We are approaching our last Teaching Science class. It is totally bittersweet!
I have loved getting to know everyone, sharing our ideas, and (re)discovering the inquiry process (deja vu, all over again)!
I especially loved our bloggurtunity! I will most definitely continue blogging, but probably not at such a fast rate (winky face).
Tonight we did an awesome Inquiry Process involving Bubblegum and Statistics. We chomped on gum, blew some bubbles, and averaged the diameters in order to determine which of the three gums blew the largest bubble! Bubble Yum just barely won.
The best part of it all was the giggles. We were doing math, creating an experiment, controlling variables, measuring outcomes, asking questions, inferring answers, and none of it was hard or boring work! We had a blast!
This made it completely apparent to me that the inquiry process and the scientific method don't have to be dry or intimidating activities; they can be totally fun and enjoyable! I think it is important to give your students the freedom to choose their own questions and design their own experiment parameters-- it makes it more meaningful and memorable.
As we venture out to our summers and our future classrooms, continue thinking of the inquiry process, and make those important, real world connections. As we learned from this bloggurtunity, just about anything we see or experience can become inspiration for a writing exercise, or even an inquiry activity!
Thank you all for your thoughts, your input, and our informative discussions. I have truly enjoyed every minute of it!
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Darwinism Comes to America
Apparently, Evolution is controversial to many people...
Funnily enough, it is NOT controversial to the majority of the scientific community!
Many of you have expressed concerns about whether or not to teach evolution in your classroom, and I'm here to tell you, there is no way you can avoid it.
Evolution is such an important and critical Theory (capital T) that it crosses virtually all scientific disciplines that study living things: biology, chemistry, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, etc. It is THE unifying theory of biology, and our understanding of the natural world is based upon its tenets.
Even if you don't mean to teach evolution, if you are studying cells, ecosystems, anatomy, botany, zoology, whatever... if it's about living things, you ARE demonstrating the viability of evolution.
When people think of evolution, they think of Darwin, they think of natural selection, maybe they even think of humans spontaneously popping out of pregnant monkeys, but if you do not seek your own answers that is all you will ever know.
Evolution is simply (though it really isn't that simple) a change in organisms over long periods of time through generational heredity:
Religion has its place, certainly, but it does not belong in a science classroom. They are not equal, they aren't even comparable. Religion is a beautiful expression of us mortals seeking something great, something divine, it guides us to live our lives in special, unique ways. It, cannot, and does not, replace scientific inquiry and discovery.
Once upon a time, Galileo told the Church that their calendar was wrong because they were using a mathematical model based upon the assumption that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo, and Copernicus (who said the same thing 100 years earlier), and Kepler (who said the same thing 100 years later) did not allow their religion (because they were ALL Catholic) to cloud what their observations were telling them. The sun, was indeed, the center of our solar system, and the calendar was wrong not because the math was bad but because the whole concept was wrong! It took a long time for the Church to change their mind, but that didn't matter to the mathematicians and astronomers of the day. Institutions always take their precious time to acclimate to change, it does not mean, however, that the change hasn't already taken place.
Some may argue that they will cover "both sides" of the controversy. I am, again, here to tell you that that is ridiculous.
The idea of giving "equal time" to both evolution and creationism is preposterous. Unless you are teaching in a private Christian school, it is completely inexcusable. Creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it is not science. It may be parading around as "science," but it is un-observable and unknowable and un-proveable and therefore totally NOT SCIENCE!
Another problem with "equal time" leads to the misconception that evolution is under some type of serious debate in the scientific community. It implies that there is not a consensus, or there is no agreement... which is totally untrue. As stated above, the majority of all the stakeholders in these scientific disciplines accept Evolution and base their research and understanding upon it!
In closing, I encourage you to do your own research. If not for yourself, than for your future students. And if that isn't enough. Here is another representation of the tree of life, and biblical scripture that accompanies it.
Funnily enough, it is NOT controversial to the majority of the scientific community!
Many of you have expressed concerns about whether or not to teach evolution in your classroom, and I'm here to tell you, there is no way you can avoid it.
Evolution is such an important and critical Theory (capital T) that it crosses virtually all scientific disciplines that study living things: biology, chemistry, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, etc. It is THE unifying theory of biology, and our understanding of the natural world is based upon its tenets.
Even if you don't mean to teach evolution, if you are studying cells, ecosystems, anatomy, botany, zoology, whatever... if it's about living things, you ARE demonstrating the viability of evolution.
