Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
The signs of unhealthy power dynamics in a relationship—and how to even them out
Is there a power imbalance in your relationship? You can find out by answering 28 simple questions.
- The balance of power in relationships is an ever-changing status that deserves to be carefully monitored and cared for.
- Negative balances of power can be defined by three different relationship dynamics: demand/withdrawal, distancer/pursuer and the fear/shame dynamic.
- Researchers have conducted several studies and come up with a list of questions that can help you determine if your relationship has a negative power imbalance.
What is a “power imbalance” in a relationship?
Thinking about where "power" comes from - it's not just from one person. Power can be defined as the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others in a particular way. Power is not limited to domination and submission. Instead, power in relationships is understood to be the respective abilities of each person in the relationship to influence each other and direct the relationship - and this is a very complex element of romantic partnerships.
Possession of power changes the human psyche, usually in ways that we aren't aware of - one of which is the activation of the behavioral approach system that's based in our left frontal cortex.
This system is fueled by the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is considered a "feel-good" chemical. Being in control or having power feels good - this surge of dopamine that comes from feeling empowered or powerful is automatic, it's not something we can control.
According to Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner, having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths, putting the human drive for rewards above the intimacy and connection we have with our partners. This is why the power imbalances of relationships are ever-changing.
How a negative struggle for power could be damaging your relationship (and your mental health)
Couples who are stuck in power-hungry relationship dynamics are more likely to get divorced, research says.
Photo by New Africa on Shutterstock
There are three types of relationship dynamics that can result from negative power imbalances within the relationship: demand/withdrawal, distancer/pursuer, and fear/shame.
The demand-withdrawal dynamic occurs when one partner is the "demander" who seeks change, discussion, and is in constant search of a resolution to issues within the relationship - while the other partner is withdrawn, seeking to avoid the issues.
According to a study conducted by Lauren Papp (Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin), Chrystyna Kouros and E. Mark Cummings (both with the Department of Psychology at the University of Notre Dame), the demand/withdrawal dynamic has been linked with spousal depression and is a powerful predictor of dissatisfaction in the marriage and divorce.
Their findings also established a pattern of gender-bias within relationships that had the demand/withdrawal dynamic, with women predominantly being the "demanders" and men predominantly being "withdrawn".
The distancer-pursuer dynamic is explained as such: one person (known as the pursuer) tries to achieve and maintain a certain degree of intimacy with their partner (the distancer), who considers this affection to be "smothering".
In this unhealthy dynamic, the closer the pursuer wants to be, the more resistant, defiant and withdrawn the distancer can be. This is considered to be very similar to the "demand/withdrawal" dynamic, however, with distancer/pursuer relationships the struggle is over a deeper connection and less about who has more power.
The distancer would imagine the issue in the relationship to be the "neediness" of their partner, and the pursuer would feel their partner has been cold and potentially even purposefully destructive by withholding affection.
The fear-shame dynamic is often an "unconscious" culprit of relationship troubles, as the fear and insecurity of one partner would bring out the shame and avoidance in the other - and vice versa.
According to Dr. Steven Stosny, the vulnerability of fear and shame is influenced by many different variables (such as hormone levels and traumatic experiences), which can make this dynamic particularly difficult to get out of.
Two separate researchers of negative power imbalances in relationships, Dr. John Gottman and E. Mavis Hetherington, have both concluded that couples who are seemingly stuck in one of these three negative power dynamics were at a very high risk for divorce.
Is there such a thing as a positive power struggle?
While the idea of a power struggle or imbalance indicates something negative, not all power struggles are destructive. While the beginning stages of love might have you feeling as though you've found your "other half", relationships consist of two unique people who have different opinions, beliefs and viewpoints.
Naturally, there will be times that there is an imbalance in your relationship, however - there are some types of power struggles that allow growth within the relationship and encourage a deeper understanding and respect for each other.
According to psychiatrist Kurt Smith, a positive power struggle is one that ultimately results in the growth of the relationship. While the struggle is still a struggle, by the end of it, you will have reached an understanding of which lines can be crossed, which cannot and how much each partner is able to compromise.
This set of questions will help you determine if there is a negative power imbalance in your relationship.
There is a list of questions put forth by researchers that will help you determine if your relationship has a negative power imbalance...
Photo by Red Confidential on Shutterstock
Psychology researchers Allison Farrell, Jeffry Simpson, and Alexander Rothman conducted three separate studies* on the balance of power in relationships and from the results, were able to come up with a self-report style "test" (called the Relationship Power Inventory) for romantic partners to be able to assess the balance of power between them.
