May 4, 2005 by Naomi.

How many times do we take credit for inventing an art or a method of
manufacturing? Take crocheting for instance. Crochet - kroh - SHAY -
needlework consisting of interlocking looped stitches with a single
thread. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary gives it a Scandinavian origin.
My 1948 Britannica Encyclopedia doesn’t include the word. However "net"
is defined in several pages because the looping of a single strand of
thread, rope, or wire is prominent in modern industry. My 1967 World
Book states: According to Norse mythology, Loki, god of evil, invented
the fishing net, a tale no doubt told by a fish.

It certainly makes sense that the word for the art originated in a
country dependent on fish, although the word, crochet, linguistically
looks more like French than Norwegian.

Every once in a while I pick up string and a special hook that makes
crocheting easier than experienced by very early hominoids. I find it
relaxing and rewarding to create a useful article. But as to the origin
of the idea, going back through time is where it’s at, probably hundreds
of thousands of years.

I have trouble putting myself in an earth setting as a primitive individual.
First I would have had to feed myself. I hungered for more than leaves
and fruit so I went to the water. After catching a fish with my bare
hands, or stabbing it with a stick, or killing the heron that held a
fish in its beak, I could belch with satisfaction and sit back and doodle.
If I picked up a vine I could come up with a noose and eventually a
net with which to catch many fish.

Going back in time takes a lot of fanticising. What is so difficult
is remembering that primitive peoples had an entire 24 hours to feed
themselves each day. Contrary to how civilized folks view the dark,
I believe primitive people walked about at night where they knew they
were safe. Sleeping 10 hours a day doesn’t seem likely considering the
call of an empty stomach, or a full bladder, or escaping little critters
in a lumpy bed.

Scientists have some proof that brains of Homo sapiens remain the same
size as in the beginning of the species. Experience and communication
have made us appear more intelligent. Well, we arrogantly believe so.
I think early peoples far removed from each other discovered similar
things, like crocheting fish nets or antimacassars. Or like some old
Norse woman who gave up her kitchen to her daughter-in-law and sat by
the fire rocking a cradle and idly toyed with a string to make a pretty
cap for her grandchild.

Don’t think for a minute human creativity is stagnant, especially when
we are well fed and have many idle hours. Just browse in the library
for crafts and see what can be done with a single strand. Spend some
time in a craft store. I found a pattern for knitting a tree house.
That artist/author was not only well fed, well housed but well treed.
How lucky can one get?

Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »

May 4, 2005 by Naomi.

Cover article on the May 2005 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is certain to renew a debate about our gender roles. The headline simply states “Differences in Male and Female Brains.” Larry Cahill covers research fairly but much of the data is on rats, gerbils, Degu pups, and monkeys. Brain measurements appear to be on adult humans. How can the discussion not go on and on?

Cahill cites studies from England and Germany as well the United States which looked at various aspects of brain activity. Some telling information has been gathered on differences in the genders of the brains of rats and monkeys not necessarily suggesting deficiencies in either sex. Citations range from studies measuring size of the brain areas to measuring the density of neurons in those areas. Other studies were observations on toy choices by vervet monkeys and humans implying that such choices result at least in part from innate biological differences. Will scientists ever be able to measure how much? And why? And will we believe it when they do?

A 1966 study was suggested to have brought a generation of neuroscientists to maturity believing that sex differences in the brain referred to mating behaviors, sex hormones, and the hypothalamus. Sex hormones since have dropped out of favor. Surely not in the eyes - I mean organs - of the proliferating species.

Research of this nature indicates the influence of gender on the brain, behavior, and responses to mediation. Quite fascinating. I will watch for further results but happy to leave the grunt work to patient scientists with the expectation that results will be duly noted. My thanks to all.

Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »