A Curious Statistical Anomaly

I was at a meeting a week or so ago and a friend mentioned that they’re doing a fund raising party for cancer and calling it Liver for Boobs. Raising money for breast cancer research is something that I’m committed to since I was diagnosed with breast cancer six years ago. While mine was found very early and I just had a lumpectomy, my mother and my uncle both had to have mastectomies. So, before I knew what I was doing, my mouth opened and I said, “I can knit you a boob or two and maybe a liver for your event.”

Then I get home and the panic sets in. What was I thinking. A quick search found a pattern for a boob but it couldn’t be sold, only made for personal use — wasn’t sure whether fund raisers counted so gave it a pass (Yes, I know I should have checked but I was under a deadline here). I looked at the photo and decided it couldn’t be that difficult, after all I’ve got two of my own to build a design on. In the past, I’ve done several circular objects: hats, tea cozies, bowls (felted), so the basics should be the same. I ended up making two different ones, each in one piece using the top down sweater increase only knitting one row and decreasing 6 stitches or increasing 6 stitches in the next round depending on whether I was knitting up to the fold or decreasing down to the forward tip. (In the first you can see I tried increasing and decreasing on each row but I didn’t like the swirl that it made so on the second I did the increase and decrease ever other row and then spaced them randomly to get smoother look.

For the liver I found a pattern, which for some reason (probably the migraine I had the day I made it) I totally misread the pattern and did it back and forth instead of in the round. Because of that it was in garter stitch so then I had to keep it that way when I did figure out it should be in the round. But by then it was a lot of short rows so I could cope with keeping the garter stitch with an occasional stockinette row popping up here and there. Figure we’ll explain that the liver is from too much drinking to raise money — moderation in all things, etc., etc., and so forth. It’s not much of a liver, but that’s my fault — but it was for a good cause and if I ever knit another one, I’ll try to time it for a non-migraine/headache day — though duress does make for some interesting and weird results.  Someday I figure I might make a liver using the pattern as written to see what it would really look like — this one is only an approximation of a liver — if you squint.

So, I finished my promised boobs and the liver so they could have visuals at the party. Hopefully, they’ll have fun and raise money for a good cause. It was the least I could do since I don’t drink. But I must say, I never expected to knit body parts — but it was fun.

I’ve been thinking about the abstract comment:

While research on the acoustics of speech production indicates that a vocal tract with this shape is insufficient for producing quantal speech sounds resistant to articulatory error and perceptual confusion, other modeling studies suggest that Neanderthals could have possessed fully-articulate speech capabilities.

I’m thinking that since we’ve never heard the speech of a Neanderthal, we really don’t know what their language was like. They sure didn’t speak English. There are so many languages in the world and many that have components other than the vowels and consonants that we use in English. Some languages are tonal where the same words may mean different things depending on the notes the syllables hit when spoken. There’s a language that uses clicks in addition to sound. So, even if the Neanderthals couldn’t produce quantal speech, they may not have needed it because their language compensated for the lack somehow (lots of hand waving here).

In looking up the word quantal in Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary:

being or relating to a sensitivity response marked by the presence or absence of a definite reaction (an all-or-none response to a stimulus is quantal)

It seems to me that the “quantal-ness” is in the hearer not the speaker. The listener adjusts for errors in articulation not the speaker. So isn’t this backwards? Just thinking because I’m not a linguist but I find that often science uses perfectly good words in ways that make clear understanding by laypeople a tad difficult. Looking at the above definition, I really think the onus of understanding is on the hearer, whether or not the speaker clearly enunciated each syllable, vowel, and/or consonant. Often, I have trouble understanding people who slur or lisp or otherwise have difficulty clearly speaking, but that’s may problem in understanding and their speech problem is a separate issue. I sometimes have problems understanding people who speak clearly (such as politicians) but that an entirely different issue.

I still think the research is amazing and I look forward to hearing a full sentence with their synthesizer but, I think the only way we’d know for sure what a Neanderthal actually sounded like and what their language was like is to invent a time machine and then, of course, we’d have all those pesky time travel tropes to deal with.

Hyperion here. Just thought I’d add one extra datapoint. Several years ago, we were in Scotland for the World Science Fiction Convention. Our hotel was right next door to a hole-in-the-wall fish and chips shoppe. We went in to place our order and the clerk asked me something. Could have been to describe quantum relativity as far as I knew. All I heard was incomprehensible gibberish. So I asked him to repeat it. He did … and it was just as nonsensical as the first time. The third time was just as bad. So I’m staring at him, he’s staring at me, and we both know that we’re not going to be getting anywhere. Then Gayle puts a hand on my shoulder, looks at the clerk, and says, “Let me translate for you … Would you like vinegar on your fish?”. I responded enthusiastically, and then the clerk just stared at us like we were nuts. Then he went off and got two meals ready for the crazy Americans.

