks Orion’s left shoulder and it means the “female warrior”, and is sometimes known colloquially as the “Amazon Star”. It is the closest major star in Orion at only 244.6 light years from the Solar System.
– Mintaka is designated Delta Orionis, despite being the faintest of the three stars in Orion’s Belt. Its name means “the belt”. It is a multiple star system, composed of a large B-type blue giant and a more massive O-type main-sequence star. The Mintaka system constitutes an eclipsing binary variable star, where the eclipse of one star over the other creates a dip in brightness. Mintaka is the westernmost of the three stars of Orion’s Belt, as well as the northernmost.
– Alnilam is designated Epsilon Orionis and is named for the Arabic phrase meaning “string of pearls”. It is the middle and brightest of the three stars of Orion’s Belt. Alnilam is a B-type blue supergiant; despite being nearly twice as far from the Sun as the other two belt stars, its luminosity makes it nearly equal in magnitude. Alnilam is losing mass quickly, a consequence of its size. It is the farthest major star in Orion at 1,344 light years.
– Alnitak, meaning “the girdle”, is designated Zeta Orionis, and is the easternmost star in Orion’s Belt. It is a triple star system, with the primary star being a hot blue supergiant and the brightest class O star in the night sky.
– Saiph is designated Kappa Orionis by Bayer, and serves as Orion’s right foot. It is of a similar distance and size to Rigel, but appears much fainter. It means the “sword of the giant”
– Meissa is designated Lambda Orionis, forms Orion’s head, and is a multiple star with a combined apparent magnitude of 3.33. Its name means the “shining one”.
Belt
Orion’s Belt or The Belt of Orion is an asterism within the constellation. It consists of the three bright stars Zeta (Alnitak), Epsilon (Alnilam), and Delta (Mintaka). Alnitak is around 800 light years away from Earth and is 100,000 times more luminous than the Sun and shines with magnitude 1.8; much of its radiation is in the ultraviolet range, which the human eye cannot see. Alnilam is approximately 2,000 light years away from Earth, shines with magnitude 1.70, and with ultraviolet light is 375,000 times more luminous than the Sun. Mintaka is 915 light years away and shines with magnitude 2.21. It is 90,000 times more luminous than the Sun and is a double star: the two orbit each other every 5.73 days. In the Northern Hemisphere, Orion’s Belt is best visible in the night sky during the month of January around 9:00 pm, when it is approximately around the local meridian.
Just southwest of Alnitak lies Sigma Orionis, a multiple star system composed of five stars that have a combined apparent magnitude of 3.7 and lying 1150 light years distant. Southwest of Mintaka lies the quadruple star Eta Orionis.
Sword
Orion’s Sword contains the Orion Nebula, the Messier 43 nebula, the Running Man Nebula, and the stars Theta Orionis, Iota Orionis, and 42 Orionis.
Head
Three stars comprise a small triangle that marks the head. The apex is marked by Meissa (Lambda Orionis), a hot blue giant of spectral type O8 III and apparent magnitude 3.54, which lies some 1100 light years distant. Phi-1 and Phi-2 Orionis make up the base. Also nearby is the very young star FU Orionis.
Club
Stretching north from Betelgeuse are the stars that make up Orion’s club. Mu Orionis marks the elbow, Nu and Xi mark the handle of the club, and Chi1 and Chi2 mark the end of the club. Just east of Chi1 is the Mira-type variable red giant U Orionis.
Shield
West from Bellatrix lie six stars all designated Pi Orionis (π1 Ori, π2 Ori, π3 Ori, π4 Ori, π5 Ori and π6 Ori) which make up Orion’s shield.
Meteor showers
Around 20 October each year the Orionid meteor shower (Orionids) reaches its peak. Coming from the border with the constellation Gemini as many as 20 meteors per hour can be seen. The shower’s parent body is Halley’s Comet.
Hanging from Orion’s belt is his sword, consisting of the multiple stars θ1 and θ2 Orionis, called the Trapezium and the Orion Nebula (M42). This is a spectacular object that can be clearly identified with the naked eye as something other than a star. Using binoculars, its clouds of nascent stars, luminous gas, and dust can be observed. The Trapezium cluster has many newborn stars, including several brown dwarfs, all of which are at an approximate distance of 1,500 light-years. Named for the four bright stars that form a trapezoid, it is largely illuminated by the brightest stars, which are only a few hundred thousand years old. Observations by the Chandra X-ray Observatory show both the extreme temperatures of the main stars—up to 60,000 kelvins—and the star forming regions still extant in the surrounding nebula.
