So, when I saw this headline today from National Geographic, I was all like, "What? No..." and not because I wouldn't believe this. It's because I learned this thirty years ago. Basically, to me, this is click-bait, though at first I was like, "Is this the Mandela Effect?". The title makes it seem like only just now are scientists saying, "they're arachnids!", but that also isn't true.
The article states that they've known they were related to spiders for decades now, it's just that the theory of the relation has changed. OK, I can dig it. When I was about eight (possibly ten), I was visiting the J. L. Scott Marine Education Center on a school field trip. I loved that place. Honestly I can't even begin to describe how much I loved that place and as far as other aquariums went it wasn't anything special to look at or write home about. But it was the first aquarium I remember visiting and each trip to the Mississippi Gulf Coast had me begging my parents for yet another trip there. I think it was also that it was a learning aquarium. So, you didn't merely wander around and look at some pretty fish and call it a day. The people working there were ready to answer questions and would, gladly. This is also the place where I learned about Horseshoe Crabs (since they live in the waters off Mississippi (the entire Gulf of Mexico to boot), and the first place I was allowed to touch and hold one. It was a thrilling experience for me. At about this age, during this school field trip, is when the aquarium worker stated, "They're related to spiders." That's about all he said, so there was no explanation, no whither why's of why they might think that, or even this explanation on the Sister Species theory. Just, "they're related to spiders" and I've been telling anyone and everyone since that trip; whenever the subject comes up, because I found it so fascinating. Horseshoe Crabs are actually one of my most favourite creatures in the entire world. Would they be, had I not seen and held them as a young child? I don't know. But I know a lot about them because I've always been interested in them. I didn't even care for spiders at that age, but I did find them fascinating. About that age I learned that they had book lungs and sort of how those work. It just blew my mind and I latched onto that school lesson like I latched onto "They're related to spiders", which is why I was thinking, 'Isn't this old news?' And that's the problem I have with lead-ins like this. Unless you're someone, like in this instance, is wondering, 'What the hell?' so you're fully reading the entirety of the article, or you're just someone who doesn't skim (which are not that many people), you come away with the majority of readers stating "They just discovered that Horseshoe Crabs are Spiders!! Isn't that cool?!?" It's happened before with other articles. They've just latched onto the headline and missed where some pertinent information was glossed over. In this article it was "For decades, scientists have known that horseshoe crabs and arachnids, which both belong in the subphylum Chelicerata, are closely related, but it’s been tricky to sort out just how closely related." which is almost too wordy for me, because the addition of the scientific name adds a partial sentence which really isn't needed there. Not to mention it's sort of buried between a bolded header and a flashy advertisement. It's easy to see how it could be missed. I find that's mainly the case with glossed over, pertinent information in articles. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, per se; the writers, but it's starting to feel like that. You state that you want people informed, what them hyped up for science and to actually know things, but then most people come away from your articles not knowing anything really. So, who's this helping? Like a better title would have been "New Study shows how close Horseshoe Crabs are to Spiders" because that's basically what's happened. They've always known, now the theory has changed, because of a new study, and they know they're more closely related than previously thought. But I suppose it could still be a Mandela Effect type deal, or either that guy at the aquarium jumped the shark? He didn't state how closely or not closely the relation was. So, I've never had a doubt in my mind that horseshoe crabs and spiders weren't the same thing really. All because of that one guy. What if science had proved the opposite over the last thirty years. Well, I'd be looking pretty dumb now, right? It just so happens that that guys misstep was spot on, so I've been spot on (& well ahead of science) all these years. Go me! This isn't the only time where I read an article header, and the article, thinking, "Yeah, but I already knew that like years ago." Which is probably weird in and of itself. No, it's not an incident of I just "knew"; these were things I was told and taught by people in whatever particular field. The only thing springing to mind at the moment, which isn't fascinating really, is the break-up of Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale. That news broke out a few years ago and all I could think was, "But this happened fifteen years ago." I remember it being all over the news then, and mainly celebrity news like MTV, VH1, TMZ-esque things where their job IS celebrities, so they should know. Nope, never happened apparently. This was the first time in news history that they'd broken up. "But I already knew that. It already happened." Mandela Effect, y'all. The only reason I remember it is because both of their bands were still popular and making albums. I was in my early twenties. It was big news. I'm not sure if I'm the only one to remember it or not, because no one that I know personally remembers it. But the Mandela Effect is really weird and it has me thinking on things a lot. Perhaps we're just crazy for thinking someone was spelled a certain way when it never was or that this thing happened that never did. But, no one ever wants to be wrong and though memories can morph over time (because it's what the brain does), some things are still just as clear years later to everyone involved (without leading or coercion of memory), so that's strange too. Perhaps we're not now living in a different, parallel universe, than the previous one, but it is kind of interesting and fun to think about. And things like this do lead me to, "Is it? Is it the Mandela Effect?" If you're uncertain, you can search this online. It gets the title from Nelson Mandela, because some people remember on the news him dying in prison, but that didn't happen, at least in this time. It's a theory about parallel universes; multiverses, where you remember something that didn't happen. Examples range from films that never existed to words and names having different spellings. Just about anything. A collective group remembers events a certain way, but for all intents and purposes those said events never happened. Thus the theory that there are multiverses and we've slipped from one to the next. So in one multiverse Mandela did dye while in prison (or that the title of the books is The Berenstein Bears), while in a different multiverse Mandela was released and exonerated before dying (& that the title is The Berenstain Bears). My feelings on just those two are that I do remember hearing Mandela died in prison, but about 1993, learning he'd been released from prison a few years earlier, I accept that and shrugged it off. Though I'm wondering why I thought that initially. The Berenstein/stain bears. They cite that Stein is a common surname. When I was a child reading these books, I'd never seen the word Stein. I'd never seen Beren either. To me, I remember it as Berenstein because at a young age, that was a made up words When I was that young, I knew the word stain. I've always liked to pick out, in words, things that I know. If there's a part of a word with something familiar in it, I see that and lock onto it. Otherwise, It's just weird and I feel no familiarity towards it. I can't comprehend it, it's a made up word. Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland was like a made up word for me, because there was nothing familiar about it when I stumbled upon it in a book as a child. Does it mean that it hasn't always been Berenstain. No, but it seems odd, to me personally, that this was the one word with a familiarity that I let slip through my fingers, when I owned several of the books? Whether you want to believe in it or not, it is pretty fun; whether it is a case of multiverse or just a case of bad memory, it's still interesting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorA girl from South Mississippi who finds herself in exploration. Archives
November 2019
Categories |