When people think of evolution, they think of Darwin, they think of natural selection, maybe they even think of humans spontaneously popping out of pregnant monkeys, but if you do not seek your own answers that is all you will ever know.
Evolution is simply (though it really isn't that simple) a change in organisms over long periods of time through generational heredity:
We are, truly, part of a single tree of life!
Religion has its place, certainly, but it does not belong in a science classroom. They are not equal, they aren't even comparable. Religion is a beautiful expression of us mortals seeking something great, something divine, it guides us to live our lives in special, unique ways. It, cannot, and does not, replace scientific inquiry and discovery.
Once upon a time, Galileo told the Church that their calendar was wrong because they were using a mathematical model based upon the assumption that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo, and Copernicus (who said the same thing 100 years earlier), and Kepler (who said the same thing 100 years later) did not allow their religion (because they were ALL Catholic) to cloud what their observations were telling them. The sun, was indeed, the center of our solar system, and the calendar was wrong not because the math was bad but because the whole concept was wrong! It took a long time for the Church to change their mind, but that didn't matter to the mathematicians and astronomers of the day. Institutions always take their precious time to acclimate to change, it does not mean, however, that the change hasn't already taken place.
Some may argue that they will cover "both sides" of the controversy. I am, again, here to tell you that that is ridiculous.
The idea of giving "equal time" to both evolution and creationism is preposterous. Unless you are teaching in a private Christian school, it is completely inexcusable. Creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it is not science. It may be parading around as "science," but it is un-observable and unknowable and un-proveable and therefore totally NOT SCIENCE!
Another problem with "equal time" leads to the misconception that evolution is under some type of serious debate in the scientific community. It implies that there is not a consensus, or there is no agreement... which is totally untrue. As stated above, the majority of all the stakeholders in these scientific disciplines accept Evolution and base their research and understanding upon it!
In closing, I encourage you to do your own research. If not for yourself, than for your future students. And if that isn't enough. Here is another representation of the tree of life, and biblical scripture that accompanies it.
Star-dust, to be precise.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Happy Birthday, Sally
Sally Ride is more than just the first American woman in space. She is an icon for women in STEM careers around the world.
She graduated from Stanford University with a PhD in physics.
She was the only person to be on the committees for both the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters.
She wrote 6 children's science books with her partner, Tam O'Shaughnessy.
She is now believed to be the first LGBT person ever to have gone into space.
She and her partner Tam created the Sally Ride Science organization, which is designed to encourage all students, but especially girls and minorities, to get involved in STEM education.
She created the Sally Ride Science Academy which is a professional development program for educators.
She was a professor of physics at University California, San Diego
She remains the youngest American astronaut to enter space, at age 32.
With all of her accolades and all of her achievements, she was still stereotyped as a woman and asked such sexist and sometimes even misogynistic questions at press conferences like, how space travel would effect her reproductive organs, or if she wept when things went wrong, or if she had to wear make-up and bras in space.
When asked about the lack of girls in science or technology, Sally was always adamant that it was not on account of lack of ability or interest, but it was the product of subtle sexism and cultural pressures that discouraged girls entering those fields. She went even further arguing that we do not need to "convert" girls to science, but we need to offer both boys and girls equal opportunity to experience and enjoy science.
She was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer and died July 23rd 2012
Today would have been her 64th birthday.
I wanted to say, thank you, Sally, for being an advocate for girls and women around the world, and for being such a strong supporter and believer in education for the betterment of all.
For Further Reading:
Sally Ride Science
Sally Ride Science Academy
She graduated from Stanford University with a PhD in physics.
She was the only person to be on the committees for both the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters.
She wrote 6 children's science books with her partner, Tam O'Shaughnessy.
She is now believed to be the first LGBT person ever to have gone into space.
She and her partner Tam created the Sally Ride Science organization, which is designed to encourage all students, but especially girls and minorities, to get involved in STEM education.
She created the Sally Ride Science Academy which is a professional development program for educators.
She was a professor of physics at University California, San Diego
She remains the youngest American astronaut to enter space, at age 32.
With all of her accolades and all of her achievements, she was still stereotyped as a woman and asked such sexist and sometimes even misogynistic questions at press conferences like, how space travel would effect her reproductive organs, or if she wept when things went wrong, or if she had to wear make-up and bras in space.
When asked about the lack of girls in science or technology, Sally was always adamant that it was not on account of lack of ability or interest, but it was the product of subtle sexism and cultural pressures that discouraged girls entering those fields. She went even further arguing that we do not need to "convert" girls to science, but we need to offer both boys and girls equal opportunity to experience and enjoy science.