M78 (NGC 2068) is a nebula in Orion. With an overall magnitude of 8.0, it is significantly dimmer than the Great Orion Nebula that lies to its south; however, it is at approximately the same distance, at 1600 light-years from Earth. It can easily be mistaken for a comet in the eyepiece of a telescope. M78 is associated with the variable star V351 Orionis, whose magnitude changes are visible in very short periods of time. Another fairly bright nebula in Orion is NGC 1999, also close to the Great Orion Nebula. It has an integrated magnitude of 10.5 and is 1500 light-years from Earth. The variable star V380 Orionis is embedded in NGC 1999.
Another famous nebula is IC 434, the Horsehead Nebula, near ζ Orionis. It contains a dark dust cloud whose shape gives the nebula its name.
NGC 2174 is an emission nebula located 6400 light-years from Earth.
Besides these nebulae, surveying Orion with a small telescope will reveal a wealth of interesting deep-sky objects, including M43, M78, as well as multiple stars including Iota Orionis and Sigma Orionis. A larger telescope may reveal objects such as the Flame Nebula (NGC 2024), as well as fainter and tighter multiple stars and nebulae. Barnard’s Loop can be seen on very dark nights or using long-exposure photography.
All of these nebulae are part of the larger Orion molecular cloud complex, which is located approximately 1,500 light-years away and is hundreds of light-years across. It is one of the most intense regions of stellar formation visible within the Milky Way Galaxy.
History and mythology
The distinctive pattern of Orion is recognized in numerous cultures around the world, and many myths are associated with it. Orion is used as a symbol in the modern world.
The Babylonian star catalogues of the Late Bronze Age name Orion MULSIPA.ZI.AN.NA, “The Heavenly Shepherd” or “True Shepherd of Anu” – Anu being the chief god of the heavenly realms. The Babylonian constellation is sacred to Papshukal and Ninshubur, both minor gods fulfilling the role of ‘messenger to the gods’. Papshukal is closely associated with the figure of a walking bird on Babylonian boundary stones, and on the star map the figure of the Rooster is located below and behind the figure of the True Shepherd—both constellations represent the herald of the gods, in his bird and human forms respectively.
In ancient Egypt, the stars of Orion were regarded as a god, called Sah. Because Orion rises before Sirius, the star whose heliacal rising was the basis for the Solar Egyptian calendar, Sah was closely linked with Sopdet, the goddess who personified Sirius. The god Sopdu is said to be the son of Sah and Sopdet. Sah is syncretized with Osiris, while Sopdet is syncretized with Osiris’ mythological wife, Isis. In the Pyramid Texts, from the 24th and 23rd centuries BC, Sah is one of many gods whose form the dead pharaoh is said to take in the afterlife.
The Armenians identified their legendary patriarch and founder Hayk with Orion. Hayk is also the name of the Orion constellation in the Armenian translation of the Bible.
The Bible mentions Orion three times, naming it “Kesil” (כסיל, literally – fool). Though, this name perhaps is etymologically connected with “Kislev”, the name for the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar (i.e. November–December), which, in turn, may derive from the Hebrew root K-S-L as in the words “kesel, kisla” (כֵּסֶל, כִּסְלָה, hope, positiveness), i.e. hope for winter rains.: Job 9:9 (“He is the maker of the Bear and Orion”), Job 38:31 (“Can you loosen Orion’s belt?”), and Amos 5:8 (“He who made the Pleiades and Orion”).
In ancient Aram, the constellation was known as Nephîlā′, the Nephilim are said to be Orion’s descendants.
Greco-Roman antiquity
In Greek mythology, Orion was a gigantic, supernaturally strong hunter, born to Euryale, a Gorgon, and Poseidon (Neptune), god of the sea. One myth recounts Gaia’s rage at Orion, who dared to say that he would kill every animal on Earth. The angry goddess tried to dispatch Orion with a scorpion. This is given as the reason that the constellations of Scorpius and Orion are never in the sky at the same time. However, Ophiuchus, the Serpent Bearer, revived Orion with an antidote. This is said to be the reason that the constellation of Ophiuchus stands midway between the Scorpion and the Hunter in the sky.