The questions provided in this inventory target important aspects of power within romantic relationships and can help you and your partner assess if you have a negative or positive imbalance of power.
- I have more say than my partner does when we make decisions in our relationship.
- I have more control over decision making than my partner does in our relationship.
- When we make decisions in our relationship, I get the final say.
- I have more influence than my partner does on decisions in our relationship.
- I have more power than my partner when deciding about issues in our relationship.
- I am more likely than my partner to get my way when we disagree about issues in our relationship.
- My partner typically accepts what I want when we make decisions in this domain.
- My partner tends to give in to my preferences when we disagree about decisions in this domain.
- My partner has more say than I do when we make decisions in our relationship.
- My partner has more control over decision making than I do in our relationship.
- When we make decisions in our relationship, my partner gets the final say.
- My partner has more influence than I do on decisions in our relationship.
- My partner has more power than me when deciding about issues in our relationship.
- My partner is more likely to get his/her way than me when we disagree about issues in our relationship.
- I typically accept what my partner wants when we make decisions in this domain.
- I tend to give in to my partner's preferences when we disagree about decisions in this domain.
- I am more likely than my partner to start discussions about issues in our relationship.
- When my partner and I make decisions in our relationship, I tend to structure and lead the discussion.
- I lay out the options more than my partner does when we discuss decisions in our relationship.
- I tend to bring up issues in our relationship more often than my partner does.
- I generally steer the discussions my partner and I have about decisions in this domain.
- I can make my partner come around to what I want when making decisions in this domain without him/her noticing what I am doing.
- My partner is more likely than me to start discussions about issues in our relationship.
- When my partner and I make decisions in our relationship, my partner tends to structure and lead the discussion.
- My partner lays out the options more than I do when we discuss decisions in this domain.
- My partner tends to bring up issues in this domain more often than I do.
- My partner generally steers the discussions we have about decisions in this domain.
- After the fact, I sometimes realize my partner influenced me without my noticing when making decisions in this domain.
You can find more on the Relationship Power Inventory here [PDF download].
*A note on the parameters of these studies: the studies mentioned above were limited to couples who were involved in monogamous heterosexual relationships, as much of the past research about power dynamics in romantic couples also focused on heterosexual relationships.
Shared power and continuously balancing the scales…
The balance of power within your relationship is a fascinating and extremely important thing to be aware of, as it can play a key role in the positive (or negative) direction of your romantic life together.
Reaching a balance in power can be explained as "shared power", where both partners take responsibility for themselves and the health of the relationship. In this ideal balance of power, ideas and decisions are shared jointly and points of view are respected and valued. There is an open line of communication and where issues arise, there is space for vulnerability and compassion.
The key elements that produce a healthy balance of power in a relationship are:
- Attention: when both partners feel their emotional needs are being met
- Influence: when both partners have the ability to engage with and emotionally affect the other.
- Accommodation: while there may be times where one partner's need must be put above the others (in a time of tragedy, for example), most decisions are made jointly.
- Respect: when each partner has positive regard, respect, and admiration for the humanity of the other person.
- Selfhood: when each partner maintains a positive value of self and is able to be their own person both within and outside of the relationship.
- Vulnerability: each partner is willing to admit fault, weakness or uncertainties in themselves.
- Fairness: when both partners feel that the responsibilities and duties in their lives are divided in a way that supports each person.
According to Theresa e DiDonato, a social psychiatrist and associate professor at Loyola University in Maryland, one of the keys to a successful long-term relationship is a consistent reassessment of the balance of power - because in healthy relationships, the power structure will inevitably shift and change as both people involved change and as you tackle new life challenges together.
"There a widely held belief that to be loved you have to abandon power and vice versa - and then you choose a partner who is able to provide the missing function."
- Adam Kahane, Power and Love
- Power and Dependency - Big Think ›
- The Power Struggle of Love - Big Think ›
- More couples are choosing to live apart: Here's why - Big Think ›
How would the ability to genetically customize children change society? Sci-fi author Eugene Clark explores the future on our horizon in Volume I of the "Genetic Pressure" series.
- A new sci-fi book series called "Genetic Pressure" explores the scientific and moral implications of a world with a burgeoning designer baby industry.
- It's currently illegal to implant genetically edited human embryos in most nations, but designer babies may someday become widespread.
- While gene-editing technology could help humans eliminate genetic diseases, some in the scientific community fear it may also usher in a new era of eugenics.
