Indoctrination Theory Mass Effect Explained

Shepherd is one the primary characters in the Mass Effect video game series. According to the indoctrination theory, the third game of the series suggests that the character was mind-washed at the end of the game. That would imply that the battle which takes place after the character goes into the Citadel doesn’t actually take place in real-life, but would take place in the mind.

Indoctrination was a primary theme in the storyline of Mass Effect and a heavy component of the scripts in the first and second video games.

Why the Ending of Mass Effect 3 Supports the Indoctrination Theory

Unlike most video games, the third installment of Mass Effect ended in an unusual way. Gamers didn’t need to fight a final boss. There were still plot holes present in the story. It was a very anti-climactic ending that left many feeling unsatisfied. It is this unconventional ending that led to the development of the indoctrination theory in the first place.

Those who loved the ending of the game tend to support the theory that the ending sequence, which happens after Harbinger attacked Shepherd, transitions the remainder of the game to take place within Shepherd’s mind.

When Shepherd is hit, within the game, it is clear that the character is left unconscious. Perhaps Shepherd is close to death. Maybe his mind has been weakened by the attack. That leaves the character to be vulnerable to indoctrination. It could be said that the remainder of the game is even the subconscious battle that Shepherd has while attempting to fight off the indoctrination.

Shepherd must choose a specific side of his psyche before coming to grips with the true test near the end of the game. The character watches Anderson die, then crawls toward the primary control panel, but then passes out before reaching it.

The Key Points Which Support the Indoctrination Theory

1. The dream sequences provide obvious symbolism throughout Mass Effect 3. This clearly takes place within Shepherd’s mind. The boy in these sequences is ever-present, enveloped in flames, and the final dream sequence includes Shepherd with the boy.

2. It could be argued that Shepherd’s eyes at the end of the game seem to show evidence of indoctrination. They are similar to the eyes of the other characters within the game that have had their indoctrination confirmed.

3. The breath scene right before the end credits. To achieve this scene, the gamer must choose “Destroy” and have a high EMS score. All other outcomes in the final choice go against everything Shepherd was fighting for within the series or provides an outcome where everyone just dies.

That means the indoctrination theory for the game is much like a hidden reward scene that only unlocks for players that achieve a specific outcome. Several games offer these hidden rewards for gamers that go “above and beyond” in their gameplay. Super Mario Odyssey, recently released on the Nintendo Switch took this concept a step further by providing gamers with coin groups and shortcuts for areas that can only be accessed through user skill.

What if Shepherd is Actually Dead?

If a person becomes indoctrinated, one could argue that their personality is “dead.” They are no longer the person they used to be. Within the core of Mass Effect 3, references to the afterlife are included. When the Citadel DLC is added to the game, what follows is like a “reward” for succumbing to the indoctrination.

Would you sell your soul for having access to a nice apartment? Being able to spend time with all your friends? To have access to an arcade and a casino when you just happen to be bored?

In the DLC, gamers actually face a clone of Shepherd. This type of doppelganger conflict is often used as a literary omen that suggests death is about to occur. For the indoctrination theory, this could be evidence of one final conflict of the “real” Shepherd attempting to win over the “indoctrinated” Shepherd.

In reality, Mass Effect 3 might have a specific ending that its writers envisioned for the game, but it is an ending that is open to personal interpretation. The indoctrination theory is a common explanation for the ending that was achieved, especially when the hidden reward scene is included, but it is not the only explanation that is available.

Did you play Mass Effect 3? What did you think of the ending? How did you interpret the events that occurred?

Impulse Momentum Theory Explained

Impulse is defined as a quantity which describes the effect of a net force that acts upon an object. Think of it as a moving force. It is the product of the average net force that acts an object, includes the duration, and is a force-time integral with a vector quantity. That is because force is a vector in the impulse momentum theory and time is a scalar.

Impulse is represented by J.

Momentum is defined as a quantity which describes the resistance an object has to stopping. Think of it as moving inertial. It is the product of an object’s mass and velocity and is a vector quantity as well since velocity is a vector and mass is a scalar.

Momentum is represented by P.

What Does the Impulse Momentum Theory State?

The impulse momentum theory takes these definitions into account and states that the change in momentum of an object equals the impulse that is applied to it. That statement can be reflected by the following equation: J = Δp.

If mass is constant, then the equation shifts to this equation within the theorem: F̅Δt = mΔv.

If the mass is changing, then the theorem would be expressed in this manner: F dt = m dv + v dm.