The constellation is mentioned in Horace’s Odes (Ode 3.27.18), Homer’s Odyssey (Book 5, line 283) and Iliad, and Virgil’s Aeneid (Book 1, line 535).
Middle East
In medieval Muslim astronomy, Orion was known as al-jabbar, “the giant”. Orion’s sixth brightest star, Saiph, is named from the Arabic, saif al-jabbar, meaning “sword of the giant”.
China
In China, Orion was one of the 28 lunar mansions Sieu (Xiù) (宿). It is known as Shen (參), literally meaning “three”, for the stars of Orion’s Belt. (See Chinese constellations)
The Chinese character 參 (pinyin shēn) originally meant the constellation Orion (Chinese: 參宿; pinyin: shēnxiù); its Shang dynasty version, over three millennia old, contains at the top a representation of the three stars of Orion’s belt atop a man’s head (the bottom portion representing the sound of the word was added later).
India
The Rigveda refers to the Orion Constellation as Mriga (The Deer).
Nataraja, ‘the cosmic dancer’, is often interpreted as the representation of Orion. Rudra, the Rigvedic form of Shiva, is the presiding deity of Ardra nakshatra (Betelgeuse) of Hindu astrology.
The Jain Symbol carved in Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves, India in 1st century BCE has striking resemblance with Orion.
Bugis sailors identified the three stars in Orion’s Belt as tanra tellué, meaning “sign of three”.
European folklore
In old Hungarian tradition, Orion is known as “Archer” (Íjász), or “Reaper” (Kaszás). In recently rediscovered myths, he is called Nimrod (Hungarian: Nimród), the greatest hunter, father of the twins Hunor and Magor. The π and o stars (on upper right) form together the reflex bow or the lifted scythe. In other Hungarian traditions, Orion’s belt is known as “Judge’s stick” (Bírópálca).
In Scandinavian tradition, Orion’s belt was known as “Frigg’s Distaff” (friggerock) or “Freyja’s distaff”.
The Finns call Orion’s belt and the stars below it “Väinämöinen’s scythe” (Väinämöisen viikate). Another name for the asterism of Alnilam, Alnitak and Mintaka is “Väinämöinen’s Belt” (Väinämöisen vyö) and the stars “hanging” from the belt as “Kaleva’s sword” (Kalevanmiekka).
In Siberia, the Chukchi people see Orion as a hunter; an arrow he has shot is represented by Aldebaran (Alpha Tauri), with the same figure as other Western depictions.
There are claims in popular media that the Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave, an ivory carving estimated to be 35,000 to 40,000 years old, is the first known depiction of the constellation. Scholars dismiss such interpretations, saying that perceived details such as a belt and sword derive from preexisting features in the grain structure of the ivory.
Americas
The Seri people of northwestern Mexico call the three stars in the belt of Orion Hapj (a name denoting a hunter) which consists of three stars: Hap (mule deer), Haamoja (pronghorn), and Mojet (bighorn sheep). Hap is in the middle and has been shot by the hunter; its blood has dripped onto Tiburón Island.
The same three stars are known in Spain and most of Latin America as “Las tres Marías” (Spanish for “The Three Marys”). In Puerto Rico, the three stars are known as the “Los Tres Reyes Magos” (Spanish for The three Wise Men).
The Ojibwa/Chippewa Native Americans call this constellation Mesabi for Big Man.
To the Lakota Native Americans, Tayamnicankhu (Orion’s Belt) is the spine of a bison. The great rectangle of Orion is the bison’s ribs; the Pleiades star cluster in nearby Taurus is the bison’s head; and Sirius in Canis Major, known as Tayamnisinte, is its tail. Another Lakota myth mentions that the bottom half of Orion, the Constellation of the Hand, represented the arm of a chief that was ripped off by the Thunder People as a punishment from the gods for his selfishness. His daughter offered to marry the person who can retrieve his arm from the sky, so the young warrior Fallen Star (whose father was a star and whose mother was human) returned his arm and married his daughter, symbolizing harmony between the gods and humanity with the help of the younger generation. The index finger is represented by Rigel; the Orion Nebula is the thumb; the Belt of Orion is the wrist; and the star Beta Eridani is the pinky finger.
Austronesian
The seven primary stars of Orion make up the Polynesian constellation Heiheionakeiki which represents a child’s string figure similar to a cat’s cradle. Several precolonial Filipinos referred to the belt region in particular as “balatik” (ballista) as it resembles a trap of the same name which fires arrows by itself and is usually used for catching pigs from the bush. Spanish colonization later led to some ethnic groups referring to Orion’s belt as “Tres Marias” or “Tatlong Maria.”