But the fact was that he was speaking clearly (for a scotsman anyway), and Gayle could understand him fine. But his accent rendered his speech total opaque to my best efforts. So was the problem in his speaking or in my listening? Or both?

Today, I came across a report in New Scientist called “Neanderthals Speak Out After 30,000 years“. Based on a talk called “Voices out of the past: synthesizing Neanderthal speech” given by Robert McCarthy on research done by himself and F. Yates, P. Lieberman at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting this year. As I understand it from reading the talk’s abstract and the article in New Scientist, the vocal tract doesn’t fossilize so researchers have to guess how the tract would work and fit together. There’s been some work previously. These scientists, as most do, built on the work that came before and then correcting what they perceived as errors in measurements, moved on to synthesize the speech of a Neanderthal. Of course they only did one vowel “E” and hope to later try their theories and equipment on longer words and sentences.

To hear the synthesized speech go here. For comparison listen to the sounds of a modern speaker, here.

As you can hear there is a difference in the sound of the letter E. The paper says that Neanderthals were unable to produce quantal speech or sounds that smooth over errors in articulation. Neanderthals, I believe, must have been very precise speakers or they wouldn’t have been understood by their listeners. Wonder what that did for those with a speech impediment. Hmmm. Of course this is my conjecture not theirs on the non-quantal speech sounds.

What I find curious is that with more study the Neanderthals have rapidly acquired skills, speech, and moved up from the brutish existence that they were thought to have lived when I first heard of them in my childhood whilst trying to find books on dinosaurs and early human (this was pre- all those Clan of the Cave Bear type books, and I wouldn’t have been allowed those at that age anyway.)

The photo of the Neanderthal Child is based on anthropological reconstruction based on the same methods that help police find out what the murder suspect looked like when all they find is “ick” and bones. I think the child looks very modern and a bit like one of the Gelflings in the movie The Dark Crystal. In looking around for any reference to the photo or the Neanderthal speech thing, I found a blog that also recognized the similarities to Gelflings. You really got to love those special effects artists — I’m sure they weren’t trying for Neanderthals but it looks like they got close anyway.

What is the most amazing thing is that we can listen to the speech of a person who has long since passed out of existence and yet, with scientific theory, mathematical modeling, and some educated guess work, we get a piece of our past now…talking to us. It’s amazingly, amazing. I LOVE science.

A new study found that pollution in the air changes the scent of flowers, either masking it or shortening the distance over which bees (and others) can smell them. I came across the report and all of a sudden realized that this means big trouble for all of us.

“The scent molecules produced by flowers in a less polluted environment, such as in the 1800s, could travel for roughly 1,000 to 1,200 meters [3,300 to 4,000 feet]; but in today’s polluted environment downwind of major cities, they may travel only 200 to 300 meters [650 to 980 feet],” said study team member Jose D. Fuentes.

Think about it, bees don’t gather nectar to eat they also pollinate the plants that they gather from. If they are having trouble finding the flowers because pollution has masked the scent it’s a bigger problem than declining bee colonies. If the plants aren’t pollinated then they don’t set fruit. Without pollination many plants just look pretty and the flowers fade and that’s it — no apples, no tomatoes, no whatever else they buzz around.

No one in Congress takes air pollution seriously (hey most people in the US don’t either) but it causes a lot of the acid rain that is destroying much of the forest along our northern borders and in Canada. It causes breathing problem in just about everyone and especially those with asthma and allergies. There’s a reason that in many states ozone alerts mean free bus rides.

We have a great problem with global warming but because we still have winter and summer and all the rest most people just scoff. How long and what disasters will we need to face before we admit that there is a problem and it needs to be treated seriously. This isn’t just a bunch of tree-huggers or granola do-gooders looking for a cause — this is the future of our planet and our species. We can no longer afford to have laws made to “get me elected again”, this country needs an environmental plan that is based on science and not the wishful thinking of those with a political agenda to pretend that it’s all going to go away if it’s just ignored.

It seems like every time some little study comes out there is another data point that is telling us it’s time to wake up pay attention to our wonderful world before it’s too late.

I was lucky enough to attend the book event at Borders in the Annapolis Maryland mall and hear Stephanie Pearl-McPhee speak about life, knitting, and some of the things she’s learned. It was an entertaining talk. I’d bought the book at the event and brought it home to read.

The book is small (about 6.3 inches by 4.2 inches) and fits in a purse for quick moments of reading just about anywhere you’re stuck waiting. There’s an introduction and 45 things learned with a few lists interspersed. So, it’s a perfect book for short breaks as most of the ‘things’ are on average about three pages. It took me a while to read because I chose to read it in short spurts reading 1 or 2 or 3 things at a time.