Because impulse is a quantity which is closely related to momentum, applying force for an amount of time allows an object with momentum to have the value of that momentum change to a new value. The impulse is equal to the change in momentum that occurs.

When determining the change in value, the first step is to define a positive direction. Then the variables of impulse and momentum are determined so that the new value can be calculated.

Does the Principle of Conservation Apply?

When dealing with physics, the term “conservation” refers to something which does not change. Within an equation, that means the variable with a conserved quality to it will remain constant over time. The value remains the same before and after an event occurs.

In mechanics, angular momentum, energy, and momentum are three fundamental quantities which are traditionally conserved. The conservation of momentum is used to describe collisions which occur between objects, but only if it is an isolated system. There cannot be an external impulse that has the capability of applying force to the system.

That means the principle of conservation does not apply within the impulse momentum theory because the “impulse,” or force, is acting upon the object with momentum by its very calculation.

Until the impulse is applied, however, the principle of conservation could apply to the object in events which occur before the equations in this theorem are applied.

That means a collision which occurs within the isolated system does not have this theory applied to it. The collisions act upon the momentum of each other because they are an internal force instead of an external force. That means the momentum is conserved.

How We Use Impulse Momentum Theory

We see the impulse momentum theory applied every day in some way as it is an equivalent to Newton’s second law. The application for variable mass allows momentum and impulse to be used as analysis tools, which are applied to vehicles that use rocket or jet engine propulsion. By creating a performance parameter, the units of propellant being expelled can be calculated so that a specific impulse can be determined.

We also see impulse momentum theory applied in various daily activities. If you play tennis, then this theory applies because the tennis ball being hit by a racket is given impulse. The momentum of the ball shifts to a new value because a large force (the racket, powered by the swing of an arm) is applied to the tennis ball for a specific amount of time.

Using a golf club to hit a golf ball would be another action of impulse that changes the momentum value.

It is important to remember that an item which is stationary still has momentum on our planet because our planet is always moving. The size of our planet negates tangible awareness of that movement, such as the rotation of the planet or how it orbits the sun, but the evidence of its existence is still present. The surface of the Earth at the equator moves at a speed of nearly 1,000 miles per hour as it rotates and the planet orbits the sun at a speed of about 67,000 miles per hour.

In summary, impulse momentum theory allows us to calculate a new value when a force is applied to the current value.

Haim Ginott Theory Explained

The Haim Ginott theory is a communication theory that is designed to eliminate barriers that can prevent people from learning. Whether the student is just starting in kindergarten or they are pursuing a doctorate, how they are able to learn depends on the presence of good communication.

Think about the teachers you liked in school. Then think about the teachers that weren’t really your favorites. For most people, a favorite teacher was able to communicate effectively to make learning fun and easy. The least favorite teachers made communication difficult, which made learning difficult.

Barriers that can be built that prevent learning can be very simple. Maybe a teacher is very strict and that causes a student to focus more on the classroom rules than the materials being taught. It is Ginott’s theory that seeks to recognize these barriers and then remove them.

How the Haim Ginott Theory is Different

Ginott worked as an elementary school teacher before becoming a professor of psychology, so he had unique experiences that could be enveloped into his theory. At its core, Ginott suggests in his congruent communication theory that confrontation should be avoided at all costs within the learning environment.

Although this process is often used within the school environment, Ginott’s theory could be applied to any situation where a teacher is providing information to a student.

Instead of seeking out confrontation, Ginott suggests that feeling validation should be the primary use of communication. When people feel like they are accepted and their presence is validated, then they can have a healthy level of self-esteem. Then, because the student feels good about themselves, they are better able to learn.

The 3 Tenets of Classroom Behavior

Ginott’s theory assumes that a student must feel welcomed and valued within a classroom for a successful learning experience. To create that necessary foundation, there must be three tenets followed by all teachers for this to happen when addressing behaviors in the classroom.

1. Teachers must seek harmonious communication.
Communication that is harmonious is defined in Ginott’s theory as communication that sets clear, brief expectations for behavior. A teacher might say that a student can use their phone in an emergency while in class, but using the phone for research or to talk with others without permission is not allowed.

Harmonious communication must also focus on the behavior instead of the student to be effective. If a student is on the phone without permission and this is disrupting the class, harmonious communication would have the teacher say that phone use was disruptive – not that the student was being disruptive.

2. Teachers must invite cooperation.
Teachers must encourage cooperation in the classroom through demonstration of their own behaviors for communication to be effective. Teachers that lecture loudly to be heard over students or demand a student pay attention would be examples of what not to do. To invite cooperation, Ginott’s theory suggests that the teacher focus on themselves instead of the students.