She was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer and died July 23rd 2012
Today would have been her 64th birthday.
I wanted to say, thank you, Sally, for being an advocate for girls and women around the world, and for being such a strong supporter and believer in education for the betterment of all.
For Further Reading:
Sally Ride Science
Sally Ride Science Academy
From Renaissance to Futurama
This weekend, I was very excited to go to the Tennessee Renaissance Festival! Uuuunnnfortunately, after waiting in traffic for over an hour and still being no closer to the gate, we decided to give it up. I also had a high school graduation to get ready for, last minute gifts to buy, yada yada yada.
I wanted to find something at the Renaissance Festival to blog about. Instead, I binge-watched one of my favorite shows while I was painting nails and doing hair....
Then I thought, waaaiit a minute! What a great thing to blog about!!
This is (in my opinion) the most underrated television show... ever. I am, of course, biased, because I love animation and I love sci-fi! In Futurama, the two worlds collide into a perfect mix of hilarity and scientific (and mathematic) awesome-ness!!
Here's a brief synopsis:
A young and bumbling man-child is accidentally cryogenically frozen on New Year's Eve, 1999. He awakes, 1,000 years later, to a future that is both completely absurd and totally familiar. The show follows him and the eccentric crew of the Planet Express Ship, a inter-planetary deliver company, as they have crazy and often thought-provoking misadventures.
To quote from an article put out by Popular Science:
While most TV science fiction is an exaggerated metaphor of the creators' ideas--or, at its worst, a sterile attempt at imagining the future--Futurama understood that the future would always subvert our expectations. So the show did the only reasonable thing: revel in all the ways the future could be absurd, wild, poignant, hilarious, bizarre, terrible, wonderful, and so, so close to reality without being a thinly veiled version of the present.
The show, named after the 1939 World's Fair which took place in New York City, boasts some incredible people on its writing staff:
David X. Cohen, the head writer and an executive producer on the show, holds a Bachelor's Degree in Physics from Harvard University and a Masters in Computer Science from UC Berkley.
Ken Keeler, another writer on the show, holds a PhD in Mathematics from Harvard University. In one episode in particular (Bender's Big Score), Ken Keeler actually writes a mathematical proof to enable the show's cast, which had switched bodies with one another, to return to their original bodies. Though Keeler calls it a "proof," it is now actually known as the Futurama Theorem!
He, literally, did the math!
Here are some other great examples of science in Futurama:
- Dark matter is used as star-ship fuel
- In order to explain space travel, the writers of Futurama said that in the future, scientists actually increase the speed of light.
- Alien creatures are designed with more than just carbon-based, humanoid likenesses in mind: there's even an alien that has evolved into a higher form of existence that needs no corporeal body!
- The laws of robotics and computer programming are consistently threaded in throughout each episode.
- and much, much more!
Of course, this is an adult, animated comedy, so there are science gaffes and mathematic impossibilities. But, with a writing staff as "nerdy" as Futurama's, watching an episode will not only make you laugh, but you might even learn something!
Here's a list of websites and articles that go into more detail about the science and math behind Futurama:
And just to be fair, here is a list of the biggest scientific falsities in the show:
Here is another article, published from the American Physical Society, which contains an interview with David X Cohen. The article is directed towards current and future physics students in order to educate them on the versatility of their future careers or educational goals:
I think this last article is the most meaningful. It also relates to the Multiple Intelligence Theory that I have shared with you all (my classmates) before. Not only are there multiple intelligences, but people are capable of having and using multiple intelligences. The writers on this show are math wizards and science experts, but they are also creative writers and artists, computer designers and programmers, etc. The list could go on.
While you (hopefully) give Futurama a looky-loo and (hopefully) laugh your heads off, think about your future students and all the many, many things they can achieve with their knowledge and creativity. Cultivate more than just one passion, and we might just have another show that challenges the ranks of good Sci-Fi!
Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Cellphone Data Mania
So, last week Ali and Holly got me HOOKED on a podcast called Serial. I have not yet finished the first season, but I am getting closer... closer...
Anyways, without giving too much away, I'll quickly connect this amazing podcast to my science blog!
This story is part courtroom (melo)drama. Fifteen years ago a young man was convicted of murder, BUT not everything adds up. Most importantly, the CELL PHONE DATA which the prosecution uses to "prove" the defendant's guilt became a huge question for me.