If you’ve read the Yarn Harlot’s blog you have a good idea of her writing style. It’s simple and down to earth, witty, humorous, and often slyly thought provoking. I say slyly thought provoking because she often says she writes knitting humor and she does. But, what she doesn’t stress is that her writing is humorous because it based in the knitting culture and in society in general. The introduction talks about attention and filter theories in science and psychology and how they apply to knitters. Often knitters take a lot of flack for knitting items that could be purchased cheaper elsewhere or for wasting time (usually said by someone just sitting and doing nothing). Stephanie Pearl-McPhee uses science and common sense to refute some of those charges and to prove to knitters that not only are they taking part in an activity that brings them joy but that also keeps their brains active and engaged, produces usable products (mittens, sweaters, socks, scarfs, and so on), and teaches them new things about life and the world everyday.

She has short essays on lesson learned such as: “Patience is a Virtue”. Knitters, she writes, aren’t knitters because they are patient but patient because they knit. Basically, on observation, she believes that if you took a knitters knitting away when they are in a situation that requires patience, such as waiting in a doctor’s office, the knitter would shortly be climbing the walls. I can certainly agree with this lesson since I find knitting is superior to picking lint out of the air, pacing, or “gasp” staring at the walls wondering if I could climb one.

Another lesson is Practice Makes Perfect. Knitting is an activity that is done over and over again. It’s basically of two stitches — knit and purl — and with these two stitches you can make socks, sweaters, mittens, and so on. The more you knit the better at it you get. It’s a simple concept, but with knitting it is easily seen by an individual. Of course, the book explains this lesson in a much more humorous and illustrative manner. A knitter who wouldn’t dream of do-overs for many of life’s mistakes will with no prompting unravel and reknit something over and over again until they get it right. This ‘practice’ can transfer and allow knitters to keep trying when things get difficult because with knitting eventually you’ll succeed. In life that doesn’t always happen but some people never learn to try, try again — they give up. Knitters persevere.

If you are a knitter, you’ll enjoy the book for those flashes of recognition of your own behavior or the behavior of other knitters that you know. You’ll also find that after the laughter, when you remember and think about all the lessons learned, that this is not just knitting humor, this is a litany of what knitters know and what they should recognize about themselves and their craft. They are persistent, meditative, creative, good at math, thoughtful, generous, and caring. If you’re not a knitter, but know some or hope to be one someday, reading this book to give you an idea of the sorts of things that are involved in knitting. It’s not just a craft but as with any art — a way of life that can profoundly effect how you look at the world.

Highly recommended.

Today is our second day of temperatures in the mid-80’s. Earlier in the week, I’d managed to rake up a lot of the garden area and today we raked the piles onto a tarp and dumped them toward the back of our property. Hopefully, the leaves will compost into soil and by the time we get around to working back that far they will not be leaves still, or less leaf like at least.

I noticed today that the azalea bushes are all filled with buds. We have three fairly big bushes. One on each side of the path to the shed. One between the two trees just in front of the house with the cement fake deer (don’t ask, it came with the house — they couldn’t move it). And a very small one we planted two years ago that is now a middling bush about 1-2 feet high. Two of the bushes have pink flowers and two are a more purple-ish color.

The peony trees also have buds. Seems that each year we get more buds than the year before. We’ve got two peony trees. We also have five peony bushes but only four of them are above the leaves — haven’t raked there yet. We dug around the leaves and the other bush has come up but is under the leaves. Tomorrow we hope to rake the leaves out of that area. I’ve uncovered all the strawberry plants and most of the perennial herb area. The lemon balm is sprouting up and the sage made it through the winter. Three of the lavender plants are also looking good. So, I’m really getting the spring fever to get things ready for the summer garden. Might even start some tomato seeds tomorrow.

On the down side, with the heat we discovered that the heat pump when switched to cool … doesn’t. So we’ve got the fans set up to move the basement’s cooler air up to the living areas. Got the ceiling fans going and the screen door open on the deck. It’s still warmer inside than out but livable. We had this problem last year and the heat pump/furnace thingy (original to the house, so very old) didn’t work and we got the very last part the company had available in this state and it worked the rest of the summer. A few months ago the heat part started going wonky but we have the wood stove so we didn’t mind too much and figured we could last another year if the cooling worked. So, guess now we’ll have to get estimates on getting a new furnace/heat pump which blows the budget to do some work on the basement (I was so hoping for walls and a ceiling down there). Oh, well. I do want AC before we hit the over 100 degree F days in Maryland.

Several years ago (more than I want to admit to), I decided to give Jane Austen a try since so many people had recommended her writing to me. My first try was Pride and Prejudice. It was okay, and then I watched the A&E movie version staring Colin Firth. Once I saw the movie, I reread the book and enjoyed it even more. I’ve since gone on to read most of the Jane Austen’s works but Pride and Prejudice is still my favorite.