If the classroom is too noisy, the teacher would say something like, “I am hearing way too much noise in here right now.” That is different than, “You need to be quiet and pay attention to the lesson.”

3. Teachers must promote discipline as an alternative to punishment.
Rules are in place for a reason. They promote an environment that encourages learning by discouraging disruptions and distractions. Punishment causes a child to feel like they’ve paid for their misbehavior and invites them to repeat it. Discipline should be clearly outlined so that all students can learn from the situation, using guidance instead of criticism to get the point across that a disruption has occurred.

Honest Communication Creates Honest Results

In a teacher-student relationship, there must be honesty. There must also be a willingness on the part of the teacher to encourage every student to be their very best. That means teachers should praise the efforts a child makes instead of praising the character of the child or attributes of their personality.

That also means teachers must avoid sarcasm and criticism of personality characteristics as well. Sarcasm and criticism tears down a student, especially if the student is a child, and it reinforces the personality characteristics and learning traits that the teacher is criticizing in the first place.

Corrections are necessary, but they should be brief. The focus should be on learning, not behavior. Students should be praised for their efforts instead of a teacher’s perception of who they are as an individual. By creating this type of structure, the Haim Ginott theory suggests that every student can have the best possible opportunity to learn.

Habermas Theory of Communicative Action Explained

Jurgen Habermas built the theory of communicative action because he was looking for a way to ground social science within a theory of language. Published in a two-volume book, it would eventually become the foundation of future theories involving law, democracy, and morality. Communicative action serves to transmit cultural knowledge, renew it, and that processes creates a possibility of achieving mutual understanding.

As the communication action progresses, it can coordinate toward solidarity and social integration. It is through this process that individuals begin to form their own identities.

What Are Lifeworlds in the Theory of Communicative Action?

Habermas used “lifeworlds” to help define his theory of communicative action. A lifeworld includes all of the immediate contacts, activities, and experiences that are within the world of a specific individual. In some instances, a lifeworld could also be applied to corporate life or vocational responsibilities. It is a universe of what is self-evident.

Hamermas argues in his theory that these lifeworlds become colonized by what he calls “steering media.” People see this media within their lifeworld and become influenced by it. That influence allows the individual (or the corporate entity) to rationalize whatever actions they decide to take.

In the theory of communicative action, that means only spontaneous actions that are beyond the influence of steering media would have any value. For Habermas, that meant concepts of love, creativity, and charisma.

Steering media can only be influential within a lifeworld if four specific things happen.

  1. The traditional forms of life must be dismantled.
  2. The social roles included must be sufficiently differentiated.
  3. There must be adequate rewards, such as downtime or monetary compensation, for alienated labor that is provided.
  4. Hopes or dreams become individualized by a state-sponsored push of culture and welfare.

Habermas notes that while institutions will look to differentiate domains of action, there are counter-institutions that will also de-differentiates some of those organized domains. That removes them from the influence of the steering media and returns the action to coordination and cooperation so an understanding can be reached.

Why Do We Communicate Through Argument?

To communicate rationally, many people take the approach of having a rational argument. Habermas notes that there are three integrated conditions which this type of discussion can produce valid results within the theory of communicative action.

  1. The structure is immune to repression and inequality in a specific or special way.
  2. The structure is in the format of a ritualized competition so better arguments are formed in future engagements.
  3. The structure determines the construction of each individualized argument and the relationships those arguments maintain.

Habermas suggests that if these principles are accepted within the lifeworlds that interact with one another, then an outcome of communicative reality can be achieved. This reality allows for different validity claims to be brought to a satisfactory resolution and then applied to the relationships people form to the various life worlds.

How these arguments are structured depends on the type of discourse that is being used. The theory of communicative action suggests that there are three types of discourse used when attempting to communicate through a rational argument.

1. Aesthetic Discourse

This type of discourse focuses the argument on the visual aspects of the discussion. One would consider a performance or the work being performed as the foundation of a rational argument. The work is the proposition and the response, the criticism to it, continues the communication process.

2. Therapeutic Discourse

This discourse option is used to clarify or remove self-deception that may be in place during a rational argument. It allows the lifeworlds to remove “stories” that may have turned into facts so that an authentic discussion can take place. For communication to be effective, it must be free from illusion.