In Māori tradition, the star Rigel (known as Puanga or Puaka) is closely connected with the celebration of Matariki. The rising of Matariki (the Pleiades) and Rigel before sunrise in midwinter marks the start of the Māori year.
In Javanese culture, the constellation is often called Lintang Waluku or Bintang Bajak, referring to the shape of a paddy field plow.
Contemporary symbolism
The imagery of the belt and sword has found its way into popular western culture, for example in the form of the shoulder insignia of the 27th Infantry Division of the United States Army during both World Wars, probably owing to a pun on the name of the division’s first commander, Major General John F. O’Ryan.
The film distribution company Orion Pictures used the constellation as its logo.
Depictions
In artistic renderings, the surrounding constellations are sometimes related to Orion: he is depicted standing next to the river Eridanus with his two hunting dogs Canis Major and Canis Minor, fighting Taurus. He is sometimes depicted hunting Lepus the hare. He sometimes is depicted to have a lion’s hide in his hand.
There are alternative ways to visualise Orion. From the Southern Hemisphere, Orion is oriented south-upward, and the belt and sword are sometimes called the saucepan or pot in Australia and New Zealand. Orion’s Belt is called Drie Konings (Three Kings) or the Drie Susters (Three Sisters) by Afrikaans speakers in South Africa and are referred to as les Trois Rois (the Three Kings) in Daudet’s Lettres de Mon Moulin (1866). The appellation Driekoningen (the Three Kings) is also often found in 17th- and 18th-century Dutch star charts and seaman’s guides. The same three stars are known in Spain, Latin America, and the Philippines as “Las Tres Marías” (The Three Marys), and as “Los Tres Reyes Magos” (The three Wise Men) in Puerto Rico.
Even traditional depictions of Orion have varied greatly. Cicero drew Orion in a similar fashion to the modern depiction. The Hunter held an unidentified animal skin aloft in his right hand; his hand was represented by Omicron2 Orionis and the skin was represented by the 5 stars designated Pi Orionis. Kappa and Beta Orionis represented his left and right knees, while Eta and Lambda Leporis were his left and right feet, respectively. As in the modern depiction, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta represented his belt. His left shoulder was represented by Alpha Orionis, and Mu Orionis made up his left arm. Lambda Orionis was his head and Gamma, his right shoulder. The depiction of Hyginus was similar to that of Cicero, though the two differed in a few important areas. Cicero’s animal skin became Hyginus’s shield (Omicron and Pi Orionis), and instead of an arm marked out by Mu Orionis, he holds a club (Chi Orionis). His right leg is represented by Theta Orionis and his left leg is represented by Lambda, Mu, and Epsilon Leporis. Further Western European and Arabic depictions have followed these two models.
Future
Orion is located on the celestial equator, but it will not always be so located due to the effects of precession of the Earth’s axis. Orion lies well south of the ecliptic, and it only happens to lie on the celestial equator because the point on the ecliptic that corresponds to the June solstice is close to the border of Gemini and Taurus, to the north of Orion. Precession will eventually carry Orion further south, and by AD 14000, Orion will be far enough south that it will no longer be visible from the latitude of Great Britain.
Further in the future, Orion’s stars will gradually move away from the constellation due to proper motion. However, Orion’s brightest stars all lie at a large distance from the Earth on an astronomical scale—much farther away than Sirius, for example. Orion will still be recognizable long after most of the other constellations—composed of relatively nearby stars—have distorted into new configurations, with the exception of a few of its stars eventually exploding as supernovae, for example Betelgeuse, which is predicted to explode sometime in the next million years.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Orion (constellation), which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250519
Rammstein ([ˈʁamʃtaɪn], lit. “ramming stone”) is a German Neue Deutsche Härte band formed in Berlin in 1994. The band’s lineup—consisting of lead vocalist Till Lindemann, lead guitarist Richard Kruspe, rhythm guitarist Paul Landers, bassist Oliver Riedel, drummer Christoph Schneider, and keyboardist Christian “Flake” Lorenz—has remained unchanged throughout their history, along with their approach to songwriting, which consists of Lindemann writing and singing the lyrics over instrumental pieces the rest of the band has completed beforehand. Prior to their formation, some members were associated with the punk rock acts Feeling B and First Arsch.