The reporter only briefly mentions that the actual science behind using cell-phone data in court is questionable. I needed to get deeper...
According to the Washington Post, using cell-phone towers to track people's location can be very inaccurate. One particular "ping" to a tower can have a 420 square mile radius! So, it's great for proving where you are not (like, Brazil, for instance), not so great for proving where you are. According to the Columbia Tribune, defense attorneys often overstate their understanding and the accuracy of cell phone plotting, and thus mislead juries into believing their own misconceptions! According to the Economist, cellphones don't just connect to whichever tower is closest, it actually depends on many factors, like if you are driving in traffic, how many tall, steel and concrete buildings are around you, maybe you're lounging behind a considerably fluffy shrub. The point is, two people making a call in the same location can have each of their calls be processed by different towers.
Remember, that 420 square mile ping? Well the New York Times says it's only up to about a 20 mile radius. So this demonstrates not only the inconsistent understanding of cell phone plotting by major news articles, but the broader public's misunderstanding of cell-phone towers and how they work (I've done all this research, and I'm still unsure). And, lawyers, judges, and jurors (oh my!) are most definitely part of the broader public.
Even though all these inconsistencies and inaccuracies about cell phone plotting are coming to the forefront, courts are still using this data to put people in prison. The American Bar Association has put out an article highlighting these difficulties, but it does not recommend to change the data's admissibility. Law enforcement agencies around the country are asking for more and more access to cell-phone data.
Despite all these doubts about its inaccuracies, cell phone data can indeed be useful in court. If, and only if, everyone involved has a clear understanding of how it works. Larry Daniel, a forensic expert from North Carolina, said, "It's not really junk science, it's misinterpreted science."
We've all heard about the bulk collection of phone data by the NSA (thanks, Edward). An ethical and moral dilemma faces our tech-obsessed world. Will we allow this data to control us? Will we allow that data tell us what to think and who to suspect? Will we let that data be the silent, invisible, judge and juror?
I hope not...
Sources:
Washington Post: Experts Say Law Enforcement's Use of Cell Phone Records Can Be Inaccurate
ABA Journal: Prosecutor's Use of Mobile Phone Tracking is Junk Science, critics say
Columbia Tribune: Cellphone Plotting Data in Debate for Upcoming Murder Trial
New York Times: Growing Presence in the Courtroom: Cellphone Data as Witness
American Bar, Judge's Journal: Scientific Fact or Junk Science? Tracking a Cellphone without GPS
The Economist: The Two Towers, Junk Science Putting People in Jail
Anyways, without giving too much away, I'll quickly connect this amazing podcast to my science blog!
This story is part courtroom (melo)drama. Fifteen years ago a young man was convicted of murder, BUT not everything adds up. Most importantly, the CELL PHONE DATA which the prosecution uses to "prove" the defendant's guilt became a huge question for me.
The reporter only briefly mentions that the actual science behind using cell-phone data in court is questionable. I needed to get deeper...
According to the Washington Post, using cell-phone towers to track people's location can be very inaccurate. One particular "ping" to a tower can have a 420 square mile radius! So, it's great for proving where you are not (like, Brazil, for instance), not so great for proving where you are. According to the Columbia Tribune, defense attorneys often overstate their understanding and the accuracy of cell phone plotting, and thus mislead juries into believing their own misconceptions! According to the Economist, cellphones don't just connect to whichever tower is closest, it actually depends on many factors, like if you are driving in traffic, how many tall, steel and concrete buildings are around you, maybe you're lounging behind a considerably fluffy shrub. The point is, two people making a call in the same location can have each of their calls be processed by different towers.
Remember, that 420 square mile ping? Well the New York Times says it's only up to about a 20 mile radius. So this demonstrates not only the inconsistent understanding of cell phone plotting by major news articles, but the broader public's misunderstanding of cell-phone towers and how they work (I've done all this research, and I'm still unsure). And, lawyers, judges, and jurors (oh my!) are most definitely part of the broader public.
Even though all these inconsistencies and inaccuracies about cell phone plotting are coming to the forefront, courts are still using this data to put people in prison. The American Bar Association has put out an article highlighting these difficulties, but it does not recommend to change the data's admissibility. Law enforcement agencies around the country are asking for more and more access to cell-phone data.
Despite all these doubts about its inaccuracies, cell phone data can indeed be useful in court. If, and only if, everyone involved has a clear understanding of how it works. Larry Daniel, a forensic expert from North Carolina, said, "It's not really junk science, it's misinterpreted science."