3. Explicative Discourse

This option of discourse involves how lifeworlds speak with specificity to one another. It includes properly structured grammar and content so that claims can be seen as being valid. This discourse option involves spoken communication as Habermas never addresses this concept for visual language that could be part of the discourse as well.

How each person forms an identity and molds their personality depends on the interactions their lifeworlds have with other lifeworlds. It is a constant give-and-take that involves communication on multiple levels. By evaluating each response and taking action to move toward solidarity, it becomes possible to form personal, group, and societal ethics that benefit everyone.

Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory Explained

Evariste Galois was born in 1811 and was a brilliant mathematician. At the age of 10, he was offered a place at the College of Reims, but his mother preferred to homeschool him. He initially studied Latin when he was finally allowed to go to school, but became bored with it and focused his attention on mathematics.

Galois’ work involving the necessary and sufficient condition for a polynomial to be solved by radicals solved a 350-year-old problem that had been holding the field of mathematics back. This work helped to lay down the foundation of group theory, abstract algebra, and Galois Theory.

At the age of 20, he suffered wounds during a duel which would take his life, yet his contribution to mathematics continues to live on today.

The fundamental theorem of Galois theory comes from mathematics and is a result which describes the structure of certain field extensions. The most basic format of this theorem provides and assertion that if a field extension is finite and Galois, the intermediate fields and the subgroups of the Galois group will have a one-to-one correspondence.

Galois theory maintains that if E is a given field and G is a finite group of automorphisms of E and they are with a fixed field (F), then E/F becomes a Galois extension.

Description of the Correspondence

When dealing with finite extensions, the fundamental theorem of Galois theory is described like this.

1. If a subgroup (H) of Galois, which is E/F, the corresponding fixed field will be denoted as H over E and will be the set of the elements where E are fixed by each automorphism that is in H.

2. For an intermediate field (K) of Galois, still E/F, the corresponding subgroup becomes Aut(E/K), which means the set of autmorphisms in Galois (designated Gal(E/F)) will fix every element of K.

Within the fundamental theorem, correspondence can only be one-to-one communication only if E/F is a Galois extension. If it is not a Galois extension, then the correspondence can only provide an injective map from the subgroups and subfields. It will also provide only a surjective map in the opposite direction.

Properties of the Correspondence

The fundamental theorem of Galois theory provides three specific useful properties.

  • It is inclusion reversing. For example: if the inclusion of the subgroups H1 ⊆ H2 is able to hold, it is because the inclusion of the fields E1 ⊆ E2 is able to hold.
  • The degrees of extensions are directly related to the orders of the groups. It must be in a manner that is consistent with the inclusion reversing properties. For example: if H is a subgroup of E/F as a Galois extension, then |H| = [E:EH] and |Gal(E/F)/H| = [EH:F] must hold true.
  • EH is a field which is a normal extension of F or a Galois extension by definition, but only if H is a normal subgroup of E/F as a Galois extension. That means EH induces an isomorphism due to the restriction of elements within the Gal(E/F) between it and the quotient group.

What is a normal extension?
When operating in abstract algebra, a field extension is defined as being normal if every irreducible polynominal either has no root or splits into linear factors when dealing with L. It is an extension that is very similar to a Galois extension, with its own examples and counterexamples that contribute to the fundamental theorem described here.

What is a normal subgroup?
A normal subgroup is invariant under conjugation by the members of the group to which it belongs. The left and right cosets should coincide. Only normal subgroups can be used to construction a quotient group from any given group.

Applications of the Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory

The fundamental theorem classifieds the intermediate fields (E/F) with regards to group theory. The translation between the subgroups and the intermediate fields shows that a general quantic equation cannot be solved by radicals. One must first be able to determine the Galois groups of radical extensions and then use the fundamental theory to show that the solvable extensions are able to correspond to the solvable groups.

The fundamental theorem can also be applied to infinite extensions which are normal and separable, if specific topological structures (Krull topology) are defined on the Galois group and only subgroups that are also closed sets are relevant with the correspondence.

Galois theory helped to establish a new era in mathematics and allows for an accurate approach to abstract algebra.

Friedmann Universe Theory Explained

Aleksandr Friedmann believed that the general theory of relativity required a theory of the universe that was in motion. At the time Einstein proposed the general theory of relativity, many believed that the universe was static. It would be Friedmann who would suggest that the universe was created by a “big bang,” which was then followed by a rapid expansion.
According to Friedmann, the universe would then experience a contraction and eventually a “big crunch” as everything came back together. The original universe theory by Friedmann suggests a closed universe model where entropy will eventually cause it to die. He also suggested that the universe could be open, expanding infinitely, or that it could be flat and expansion would eventually approach a rate of zero.