After winning a local contest, Rammstein was able to record demos and send them to different record labels, eventually signing with Motor Music. Working with producer Jacob Hellner, they released their debut album Herzeleid in 1995. Though the album initially sold poorly, the band gained popularity through their live performances and the album eventually reached No. 6 in Germany. Their second album, Sehnsucht, was released in 1997 and debuted at No. 1 in Germany, resulting in a worldwide tour lasting nearly four years and spawning the successful singles “Engel” and “Du hast” and the live album Live aus Berlin (1999). Following the tour, Rammstein signed with major label Universal Music and released Mutter in 2001. Six singles were released from the album, all charting in countries throughout Europe. The lead single, “Sonne”, reached No. 2 in Germany. Rammstein released Reise, Reise in 2004 and had two more singles reach No. 2 in Germany: “Mein Teil” and “Amerika”; the former song reached No. 1 in Spain, becoming their first No. 1 single.
Their fifth album, Rosenrot, was released in 2005, and the lead single, “Benzin”, reached No. 6 in Germany. Their second live album, Völkerball, was released in 2006. The band released their sixth album, Liebe ist für alle da, in 2009, with its lead single, “Pussy”, becoming their first No. 1 hit in Germany despite having a controversial music video that featured hardcore pornography. The band then entered a recording hiatus and toured for several years, releasing the Made in Germany greatest hits album as well as the Rammstein in Amerika and Paris live albums. After a decade without new music, Rammstein returned in 2019 with the song “Deutschland”, which became their second No. 1 hit in Germany. Their untitled seventh studio album was released in May 2019 and reached No. 1 in 14 countries. While sheltering during COVID-19 lockdowns, the band spontaneously wrote and recorded their eighth studio album, Zeit, which was released in April 2022.
Rammstein was one of the first bands to emerge within the Neue Deutsche Härte genre, with their debut album leading the music press to coin the term, and their style of music has generally had a positive reception from music critics. Commercially, the band has been very successful, earning many No. 1 albums as well as gold and platinum certifications in countries around the world. Their grand live performances, which often feature pyrotechnics, have contributed to the growth in their popularity. Despite success, the band has been subject to some controversies, with their overall image having been criticized; for instance, the song “Ich tu dir weh” forced its parent album Liebe ist für alle da to be placed on the “index” maintained by the German Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors and re-released in Germany with the song removed due to its sexually explicit lyrics.
History
Founding and Herzeleid (1989–1996)
20250515
Grand Canyon National Park is a national park of the United States located in northwestern Arizona, the 15th site to have been named as a national park. The park’s central feature is the Grand Canyon, a gorge of the Colorado River, which is often considered one of the Wonders of the World. The park, which covers 1,217,262 acres (1,901.972 sq mi; 4,926.08 km2) of unincorporated area in Coconino and Mohave counties, received more than 4.7 million recreational visitors in 2023. The Grand Canyon was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1979. The park celebrated its 100th anniversary on February 26, 2019.
History
The Grand Canyon became well known to Americans in the 1880s after railroads were built and pioneers developed infrastructure and early tourism. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt visited the site and said, The Grand Canyon fills me with awe. It is beyond comparison—beyond description; absolutely unparalleled throughout the wide world …. Let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. Do nothing to mar its grandeur, sublimity and loveliness. You cannot improve on it. But you can keep it for your children, your children’s children, and all who come after you, as the one great sight which every American should see.
Despite Roosevelt’s enthusiasm and strong interest in preserving land for public use, the Grand Canyon was not immediately designated as a national park. The first bill to establish Grand Canyon National Park was introduced in 1882 by then-Senator Benjamin Harrison, which would have established Grand Canyon as the third national park in the United States, after Yellowstone and Mackinac. Harrison unsuccessfully reintroduced his bill in 1883 and 1886; after his election to the presidency, he established the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve in 1893. Theodore Roosevelt created the Grand Canyon Game Preserve by proclamation on November 28, 1906, and the Grand Canyon National Monument on January 11, 1908. Further Senate bills to establish the site as a national park were introduced and defeated in 1910 and 1911, before the Grand Canyon National Park Act (Pub. L. 65–277) was finally signed by President Woodrow Wilson on February 26, 1919. The National Park Service, established in 1916, assumed administration of the park.