Tribalism and discrimination<p>One question the "Genetic Pressure" series explores: What would tribalism and discrimination look like in a world with designer babies? As designer babies grow up, they could be noticeably different from other people, potentially being smarter, more attractive and healthier. This could breed resentment between the groups—as it does in the series.</p><p>"[Designer babies] slowly find that 'everyone else,' and even their own parents, becomes less and less tolerable," author Eugene Clark told Big Think. "Meanwhile, everyone else slowly feels threatened by the designer babies."</p><p>For example, one character in the series who was born a designer baby faces discrimination and harassment from "normal people"—they call her "soulless" and say she was "made in a factory," a "consumer product." </p><p>Would such divisions emerge in the real world? The answer may depend on who's able to afford designer baby services. If it's only the ultra-wealthy, then it's easy to imagine how being a designer baby could be seen by society as a kind of hyper-privilege, which designer babies would have to reckon with. </p><p>Even if people from all socioeconomic backgrounds can someday afford designer babies, people born designer babies may struggle with tough existential questions: Can they ever take full credit for things they achieve, or were they born with an unfair advantage? To what extent should they spend their lives helping the less fortunate? </p>
Sexuality dilemmas<p>Sexuality presents another set of thorny questions. If a designer baby industry someday allows people to optimize humans for attractiveness, designer babies could grow up to find themselves surrounded by ultra-attractive people. That may not sound like a big problem.</p><p>But consider that, if designer babies someday become the standard way to have children, there'd necessarily be a years-long gap in which only some people are having designer babies. Meanwhile, the rest of society would be having children the old-fashioned way. So, in terms of attractiveness, society could see increasingly apparent disparities in physical appearances between the two groups. "Normal people" could begin to seem increasingly ugly.</p><p>But ultra-attractive people who were born designer babies could face problems, too. One could be the loss of body image. </p><p>When designer babies grow up in the "Genetic Pressure" series, men look like all the other men, and women look like all the other women. This homogeneity of physical appearance occurs because parents of designer babies start following trends, all choosing similar traits for their children: tall, athletic build, olive skin, etc. </p><p>Sure, facial traits remain relatively unique, but everyone's more or less equally attractive. And this causes strange changes to sexual preferences.</p><p>"In a society of sexual equals, they start looking for other differentiators," he said, noting that violet-colored eyes become a rare trait that genetically engineered humans find especially attractive in the series.</p><p>But what about sexual relationships between genetically engineered humans and "normal" people? In the "Genetic Pressure" series, many "normal" people want to have kids with (or at least have sex with) genetically engineered humans. But a minority of engineered humans oppose breeding with "normal" people, and this leads to an ideology that considers engineered humans to be racially supreme. </p>
Regulating designer babies<p>On a policy level, there are many open questions about how governments might legislate a world with designer babies. But it's not totally new territory, considering the West's dark history of eugenics experiments.</p><p>In the 20th century, the U.S. conducted multiple eugenics programs, including immigration restrictions based on genetic inferiority and forced sterilizations. In 1927, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped didn't violate the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote, "… three generations of imbeciles are enough." </p><p>After the Holocaust, eugenics programs became increasingly taboo and regulated in the U.S. (though some states continued forced sterilizations <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/" target="_blank">into the 1970s</a>). In recent years, some policymakers and scientists have expressed concerns about how gene-editing technologies could reanimate the eugenics nightmares of the 20th century. </p><p>Currently, the U.S. doesn't explicitly ban human germline genetic editing on the federal level, but a combination of laws effectively render it <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">illegal to implant a genetically modified embryo</a>. Part of the reason is that scientists still aren't sure of the unintended consequences of new gene-editing technologies. </p><p>But there are also concerns that these technologies could usher in a new era of eugenics. After all, the function of a designer baby industry, like the one in the "Genetic Pressure" series, wouldn't necessarily be limited to eliminating genetic diseases; it could also work to increase the occurrence of "desirable" traits. </p><p>If the industry did that, it'd effectively signal that the <em>opposites of those traits are undesirable. </em>As the International Bioethics Committee <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, this would "jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics, disguised as the fulfillment of the wish for a better, improved life."</p><p><em>"Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps"</em><em> by Eugene Clark is <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank">available now.</a></em></p>
Astronomers find these five chapters to be a handy way of conceiving the universe's incredibly long lifespan.
- We're in the middle, or thereabouts, of the universe's Stelliferous era.
- If you think there's a lot going on out there now, the first era's drama makes things these days look pretty calm.
- Scientists attempt to understand the past and present by bringing together the last couple of centuries' major schools of thought.