Friedmann shared his calculations with Einstein, who thought that the expanding universe solution was originally erroneous. They would later come to an agreement and Edwin Hubble would help to confirm the observations in 1929.

Alexandr Friedmann would have his life cut short due to typhoid fever and he would die at the age of 37 before his theories were confirmed.

How the Friedmann Universe Theory Works

The development of the Friedmann universe theory begins with equations that start with a simplified assumption that the universe is isotropic and homogenous spatially. It must be a three-dimensional metric that includes flat space, a sphere of constant positive curvature, or a hyperbolic space with constant negative curvature.

The equations show that the geometry of the universe is determined by the overall density of mass and energy. If it is equal to the critical density in the equations, then the universe would have zero curvature. That’s the flat universe alternative that Friedmann suggests. If it is less than critical, then the curvature is open. If it is greater than critical, which is the option that Friedmann preferred, then it offers a closed configuration.

This means the universe is potentially dynamic. The size of the universe may change over time. This theory was the first to suggest the term “expanding universe.” It also means that the structure of the universe could have been born from one lonesome singularity.

Hubble and a Belgian physicist, Georges Lemaitre, discovered that when a galaxy is far away, its light is shifted to lower frequencies. The further away the galaxy happens to be, then the greater the shift in frequency. This occurs because the expansion of the universe causes emitted light to be stretched out in its frequency as it travels to our location.

That creates a new question: if the universe is indeed expanding, then what is it actually expanding into?

What the Friedmann Universe Theory Suggests

Because of our planetary perspective, we think of space and distance as being rigid measurements. When we apply that perspective into special coordinates, we think of the distance between our solar system and any other location in the universe as having a fixed distance. Einstein tells us in the theory of general relativity that this isn’t actually true.

The universe has the ability to bend, to stretch, and to even wrap around itself if it wished to do so. That means our universe is not necessary expanding into anything. It is the actual space within the universe, the distance that occurs between two points, that is actually expanding over time, though that applies on a macro scale where gravity has less of an influence.

The voids between galaxies are believed to have little or no influence from gravity. That is what allows the expansion of distances to occur. Within a galaxy cluster, however, gravity stops the process of expansion from occurring.

Think of the universe as if it were a balloon. We are on one point of the balloon. As it expands when air is blown into it, the shape of the balloon changes. What was once close to our starting point is now further away, but we are still on the balloon itself. Add more air and the distance becomes further and further apart. If you travel in any one direction, however, you will eventually come back to your starting point.

Yet when you blow up a balloon, its expansion takes up space. It becomes “larger.” Yet, at the same time, your house does not get larger when you blow up a balloon. The surface of the balloon expands, but what lies outside of the surface of the balloon does not. What could lie outside the universe?

That brings up the question of “Hubble Volume,” or what lies beyond our current perspective. Does the universe have a “boundary surface” like the exterior of a balloon which can hold air? And what would happen if a rupture occurred in that surface?

Data observed in 2008 and confirmed in 2010 called Dark Flow suggest that something outside of our universe could be exerting gravity on our universe. Evidence shows that galactic clusters are all streaming in the same direction at immense speeds, which defies how the distribution of mass throughout the universe should operate from an explosive singularity.

Yet, at the same time, if something is outside of the Hubble Volume, it is still within our universe. If air comes out of a balloon, it is still air within our home. It may seem different, but it really is still the same.

What Does the Universe Theory Means for Us Today?

One of the greatest debates about our existence is how the universe initially formed. We have holy books tell us of creation. We have scientists who discuss evolutionary processes. Matter came from a singularity or it was created by a divine being or it happened for an unknown reason.

Humanity tends to argue with itself over opinion instead of focusing on fact. The universe theory is just an idea, but it is one that has some confirmed principles. We argue over those principles because we want belief systems to be validated.

What Friedmann offers us is a glimpse into those belief systems, no matter what they may be. For those who focus on creation, Friedmann offers the idea of an active God in an expanding universe creating a supportive system for life. For evolutionists, Friedmann offers a doorway which suggests natural causes and systems that support our bubble of existence. In essence, what separates perspectives is what draws people together.

Perhaps that is the best outcome of the Friedmann universe theory. The flexibility of space and the universe as a whole allows for shifting perspectives. Instead of there being a constant “right,” there is what is “right” in this moment. Shifts and changes can create new structures, new curvature, and new perspectives. Maybe the distance does grow further with expansion, but that doesn’t change the fact that the journey is still present.

