Media puzzle

Trying to sort out a meaningless puzzle. Part of the 1965 ‘banner year’ or Grand Finale for UFOs happened in Okla and Kansas. In August a chain of sightings ran from Chickasha to Wellington to Wichita to KC, including some radar readings at TV stations in Wichita and KC. If the group was seen in Wichita and KC, it probably passed over or near Manhattan.

I was 15 at the time, living in Manhattan. I was a total tech nerd, listening to SW, reading PopSci, and building electronic stuff that didn’t work. I wasn’t especially interested in astronomy or space, but you’d think that a major event like UFOs in the state would have been memorable.

Best conclusion: The local newspapers and radio stations simply weren’t mentioning the UFOs. The radio reports in the Connors archive are from big-city talk shows in Cleveland and NYC and Boston, not news items on local stations.

= = = = =

Later after more memory searching, found the answer. I wasn’t IN Manhattan in August ’65. My father was trying to change jobs, and we spent that summer renting a house in Ohio while he taught a summer course at BGSU, ‘auditioning’ for a tenured position. We then returned to Manhattan for the next school year, and he got the BGSU job in the fall of ’66. It was a terrible mistake. He should have stayed at K-State.

Still more Zenith musings

The Zenith memory pulled me back into those first few months after release from prison.

I was appreciating freedom, but I was starting out on the wrong track AGAIN.

What was the wrong track? COLLEGE, and especially college courses in physics and math. College drove me crazy, drove me into hopeless depression which led inevitably to jail.

What was the right track? Printing and typesetting, which would have led to editing. Or any career using language skills, not math skills.

I can forgive the wrong choice immediately after high school, because there was NO information or guidance available in the correct direction. Culture and parents and friends and mentors were all pushing toward a degree in physics. The wrong choice after prison was not forgivable. At that point I knew what had happened, and should have tried a different path.

Those first few months of Zenith-flavored freedom were spent in an apartment in Stillwater, attempting to resume a physics degree from OSU. I hated it AGAIN, couldn’t grasp the theories or the PURPOSES of physics. I dropped out after a couple months and returned home in disgrace and depression AGAIN. After a month of moping around, my father got pissed and ordered me to go out and get a job, any old job.

THIS WAS THE FIRST GOOD ADVICE I EVER RECEIVED. (Belated thanks.)

I got a job as delivery boy at Cromwells in Enid, and soon learned typesetting and then offset printing. None of these subjects had been covered in college, but I had a real talent for spelling and grammar and fonts.

The old pressure was still there, from parents and friends and culture and mentors. Get back in school! So I did AGAIN, and quit Cromwells in the middle of mastering THE PROPER CAREER.

= = = = =

Here’s a reprint that appeared by chance in the blogstats today. A random reader was looking at this item for an unknown reason, probably geographical.

From 2009:

= = = = = START REPRINT:

Every day in science-oriented news we hear of a new study showing that some tendency, from honesty to obesity to (of course) breast cancer is partly determined by heredity. These studies are not needed. Pure waste. We ALREADY KNOW DAMN WELL that every human tendency, taste and talent is roughly half innate and half learned.

Studying each tendency on its own is like carefully examining every dog in the world and saying “This one appears to have four legs. And this one appears to have four legs. And this spotted one seems to have four legs. Surprisingly, this small one with big eyes also appears to have four legs. Amazingly, this big brown one seems to have four legs. Wowie zowie! I think this scruffy one has four legs as well! Will wonders never cease?”

The only thing these “studies” prove is that scientists are still hopelessly ensnared and stupefied by Leninist egalitarianism.

Finally we have one study with a truly new, surprising and crucially useful finding about heredity.

In short:

Intelligence depends MORE on genes and LESS on training as you get older.

From the brief article in New Supersitionist:

Previous studies have shown that variations in intelligence are at least partly due to genetics. To find out whether this genetic contribution varies with age, Plomin’s team pooled data from six separate studies carried out in the US, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, involving a total of 11,000 pairs of twins.

In these studies, the researchers tested twins on reasoning, logic and arithmetic to measure a quantity called general cognitive ability, or “g”. Each study also included both identical twins, who have the same genes, and fraternal twins, who share about half their genes, making it possible to disentangle the contributions of genes and environment to their g scores.

Plomin’s team calculated that in childhood, genes account for about 41 per cent of the variation in intelligence. In adolescence, this rose to 55 per cent; by young adulthood, it was 66 per cent.

This is certainly counter-intuitive. On Nature vs Nurture I’m hard-line Nature, but I also know a thing or two about neurons. Thus I’d always assumed that differing experiences shape your ability to learn in different ways. Use more language neurons, grow more language pathways. Use more number neurons, grow more number pathways. If identical twin Bob is doing more mental work than Bill, Bob should grow more pathways overall, and Bob’s intelligence should increase more than Bill’s, even though they started with the same brain.

Apparently the surprising result is still unexplained. Since the study pools information from several countries, you can’t implicate one cultural milieu or one educational system.

And then the researchers claw their way out of egalitarianism for a moment to reach some valid conclusions for education:

Plomin suggests that genetic differences may be more accentuated if all children share an identical curriculum instead of it being tailored to a child’s natural abilities. “My inclination would be to give everyone a good education, but put more effort into the lower end,” he says.

Yes! Yes! Tailor to natural abilities! Yes! Can we spell apprentice?

This finding also settles the “puzzling” question of why black students seem to do well enough until 4th grade, then fall farther behind in higher grades.

If we were really serious about serving our black population (and half of the Caucasians) we’d quit trying to educate everyone to compete with the Chinese, because THAT WILL NOT WORK. IT IS PHYSICALLY AND GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Abstract intelligence has NEVER been America’s strong point, as Polistra has discussed in detail.

Until we return to our previous accurate reckoning of our comparative strengths and weaknesses, we will continue to get weaker and weaker.

If we want to regain our power, we should put all of our resources into rebuilding American heavy industry and cut all ties with China and India. Call it the Second War of Independence. Yes, it would cost a lot to buy out China’s bonds, but we’re currently throwing trillions down the drain to stay enslaved to China!
= = = = = END REPRINT.

Including India with China was probably inaccurate, but the rest still holds water.