The 5 eras of the universe<p>There are many ways to consider and discuss the past, present, and future of the universe, but one in particular has caught the fancy of many astronomers. First published in 1999 in their book <a href="https://amzn.to/2wFQLiL" target="_blank"><em>The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity</em></a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Adams" target="_blank">Fred Adams</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_P._Laughlin" target="_blank">Gregory Laughlin</a> divided the universe's life story into five eras:</p><ul><li>Primordial era</li><li>Stellferous era</li><li>Degenerate era</li><li>Black Hole Era</li><li>Dark era</li></ul><p>The book was last updated according to current scientific understandings in 2013.</p><p>It's worth noting that not everyone is a subscriber to the book's structure. Popular astrophysics writer <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/#30921c93683e" target="_blank">Ethan C. Siegel</a>, for example, published an article on <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/26/we-have-already-entered-the-sixth-and-final-era-of-our-universe/#7072d52d4e5d" target="_blank"><em>Medium</em></a> last June called "We Have Already Entered The Sixth And Final Era Of Our Universe." Nonetheless, many astronomers find the quintet a useful way of discuss such an extraordinarily vast amount of time.</p>
The Primordial era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTEyMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjEzMjY1OX0.PRpvAoa99qwsDNprDme9tBWDim6mS7Mjx6IwF60fSN8/img.jpg?width=980" id="db4eb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0e568b0cc12ed624bb8d7e5ff45882bd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="1049" />
Image source: Sagittarius Production/Shutterstock<p> This is where the universe begins, though what came before it and where it came from are certainly still up for discussion. It begins at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. </p><p> For the first little, and we mean <em>very</em> little, bit of time, spacetime and the laws of physics are thought not yet to have existed. That weird, unknowable interval is the <a href="https://www.universeadventure.org/eras/era1-plankepoch.htm" target="_blank">Planck Epoch</a> that lasted for 10<sup>-44</sup> seconds, or 10 million of a trillion of a trillion of a trillionth of a second. Much of what we currently believe about the Planck Epoch eras is theoretical, based largely on a hybrid of general-relativity and quantum theories called quantum gravity. And it's all subject to revision. </p><p> That having been said, within a second after the Big Bang finished Big Banging, inflation began, a sudden ballooning of the universe into 100 trillion trillion times its original size. </p><p> Within minutes, the plasma began cooling, and subatomic particles began to form and stick together. In the 20 minutes after the Big Bang, atoms started forming in the super-hot, fusion-fired universe. Cooling proceeded apace, leaving us with a universe containing mostly 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, similar to that we see in the Sun today. Electrons gobbled up photons, leaving the universe opaque. </p><p> About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough that the first stable atoms capable of surviving began forming. With electrons thus occupied in atoms, photons were released as the background glow that astronomers detect today as cosmic background radiation. </p><p> Inflation is believed to have happened due to the remarkable overall consistency astronomers measure in cosmic background radiation. Astronomer <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGCVTSQw7WU" target="_blank">Phil Plait</a> suggests that inflation was like pulling on a bedsheet, suddenly pulling the universe's energy smooth. The smaller irregularities that survived eventually enlarged, pooling in denser areas of energy that served as seeds for star formation—their gravity pulled in dark matter and matter that eventually coalesced into the first stars. </p>
The Stelliferous era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTEzNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjA0OTcwMn0.GVCCFbBSsPdA1kciHivFfWlegOfKfXUfEtFKEF3otQg/img.jpg?width=980" id="bc650" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c8f86bf160ecdea6b330f818447393cd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="481" data-height="720" />
Image source: Casey Horner/unsplash<p>The era we know, the age of stars, in which most matter existing in the universe takes the form of stars and galaxies during this active period. </p><p>A star is formed when a gas pocket becomes denser and denser until it, and matter nearby, collapse in on itself, producing enough heat to trigger nuclear fusion in its core, the source of most of the universe's energy now. The first stars were immense, eventually exploding as supernovas, forming many more, smaller stars. These coalesced, thanks to gravity, into galaxies.</p><p>One axiom of the Stelliferous era is that the bigger the star, the more quickly it burns through its energy, and then dies, typically in just a couple of million years. Smaller stars that consume energy more slowly stay active longer. In any event, stars — and galaxies — are coming and going all the time in this era, burning out and colliding.</p><p>Scientists predict that our Milky Way galaxy, for example, will crash into and combine with the neighboring Andromeda galaxy in about 4 billion years to form a new one astronomers are calling the Milkomeda galaxy.</p><p>Our solar system may actually survive that merger, amazingly, but don't get too complacent. About a billion years later, the Sun will start running out of hydrogen and begin enlarging into its red giant phase, eventually subsuming Earth and its companions, before shrining down to a white dwarf star.</p>