The universe is not constant. That is the primary observation we get from the Friedmann universe theory. Beyond that one point of common ground, the rest may be open to interpretation – and there is nothing wrong with that.

Followership Theory Explained

On social media sites today, many of us have a group of followers that subscribe to our various updates. They might not always be called followers (Facebook has “friends”), but that is what they are doing.

In the modern workplace, there are also followers. People who find themselves in a subordinate role. There are followers in the world of education. There are followers in organizations like the Boy Scouts of America. If there is a leader present, then the leader must have followers – otherwise they are not truly a leader.

Followership theory describes the actions of those that find themselves in these subordinate roles. Those actions, which are a specific set of skills, help to complement what those in leadership roles are able to accomplish, whether that is in a for-profit business or a volunteer-based organization.

By understanding these actions, it becomes easier to predict outcomes. Leaders might be credited with the creation of a vision or inspiring others to succeed, but it is the followers that actually put in the work to make that success happen.

What Are the 5 Different Dimensions of Followership?

Although there are several different authors that have addressed followership theory and incorporated their own concepts and ideas into its structure, every author provides 5 different models of followership that are employed in different dimensions. These dimensions are used to describe the “quality” of the follower that is available to the leadership group.

Each author assigns a different name or label to these dimensions, but each dimension is essentially the same.

  • Sheepish Followers. These are followers that are often passive and have low levels of independence. They require a heavy amount of external motivation and must be frequently supervised to ensure their assigned tasks are completed.
  • Conformist Followers. These are the people who say, “Yes,” to everything. Their goal is to please those in the leadership whenever possible. They have low levels of independence because they’re always deferring decisions to the leader, especially when they are faced with opposition. At the same time, they never question the instructions from those in leadership.
  • Pragmatic Followers. These are the followers that remain neutral until they see a majority beginning to form. Then they will join with that majority in the hopes of always being on the right side of things. Followers like this are not risk-takers. They seek to avoid controversy whenever possible and usually stay in the background.
  • Alienated Followers. These folks are the people that always seem to have a negative point of view to share. They have high levels of independence and use it to procrastinate. They often put more work into bringing down the morale of a group and will almost always question the decisions or actions from the leadership group.
  • Exemplary Followers. These are the independent thinkers. They are the positive role models. They are always active and always wanting to contribute in some way. They don’t blindly follow orders, but can be trusted to get work done if given the chance to evaluate the situation.

Followers tend to stay within their comfort zones. If someone feels comfortable being alienated, then they will continue being a negative influence.

What Can We Learn from Followership Theory?

With followership theory, it becomes possible to identify what type of followers a leader has on their team. Instead of focusing on one generic approach that is intended to work with all 5 groups of followers, leaders can begin to embrace the benefits that each follower type brings to the team.

For example: exemplary followers may not immediately go to work when instructed. With enough information provided to them, leaders can trust that the job will eventually be completed in a way that meets or exceeds their expectations.

Or take the pragmatic follower. Leaders who see these followers know that if they can form a majority that supports their vision, the follower will come along as well.

Even alienated followers can be advantageous to the team. They may offer a negative perspective, but they are also hyper-aware of problems that develop within a team. If the negative components can be filtered out of this feedback, leaders can avoid many of the issues that would normally tear a team apart.

Through followership theory, it becomes possible to provide context to everyone regarding the leadership process. It creates a flow that can travel in all directions, providing support up and down the chain of command. It allows leaders to understand what their followers require and allows followers to contribute in a way that best suits them.

Ethical Egoism Theory Explained

Ethical egoism theory provides a normative position that encourages people from a moral standpoint to do what is in their own best self-interest. This process differs from only acting upon items of self-interest or creating a rational explanation behind the need to pursue one’s own self-interest.

In ethical egoism, actions which have consequences that will benefit the individual can be considered ethical, even if others hold a different definition of ethics.

The concepts of ethical egoism were first introduced by Henry Sidgwick in a book published in 1874 entitled The Methods of Ethics. Sidgwick introduced the idea of ethical egoism to counter the idea of utilitarianism, or the desire to maximize personal pleasure at all times. Egoism, Sidgwick argues, focuses on maximizing the pleasure of the individual.

The Categories of Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism can be divided into three general categories.

  • Individualistic Egoism. This form of ethical egoism would promote the self-interest of each individual, encouraging everyone to make the best possible choices for themselves at all times
  • Personal Egoism. This form of ethical egoism promotes personal self-interest without attempting to influence others to do the same.
  • Universal Egoism. This form of ethical egoism would promote that everyone should act in a way that is in their own self-interest.