The creation of the park was an early success of the conservation movement. Its national park status may have helped thwart proposals to dam the Colorado River within its boundaries. (Later, the Glen Canyon Dam would be built upriver.) A second Grand Canyon National Monument to the west was proclaimed in 1932. In 1975, that monument and Marble Canyon National Monument, which was established in 1969 and followed the Colorado River northeast from the Grand Canyon to Lees Ferry, were made part of Grand Canyon National Park. In 1979, UNESCO declared the park a World Heritage Site. The 1987 the National Parks Overflights Act found that “Noise associated with aircraft overflights at the Grand Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the safety of park users.”
In 2010, Grand Canyon National Park was honored with its own coin under the America the Beautiful Quarters program. On February 26, 2019, the Grand Canyon National Park commemorated 100 years since its designation as a national park.
The Grand Canyon had been part of the National Park Service’s Intermountain Region until 2018. Today, the Grand Canyon is a part of Region 8, also known as the Lower Colorado Basin.
Legal history timeline
– 1882 First unsuccessful attempt to establish a Grand Canyon National Park
– 1893 Designated a “forest reserve” by President Benjamin Harrison (Presidential Proclamation #45)
– 1908 Established as Grand Canyon National Monument by President Theodore Roosevelt (Presidential Proclamation #794)
– 1919 Designation of Grand Canyon National Park by an act of Congress on February 26 (40 Stat 1175)
– 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act an act of Congress on January 3 (88 Stat 2089) (Pub. L. 93–620)
– 1979 Designation as a World Heritage Site on October 26
Administrators
– William Harrison Peters (acting): August 1919 – September 1920
– Dewitt L. Raeburn: October 1920 – December 1921
– John Roberts White (acting): December 1921 – February 1922
– Walter Wilson Crosby: February 1922 – January 1924
– George C. Bolton (acting): January 1923 – June 1923
– John Ross Eakin: January 1924 – April 1927
– Miner Raymond Tillotson: April 1927 – December 1938
– James V. Lloyd (acting): December 1938 – February 1939
– Harold Child Bryant (acting): February 1939 – January 1940
– James V. Lloyd (acting): January 1940 – August 1940
– Frank Alvah Kittredge: August 1940 – July 1941
– Harold Child Bryant: August 1941 – March 1954
– Preston P. Patraw: May 1954 – July 1955
– John Sherman McLaughlin: August 1955 – March 1964
– Howard B. Stricklin: March 1964 – February 1969
– Robert R. Lovegren: April 1969 – July 1972
– Merle E. Stitt: August 1972 – January 1980
– Bruce W. Shaw (acting): January 1980 – May 1980
– Richard W. Marks: May 1980 – December 1988
– John C. Reed (acting): December 1988 – January 1989
– John H. Davis: January 1989 – August 1991
– Robert Chandler: October 1991 – October 1993
– Boyd Evison (acting): January 1994 – July 1994
– Robert L. Arnberger: July 1994 – October 2000
– Dave Uberauga: 2011 – May 2016
– Christine Lehnertz: August 2016 – March 2019
– Ed Keable: April 2020 – present
Geography
The Grand Canyon, including its extensive system of tributary canyons, is valued for its combination of size, depth, and exposed layers of colorful rocks dating back to Precambrian times. The canyon itself was created by the incision of the Colorado River and its tributaries after the Colorado Plateau was uplifted, causing the Colorado River system to develop along its present path.
The primary public areas of the park are the South and North Rims, and adjacent areas of the canyon itself. The rest of the park is extremely rugged and remote, although many places are accessible by pack trail and backcountry roads. The South Rim is more accessible than the North Rim and accounts for 90% of park visitation.
The park headquarters are at Grand Canyon Village, not far from the South Entrance to the park, near one of the most popular viewpoints.
South Rim
Most visitors to the park come to the South Rim, arriving on Arizona State Route 64. The highway enters the park through the South Entrance, near Tusayan, Arizona, and heads eastward, leaving the park through the East Entrance. Interstate 40 provides access to the area from the south. From the north, U.S. Route 89 connects Utah, Colorado, and the North Rim to the South Rim. Overall, some 30 miles of the South Rim are accessible by road.
Services
Grand Canyon Village is the primary visitor services area in the park. It is a full-service community, including lodging, fuel, food, souvenirs, a hospital, churches, and access to trails and guided walks and talks.