The Degenerate era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTE1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTk3NDQyN30.gy4__ALBQrdbdm-byW5gQoaGNvFTuxP5KLYxEMBImNc/img.jpg?width=980" id="77f72" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="08bb56ea9fde2cee02d63ed472d79ca3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="810" />
Image source: Diego Barucco/Shutterstock/Big Think<p>Next up is the Degenerate era, which will begin about 1 quintillion years after the Big Bang, and last until 1 duodecillion after it. This is the period during which the remains of stars we see today will dominate the universe. Were we to look up — we'll assuredly be outta here long before then — we'd see a much darker sky with just a handful of dim pinpoints of light remaining: <a href="https://earthsky.org/space/evaporating-giant-exoplanet-white-dwarf-star" target="_blank">white dwarfs</a>, <a href="https://earthsky.org/space/new-observations-where-stars-end-and-brown-dwarfs-begin" target="_blank">brown dwarfs</a>, and <a href="https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-what-is-a-neutron-star" target="_blank">neutron stars</a>. These"degenerate stars" are much cooler and less light-emitting than what we see up there now. Occasionally, star corpses will pair off into orbital death spirals that result in a brief flash of energy as they collide, and their combined mass may become low-wattage stars that will last for a little while in cosmic-timescale terms. But mostly the skies will be be bereft of light in the visible spectrum.</p><p>During this era, small brown dwarfs will wind up holding most of the available hydrogen, and black holes will grow and grow and grow, fed on stellar remains. With so little hydrogen around for the formation of new stars, the universe will grow duller and duller, colder and colder.</p><p>And then the protons, having been around since the beginning of the universe will start dying off, dissolving matter, leaving behind a universe of subatomic particles, unclaimed radiation…and black holes.</p>
The Black Hole era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTE2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjE0OTQ2MX0.ifwOQJgU0uItiSRg9z8IxFD9jmfXlfrw6Jc1y-22FuQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="103ea" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f0e6a71dacf95ee780dd7a1eadde288d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1400" data-height="787" />
Image source: Vadim Sadovski/Shutterstock/Big Think<p> For a considerable length of time, black holes will dominate the universe, pulling in what mass and energy still remain. </p><p> Eventually, though, black holes evaporate, albeit super-slowly, leaking small bits of their contents as they do. Plait estimates that a small black hole 50 times the mass of the sun would take about 10<sup>68</sup> years to dissipate. A massive one? A 1 followed by 92 zeros. </p><p> When a black hole finally drips to its last drop, a small pop of light occurs letting out some of the only remaining energy in the universe. At that point, at 10<sup>92</sup>, the universe will be pretty much history, containing only low-energy, very weak subatomic particles and photons. </p>
The Dark Era<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwMTE5NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0Mzg5OTEyMH0.AwiPRGJlGIcQjjSoRLi6V3g5klRYtxQJIpHFgZdZkuo/img.jpg?width=980" id="60c77" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7a857fb7f0d85cf4a248dbb3350a6e1c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="810" />
Image source: Big Think<p>We can sum this up pretty easily. Lights out. Forever.</p>
A unique exoplanet without clouds or haze was found by astrophysicists from Harvard and Smithsonian.
- Astronomers from Harvard and Smithsonian find a very rare "hot Jupiter" exoplanet without clouds or haze.
- Such planets were formed differently from others and offer unique research opportunities.
- Only one other such exoplanet was found previously.
Munazza Alam – a graduate student at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian.
Credit: Jackie Faherty
Jupiter's Colorful Cloud Bands Studied by Spacecraft<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8a72dfe5b407b584cf867852c36211dc"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GzUzCesfVuw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Scientists discover burrows of giant predator worms that lived on the seafloor 20 million years ago.
- Scientists in Taiwan find the lair of giant predator worms that inhabited the seafloor 20 million years ago.
- The worm is possibly related to the modern bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditois).
- The creatures can reach several meters in length and famously ambush their pray.
A three-dimensional model of the feeding behavior of Bobbit worms and the proposed formation of Pennichnus formosae.
Credit: Scientific Reports
Beware the Bobbit Worm!<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1f9918e77851242c91382369581d3aac"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_As1pHhyDHY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
The idea behind the law was simple: make it more difficult for online sex traffickers to find victims.