We've all heard about the bulk collection of phone data by the NSA (thanks, Edward). An ethical and moral dilemma faces our tech-obsessed world. Will we allow this data to control us? Will we allow that data tell us what to think and who to suspect? Will we let that data be the silent, invisible, judge and juror?
I hope not...
Sources:
Washington Post: Experts Say Law Enforcement's Use of Cell Phone Records Can Be Inaccurate
ABA Journal: Prosecutor's Use of Mobile Phone Tracking is Junk Science, critics say
Columbia Tribune: Cellphone Plotting Data in Debate for Upcoming Murder Trial
New York Times: Growing Presence in the Courtroom: Cellphone Data as Witness
American Bar, Judge's Journal: Scientific Fact or Junk Science? Tracking a Cellphone without GPS
The Economist: The Two Towers, Junk Science Putting People in Jail
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Water Footprint
I think we all have heard of our Carbon Footprint. I was surprised to learn last night that there is also such a thing as a Water Footprint.
Here is a visual that shows how much fresh water is used to make just 1 kiligram (roughly 2.2 lbs.) of these products.
Damn! That's a lot of water.
I found another great graphic that shows the Global Water Footprint. Not only does this illustrate the rarity of our fresh water, but it shows us which countries are most dependent on water importation, which countries are most efficient at renewing their water resources, and which countries have the largest water footprint per capita. It does not surprise me that we (Americans) are the largest consumers of water in the world. We are the largest consumers, period.
I wanted to learn more about my own water footprint, so I went to the National Geographic website and took the Water Footprint Calculator test thing. As I was trucking (heh heh) along, I was feeling pretty good. I was using much less water than the average American. I don't eat Pork, and I very rarely eat chicken or beef. I don't shower regularly (sorry, guys). I only do laundry twice a month. I don't use a dishwasher.
I was starting to feel pretty good about myself and my tiny water foot. Until it got to energy uses... Not only is my apartment completely furnished with non-energy saving appliances and lightbulbs, but my beloved truck is a total water guzzler!
I drive a 1999 Toyota Tacoma which only gets 22 mpg.
This alone made my water usage soar far above average. I was totally shocked! When I think about my gasoline or oil, I think about the dependence on fossil fuels, pollution, climate change, pipelines and wars. I now know I also need to worry and fret over its effects on water, too!
I have already planned to buy a new car once I get my big-girl teacher salary, but now I am feeling some urgency! At least I will have this information and incorporate it into my search for a fuel-efficient, and water saving, vehicle.
So, what can we do to educate ourselves about our water usage (besides learn all about it in Project WET)? We turn to the internet, of course!!
The Water Footprint Network has great resources to explain the water footprint concept and ways to get involved in their program.
National Geographic Water Footprint Calculator: use this to learn exactly how and where you and your family is using most of its water.
The Nature Conservancy website has great information and good tips on how to cut down on energy and water usages.
Talk together with your family about how you can reduce not only your carbon footprint, but your water footprint as well. Most of the time, if you make any effort concerning the three R's (reduce, reuse, recycle), you are going to have an impact on both feet!
Here is a visual that shows how much fresh water is used to make just 1 kiligram (roughly 2.2 lbs.) of these products.
Damn! That's a lot of water.
I found another great graphic that shows the Global Water Footprint. Not only does this illustrate the rarity of our fresh water, but it shows us which countries are most dependent on water importation, which countries are most efficient at renewing their water resources, and which countries have the largest water footprint per capita. It does not surprise me that we (Americans) are the largest consumers of water in the world. We are the largest consumers, period.
I am surprised, however, by how little the water footprint is in China. Even with all of their rice paddies and huge factories, they still use far, far less water than we do.
Remember: per capita means per person
I wanted to learn more about my own water footprint, so I went to the National Geographic website and took the Water Footprint Calculator test thing. As I was trucking (heh heh) along, I was feeling pretty good. I was using much less water than the average American. I don't eat Pork, and I very rarely eat chicken or beef. I don't shower regularly (sorry, guys). I only do laundry twice a month. I don't use a dishwasher.
I was starting to feel pretty good about myself and my tiny water foot. Until it got to energy uses... Not only is my apartment completely furnished with non-energy saving appliances and lightbulbs, but my beloved truck is a total water guzzler!
I drive a 1999 Toyota Tacoma which only gets 22 mpg.