Pride and Prejudice is mostly Elizabeth Bennet’s story. We may hear of events that took place out of her view but only when these events are told to her. So, Mr. Darcy’s thoughts, feelings, and actions outside of Elizabeth’s view are unknown to us or only known by shrewd guessing. There’s also the additional problem that Elizabeth, in the manner of Mr. Darcy, is not a reliable narrator. She has her own prejudices about him and his behavior and it colors her view of him and all his actions. So, we’re left wondering what Mr. Darcy thought of Elizabeth Bennet. What could make this man of wealth, education, and position fall so in love with Elizabeth that he’d go against his family and his social connections to marry her.

Luckily, Mary Street has given us a Mr. Darcy’s side of the story in The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy. Street retells Pride and Prejudice from Fitzwilliam Darcy’s point of view. Where the two books overlap, Jane Austen’s version is paramount as to action and conversation but with the added interest of Mr. Darcy’s thoughts and insights. Where events take place out of Elizabeth’s view (not in Austen’s work but hinted at, such as the events in London after the ball at Netherfield and the conversation with Wickham about Lydia) the narration and action matches what we’d expect of a gentleman of Darcy’s station. Street keeps well within the canon of story and characterization.

What is missing is the passion of the characters. Elizabeth is engaging and exciting the most when the book intersects Pride and Prejudice and there is a blueprint to follow. Darcy’s character, even though we are often in his thoughts, is still wanting. This is a man that is comfortable in the highest levels of society, yet his passion for Elizabeth Bennet is such that he willing takes the chance that he and his new wife could be shunned by society because of the disparity of their socio-economic status. He is gentleman and she is a gentleman’s daughter, but there is still a gulf between them of more than an obnoxious mother and wild sisters. There’s no sign here of a love or passion that could account for Darcy’s proposing marriage not just once but twice to the same woman.

It seems that in trying so hard to maintain the tone and style of the original Austen novel, that the lively wit and by-play that are the hallmarks of Austen’s work got smoothed out. So, while this book does fill a gap that so many of us want filled, it does leave us still wondering about Mr. Darcy’s inner most thoughts and feelings.

Worth reading? Yes, definitely. The author did a remarkably good job with the material, it just left this reader wishing that the characters had a bit more life to them. And, while some of the scenes, such as a short bit where Col. Fitzwilliam and Darcy decry the potential name for the Fitzwilliam’s brother’s child, were bright and witty, I wish the author had let loose her fancy a bit more because while those small additions show that the ability to make the characters come alive exists, it was just held in check and most likely in honor of the original and fear of stepping too far out of bounds. I enjoyed the book but wish there had been more depth to Mr. Darcy.

I read the Yarn Harlot blog, which is written by Stephanie Pearl-McPhee. She also writes books on knitting humor and I’ve enjoyed her writing since, I don’t know when — I guess since she was on the Knitlist and posted short items there. She’s always seemed to be to be a person who thinks a lot about life, the universe, and everything, and finds the absurd and the joyful in it.

So, when the tour for her new book was listed and I checked and saw that she’d be giving a talk at Borders at the Annapolis, Maryland mall, I marked my calendar and waited patiently. Last night was the night. I figured they’d be a crowd but my husband worked late and we only got there thirty minutes before the event started. We purchased the books and got signing number 173. One of the women there said that she’d heard that when the phone calls confirming the event started to come in Borders realized that they’d better do numbers for the signing. Since I was 173 and more than a few came in after I did there was a large crowd.

The crowd filled practically all of the space available on the second floor of the bookstore. But the wait was pleasant as we all oogled each others knitting projects and shared tips and hints on various patterns and yarns. There was a pretty good mix of young, old, and all in between as well as a mix of sexes and racial backgrounds. In other words the usual non-demographically defined crowd of knitters.

The talk was very interesting. First, she spoke more on the inability of anyone to define knitters as in ending the phrase, “Knitters are ____” with a word or phrase that would work for every knitter. She then went on to talk about how knitting and its repetitive nature allows us to enter a theta state that is good for reducing stress, giving us access to our creative side, and many other good side effects. Some of this information on brain wave states was from a study done with Buddhist Monks before, during, and after mediation. The researchers specifically mentioned knitting as a way to achieve this theta state but also stated that it was unreasonable to expect people to carry around emergency knitting in order to reduce stress. This got a big laugh from the audience as most of us had brought our knitting with us to avoid the stress of waiting for the event to begin.

As you can see, I managed to get my copy of my book signed and a photo of Stephanie and myself holding each other’s sock-in-progress. I can’t believe she was still friendly and approachable after signing for nearly three hours.

If you get a chance to go to a talk by Stephanie, make the effort, it’s well worth it. I’m certainly glad we went. It was a great evening with wonderful people — they were all knitters — what more can be said.