Lodging
Several lodging facilities are available along the South Rim. Hotels and other lodging include El Tovar, Bright Angel Lodge, Kachina Lodge, Thunderbird Lodge, and Maswik Lodge, all of which are located in Grand Canyon Village, and Phantom Ranch, located on the canyon floor. There is also an RV Park named Trailer Village. All of these facilities are managed by Xanterra Parks & Resorts, while the Yavapai Lodge (also in the village area) is managed by Delaware North.
North Rim
The North Rim area of the park is located on the Kaibab Plateau and Walhalla Plateau, directly across the Grand Canyon from the principal visitor areas on the South Rim. The North Rim’s principal visitor areas are centered around Bright Angel Point. The North Rim is higher in elevation than the South Rim, at over 8,000 feet (2,400 m) of elevation. Because it is so much higher than the South Rim, it is closed from December 1 through May 15 each year, due to the enhanced snowfall at elevation. Visitor services are closed or limited in scope after October 15. Driving time from the South Rim to the North Rim is about 4.5 hours, over 220 miles (350 km).
On the North Rim is the historic Grand Canyon Lodge, managed by Forever Resorts, and a campground near the lodge managed by the national park staff.
Climate
According to the Köppen climate classification system, Grand Canyon National Park has five climate zones; Cold Semi-Arid (BSk), Humid Continental Dry Cool Summer (Dsb), Humid Continental Dry Warm Summer (Dsa), Warm Summer Mediterranean (Csb), and Hot Summer Mediterranean (Csa). The plant hardiness zone at Grand Canyon Visitor Center is 7a with an average annual extreme minimum temperature of 3.3 °F (−15.9 °C).
Activities
North Rim
There are few roads on the North Rim, but there are some notable vehicle-accessible lookout points, including Point Imperial, Roosevelt Point, and Cape Royal. Mule rides are also available to a variety of places, including several thousand feet down into the canyon.
Many visitors to the North Rim choose to make use of the variety of hiking trails including the Widforss Trail, Uncle Jim’s Trail, the Transept Trail, and the North Kaibab Trail. The North Kaibab Trail can be followed all the way down to the Colorado River, connecting across the river to the South Kaibab Trail and the Bright Angel Trail, which continue up to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon.
The Toroweap Overlook is located in the western part of the park on the North Rim. Access is via unpaved roads off Route 389 west of Fredonia, Arizona. The roads lead through Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument and to the overlook.
South Rim
A variety of activities at the South Rim cater to park visitors. A driving tour (35 miles (56 km)) along the South Rim is split into two segments. The western drive to Hermit’s Point is eight miles (13 km) with several overlooks along the way, including Mohave Point, Hopi Point, and the Powell Memorial. From March to December, access to Hermit’s Rest is restricted to the free shuttle provided by the Park Service. The eastern portion to Desert View is 25 miles (40 km), and is open to private vehicles year round.
Walking tours include the Rim Trail, which runs west from the Pipe Creek viewpoint for about eight miles (13 km) of paved road, followed by seven miles (11 km) unpaved to Hermit’s Rest. Hikes can begin almost anywhere along this trail, and a shuttle can return hikers to their point of origin. Mather Point, the first view most people reach when entering from the south entrance, is a popular place to begin.
Private canyon flyovers are provided by helicopters and small airplanes out of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Due to a crash in the 1990s, scenic flights are no longer allowed to fly within 1,500 feet (460 m) of the rim within the Grand Canyon National Park.
Grand Canyon Conservancy
The Grand Canyon Association (GCA) is the National Park Service’s official nonprofit partner. It raises private funds to benefit Grand Canyon National Park by operating retail shops and visitor centers within the park, and providing educational opportunities about the natural and cultural history of the region. Its goals include:
– Creating Inter-tribal cultural sites
– Dark Sky Preservation
– Discovery and exploration of the Park
– Trail creation and preservation
Historic Buildings
Village Historic District
– Hopi House (1905), Architect: Mary Jane Colter
– Verkamp’s Visitor Center
– Train Depot
– El Tovar Hotel
– Bright Angel Lodge (1935), Architect: Mary Jane Colter
– Buckey O’Neill Cabin (1890), Architect: William “Buckey” O’Neill
– Lookout Studio (1914), Architect Mary Jane Colter
– Kolb Studio (1904), Architects: Ellsworth Kolb and Emery Kolb
Other
– Hermit’s Rest (1914), Architect: Mary Jane Colter
– Phantom Ranch (1922), Architect: Mary Jane Colter
– Desert View Watchtower (1932), Architect: Mary Jane Colter
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Grand Canyon National Park, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 4.0
20250511
Before we get started, I want to wish wish all the genuinely great moms a Happy Mother’s Day. I’ve heard a few disturbing stories from friends and clients about truly horrible mothers over the last week or so and found it baffling and heartbreaking. So to all the loving, selfless moms out there, the moms working 2-3 jobs to provide, the moms driving hours for their children to see their loved ones, the moms helping their children to accomplish their goals, instead of using their children to accomplish their own, I hope you have the best day possible today.