Although it might seem to imply otherwise, ethical egoism theory does not require individuals to harm the interests of others when making a moral decision. That harm may occur as a consequence of pursuing one’s own interest, but it does not promote foolishness. It does not promote always doing what one wants to do either.

That is because short-term decisions that might seem good at the time may be detrimental to a person’s long-term outlook. Eating potato chips, drinking 5 sodas each day, and having cake for dinner every night might provide short-term pleasure, but ethical egoism would say such actions are not in the person’s self-interest because of the threat those short-term decisions would have on long-term health.

Justifications for Ethical Egoism

The primary justification for ethical egoism is that each person has a natural desire to fulfill their own wants and needs. Each person is also placed into a position where they can pursue those wants and needs with whatever energy they desire. Some may choose wants over needs and suffer, while others may not be able to meet even basic needs, but that does not change the ethics in pursuing what is desired.

A popular expression in society comes from Christianity, specifically from the book of Genesis. God asks Cain where his brother happens to be. Cain’s response is defiant. “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” In ethical egoism, the idea is that each person knows what is best for their short-term and long-term wants and needs. Others must make assumptions about what they are, which makes the acquiring process inefficient.

It may be a reasonable belief to assume that individuals can support one another, but it would also be a reasonable belief to assume that we would cause more harm than good when trying to meet those wants and needs for someone else.

Ethical Egoism also eliminates the concept of altruism. This is usually exampled by hunger. If you eat a sandwich in front of someone who is hungry, it would be considered an immoral indulgence because you are meeting your needs, but ignoring the needs of someone else. Yet it would be a moral indulgence to solve hunger in someone else, but creating hunger in oneself. Ethical egoism solves that problem by directing each individual to solve their own hunger problem instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

It could be argued that every moral duty that has been accepted by various human societies over the centuries has been based on principles of ethical egoism. Whether that means “love one another” or “always tell the truth,” the goal is to improve one’s own wants and needs in some way.

Are There Problems with Ethical Egoism?

Ethical egoism is only as beneficial as the moral code of the person implementing this theory. A murderer could say that it is morally right to kill others because it provides them with satisfaction, especially if there is no fear of imprisonment, being caught, or having a death warrant issued after a conviction. Thieves could steal in good conscience. Husbands or wives could cheat on their spouses because concerns are for the self only.

Ethical egoism theory has its proponents and its critics. By understanding its concepts, it becomes possible to see how each person implements them in their daily lives.

Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems Explained

Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems is a journal that focuses on several research areas. The areas are diverse, but still employ global dynamical methods as a common theme, despite their differences. The journal strives to act as a forum for the central problems that can be found in dynamical systems.

Subject matter includes the areas of operator algebras, celestial mechanics, number theory, differential geometry, biology, and statistical mechanics. The managing editors of the journal are Professor Ian Melbourne and Professor Richard Sharp, both from the University of Warwick. The executive editors of the journal include a half-dozen professors from the U.S., the U.K, Brazil, Canada, China, and Israel.

Questions About Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems

Egodic Theory and Dynamical Systems is a journal that features an Open Access publication model. Manuscripts that are published by the journal are made to be freely available in at least one format. Most of the manuscripts have very liberal permissions for distribution and reuse as well.

There are two forms of Open Access offered by the journal: Green and Gold. All submissions are defaulted to the Green Open Access option. This allows the manuscript to be made freely available after an online repository and embargo period which completes the self-archiving process.

The embargo period for all journals such as this one is 6 months. That is the period of time from publication until the time the manuscript can be made available through a public repository. That is different than HSS STM journals, which do not have an embargo period.

Once a manuscript is published under the Green Open Access model, accepted authors have the choice to utilize Gold Open Access. This allows the version of record to still be made freely available, but with additional usage rights.

To transition from Green to Gold access, an article processing charge is required. For this journal, the current fee is $2,835. The fees cover typesetting, online hosting, and copyediting costs.

Even though Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems is an Open Access journal, all manuscripts are peer-reviewed. Each is processed to the same standards as any other journal. It is only after the manuscript has been accepted that Open Access is discussed. It does not influence the peer review process whatsoever.

It should be noted that Open Access is an optional initiative that is not mandate. It is offered by the journal to give a manuscript the widest possible dissemination in the shortest period possible so that anyone with internet access can benefit from the information.

Is a Transfer of Copyright Necessary With this Journal?