This alone made my water usage soar far above average. I was totally shocked! When I think about my gasoline or oil, I think about the dependence on fossil fuels, pollution, climate change, pipelines and wars. I now know I also need to worry and fret over its effects on water, too!
I have already planned to buy a new car once I get my big-girl teacher salary, but now I am feeling some urgency! At least I will have this information and incorporate it into my search for a fuel-efficient, and water saving, vehicle.
So, what can we do to educate ourselves about our water usage (besides learn all about it in Project WET)? We turn to the internet, of course!!
The Water Footprint Network has great resources to explain the water footprint concept and ways to get involved in their program.
National Geographic Water Footprint Calculator: use this to learn exactly how and where you and your family is using most of its water.
The Nature Conservancy website has great information and good tips on how to cut down on energy and water usages.
Talk together with your family about how you can reduce not only your carbon footprint, but your water footprint as well. Most of the time, if you make any effort concerning the three R's (reduce, reuse, recycle), you are going to have an impact on both feet!
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
The Hills Are Alive With the Science of Music
Last evening, we each presented a lesson from Project Learning Tree. I loved all of them, but Ali's, Paula's, and Stephanie's lesson on sound really got my brain turning.
But it wasn't just sound that captured my attention. We know that sound is all around us. It is impossible to escape, unless of course, you are born deaf, or you submerse yourself in a sensory deprivation chamber. (Yikes!) What I was left with was wondering about a particular type of sound, or should I say sounds...
I wanted to get deeper into the science of Music.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3022942/work-smart/the-surprising-science-behind-what-music-does-to-our-brains
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/musicinstinct/
But it wasn't just sound that captured my attention. We know that sound is all around us. It is impossible to escape, unless of course, you are born deaf, or you submerse yourself in a sensory deprivation chamber. (Yikes!) What I was left with was wondering about a particular type of sound, or should I say sounds...
I wanted to get deeper into the science of Music.
Music is one of those indescribable, undefinable, magical things about human creation and expression. So how can we talk about music in scientific terms? By relating it to neuroscience, of course!
Have any of you ever gotten goosebumps from listening to music? Have you ever stopped to wonder about how strange it is that your body elicits a physical response to something we can't even quantify? Have you ever wondered why these goosebumps erupt on your skin and make your hair stand on in?
Well Jaak Panksepp, a neurological researcher from Bowling Green, KY, thinks he knows the answer. Some of us may or may not know that emotions stimulate the hypothalamus portion of our brain. Accoring to Panksepp's research, it is primarily sad emotions that elicit goosebumps or chills. Goosebumps elicited from music are thus associated with past melancholy or sad emotions. Panksepp believes that when we hear sad music, our brain produces chemicals to deal with such loss or despair, which in turn trigger physical responses. He goes even farther by arguing this is an evolutionary response: we developed these physical responses to emotions in order to keep our families or tribes together.
So what is sad music? According to the writers from Exploritorium, our understanding or belief in sad music mostly stems from cultural conditioning. For instance, we see a movie, we associate the background music with the emotions or action played on screen. For us Westerners, that pretty much means that if it's in a minor key, we associate that music with sadness or fear.
Take a listen to the Star Spangled Banner in a Minor Key:
Creepy, right?
Another reason we might think music is sad or happy is its tempo! If it's something we can dance to, we typically don't associate that music with melancholy, despite what the lyrics are saying (Think "Hey Ya" by Outkast). When the music is slow or quiet, we think of that music as sad. When we, ourselves, are feeling down, we usually don't feel like talking and we definitely don't feel like doing anything. At least, I don't... unless eating tubs of raw cookie dough counts as "doing something," (it doesn't).
Music does much more for our brain than we realize! Here is a neat graphic about all the different ways music can stimulate many different parts of our brain.
I believe we all have heard that making our babies listen to Mozart makes them smarter, but it seems that listening to any music at any age can keep our brains healthy!
Before I sign off, I wanted to share with you all one of my favorite movies:
The History of Future Folk
It's about two aliens that come to Earth and discover something marvelous: MUSIC
We realize that out of all the galaxies these aliens know, it is only on our little blue planet that music exists. Its power is so enrapturing that they both fight to save us! Here is a short, powerful clip of one alien showing the other music for the first time:
You can watch this movie on Netflix.
I want to leave you with a question for pondering:
What would our lives be like without music?
Sources:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/music/questions/sadMusic.html
http://www.exploratorium.edu/music/questions/goosebumps.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/3022942/work-smart/the-surprising-science-behind-what-music-does-to-our-brains
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/musicinstinct/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)