So I have not bothered checking stats here since early September. A flurry of posts at the other place, after I celebrated a special day with a simple cake emoji here, prompted me to take a peek last week. Damn, you people are hungry! Last month saw a huge spike in traffic and resulted in a record setting month. Since you all are still here wanting and waiting, I figured I’d give some updates.
First, I know I said that I might share her 2 definitive questions here, but after some discussion, she has asked me to refrain from doing so for the time being. The first question demonstrates the depth of her work, while the second would reveal the nature of her profession. Both of which she feels best left unmentioned until she gets further along in her process. Those of you from the other place already understand this, but for those of you here, I want to assure you that it’s certainly worth the wait. Hell, this has been a year of talking about some very heavy topics, going back over 20+ years, and if I can be patient while she does her thing, so can you. And to put an end to any and all speculation, she is not a LEO or lawyer, and is not involved in the legal field in any way, shape, or form. Although we do have laws protecting her work. Believe me, the understanding, the catharsis, and the healing I have received from working with her has been far greater than all the doctors, the psychologist, and therapists, combined. And at absolutely no cost to me, other than time.
Now, since everyone is still here, and checking in, I feel obligated to give you all something to read on a regular basis. Sadly, I suspect that some of the traffic includes the babysitters, and those that want to control what I say here. I will remind you that my word actually means something, and carries weight. My loyalty lies solely with my friend now, and his wishes. All of them. So I still will not share anything here that could be used to further disrespect his wishes, or marginalize the friendship of those girls more than it already has been, against his wishes. Instead, I will be sharing articles that I find interesting and/or relevant. Of course, I may drop hints, subtle clues buried deep in the text of those articles, or hidden within the site, that may lead somewhere else. If I do, it will not be easy. I suspect only the most dedicated readers, those that are technically apt, and intelligent puzzle solvers, will be able to put the pieces together.
Finally, I have been working on a new adventures platform. It’s something entirely different and heading in a new direction. I’ve got a couple more pieces to put together before it goes live, but I am really looking forward to getting it up and running.
Again, thank you for the interest and concern. And be patient.
20240905
Still quite a bit of traffic coming in. Seriously, I appreciate the interest and concern, but there will be no major updates to this site for the foreseeable future. I will do what I can to demonstrate my love and concern for them, as well as to honor the dying wish of my friend, and insure the friendship between these 2 young ladies remains intact. But do not believe for a moment that I have or will forget. Every time I wake, whether it’s a good night’s sleep, or a rough night, I am instantly flooded with heartbreaking guilt and regret for leaving a defenseless little girl I cherish behind. So I will post public birthday wishes, and maybe an occasional thought in this space here, but nothing more. Besides, it was decided at the end of May that understanding would be best left to the professional. And she is doing an exceedingly thorough job. Honestly, receiving a colonoscopy in the middle of Times Square, live streamed on those jumbo screens and the Internet, would feel less invasive. But, that’s the price we pay for understanding, and she’s proven to be invaluable, presenting two definitive questions, that she and her work answer. Maybe I’ll be able to share those questions down the road, but for now, she’s in research mode.
Anyway, a couple days ago it was 03 September, and that marked a year since I turned a corner and forced myself to focus on the positive. To work to change my perspective, and hopefully others. That decision was based on my thinking about today, 05 September, which sadly, is no longer looked upon warmly as a day of positive change. While that experiment was only half-successful, it did provide an enormous amount of data to reinforce the facts. However, despite the reality of those facts, I am still focused on being positive, because every time I look at the “Cujo” puppet hanging on my wall, I know somebody I love will need that down the road. So, on that note, I hope everybody has a happy Egregious Lie Day!
https://youtu.be/g4xNBrEPlps?si=wfTj1c0IBlZmyljs
😉