To have a manuscript published by Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, a copyright transform form must be completed and returned to Cambridge University Press. This form will assign full copyright, in all forms and media, including supplementary materials, to Cambridge University Press. Any potential conflicts of interest must be noted on the copyright transfer form, either real or apparent, so any influence on the materials can be understood.

All authors that have been included on the manuscript must have their information included on this form. For those who do not hold the copyright to the manuscript, the copyright holder’s information must be included and their permission must also be obtained before the journal will consider publication.

For those choosing to use the Open Access option, the copyright transfer form must be completed within one week of acceptance for publication. You will be asked to select from one of three Creative Commons Licenses, all of which require attribution, for the work that has been published.

Energy Maneuverability Theory Explained

The energy maneuverability theory provides a model that describes the performance of an aircraft. It was originally developed by Thomas Christie, who was a mathematician, and Colonel John Boyd, who was a fighter pilot. The duo completed their theory in 1964 with the publication of a two-volume report of their studies. An update was completed in 1966.

When the energy maneuverability theory was first introduced, it was given a confidential security status. A scan of the updated 1966 document which discusses this theory is available through

This theory is one of the first to be developed by using high-speed computer processes. Christie and Boyd used the computer at Eglin Air Force Base to compare the performance envelopes of U.S.-based and Soviet-based aircraft that were flown during the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

The theory is useful in its description of an aircraft’s performance by providing a total of kinetic and potential energies. It can also describe aircraft specific energy.

By analyzing the mathematics of the energy maneuverability theory, it becomes possible to predict the combat capabilities of an aircraft. It can also allow designers and engineers to compare possible designs when creating a new aircraft as it can predict different trade-offs that may occur.

The aspects of airplane performance within the energy maneuverability theory can be described in one basic formula: Ps – V (T-D/W).

In this equation, V represents velocity; T represents thrust; D represents drag; and W represents weight. That allows the specific excess energy to be proportional to the ratio of net motive forces when they are compared to the weight of the aircraft and its proportion to velocity.

What Is the Thrust-to-Weight Ratio?

The thrust-to-weight ratio is used for any craft that is capable of flight. That allows the performance of the engine or the vehicle, such as a rocket or a jet engine, to be analyzed. This provides information regarding the overall maneuverability of the aircraft in question.

Various controls are available to pilots that allow them to manage throttle settings, altitude, airspeed, and even the air temperature within the cabin or cockpit. The weight of the aircraft will change as fuel is burned and this must also be taken into account. For that reason, the thrust-to-weight ratio is usually determined by the maximum level of static thrust at sea level, which is then divided by the maximum takeoff weight.

In the energy maneuverability theory, the principle is still the same as the thrust-to-weight ratio, but with a slight twist. Drag is subtracted from thrust and this normalizes the motive forces to the aircraft’s weight. That normalization process creates an efficiency equation that analyzes aircraft performance.

The normalization is required because the traditional thrust-to-weight ratio calculation does not describe the performance of an aircraft accurately while it is flying under normal operating conditions. By incorporating drag into the equation, the aerodynamic design of the aircraft can then be summarized.

Think of it like this: the engine of an aircraft might be able to provide an enormous amount of thrust. Its shape might create some extra drag. The weight of the engine, however, might be so great that it is virtually impossible for the aircraft to achieve enough speed for taking off. By using the (T-D)/W ratio, a unity efficiency value can be created, which is expressed as a “1.”

A perfectly efficient aircraft would receive a “1” rating if the engine can keep the plane at a constant speed while gaining altitude at a 90-degree angle. Most aircraft that come close to this perfect efficiency rating are fighter jets, such as the F-series from the U.S. military. The energy maneuverability theory, in fact, helped to bring about the improvements in the design of the F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

How Did the Energy Maneuverability Theory Change Aircraft Dynamics?

Colonel Boyd was likely the only person on the planet who could have contributed knowledge of aircraft performance for the energy maneuverability theory. His skills in the cockpit were legendary. During his pilot training responsibilities, he offered to pay any pilot $40 if they could defeat him within 40 seconds, even with Boyd at a disadvantaged position.

He never had to pay the bounty.

What Boyd was able to accomplish with this theory was to encourage the U.S. government to build lighter aircraft that would have added maneuverability. Even the F-18 Hornet is based off information that came from Boyd’s implementation of the theory.

Modern military aircraft benefit the most from this theory, but all aircraft can benefit from its principles. That allows us, in turn, to create safer aircraft that perform as efficiently as possible.