Do you have 'normal' hand lines?

Pamelah wrote:Martijn, my only concern about thsi is that the posting is under 'normal' lines as if there were such a thing. I would say there are 'common' ways lines look but woudn't say they are 'normal.'

Hi Pamelah,

Yes, I recognize how the word 'common' can serve as a more common synonym for the word 'normal' in daily language; but I also could imagine that you and I actually have a little bit of a different perception about what can be described as 'normal' (or common) hand lines & 'abnormal' (uncommon) hand lines...???

But let me first explain a bit more about the full perspective that I have in mind...

In my hand-lines-model, I have started considering certain combinations of primary line characteristics (seperated by the number of primary lines, transversality and the number of connections).

And I think we agree that some variations are more normal (more common) than other variations - for example: having 3 primary creases is MUCH MORE NORMAL (MORE COMMON) than having only 2 primary creases (as is seen in e.g. the 'simian line').

And therefore, I think I can 'fairly' argue that a simian line can be described as an 'abnormality' (because having 3 primary creases is really the standard that applies to a very large majority of people - in all parts of the world).

But I am not sure if I could make a likewise claim that having a simian line is 'uncommon'...?

(Because it is more seen in Asian countries, and even in western countries about 3% of people have it in at least one hand... so I guess, when I started using the word 'uncommon' in this context that would probably also require to answer the question: what does the word 'uncommon' really mean in this perspective; while using the 'abnormal' suggests that I am talking about an issue that somehow relates to statistics - which is true for the full perspective that I have in mind, etc.)


So, please be aware that I am using the words 'normal' and 'abnormal' in the perspective of statistical considerations regarding the primary lines.

And I hope that you can also accept that the 'simian line' is described in medical science as a 'minor physical abnormality/anomaly', see for example the Wikipedia page about MPA's - where the simian crease is mentioned as one of the typical examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_physical_anomalies

Therefore, I think the word 'normal' in this context is a little more specified than the word 'common' - because of the statistical connotation.

Pamelah, I hope my word choice now makes sense for you?
(And if not, I welcome you to specify your thoughts a little bit further - if possible)



PS. I could imagine that in Richard's approach you would prefer to describe the individual 'gift markers' in terms of common & uncommon (instead of 'normal' & 'abnormal'). But maybe that is also a side-effect of the nature of these markers in Richard's system... which usually have a positive connotation - and therefore it may even become 'unnatural' to describe them as an 'abnormality', etc.

I hope this last comment serves as an illustrative example of we might prefer to use a different word-choice... due to our different perceptions about the nature of the lines - or at least some lines.

Pamelah wrote:Martijn, my only concern about thsi is that the posting is under 'normal' lines as if there were such a thing. I would say there are 'common' ways lines look but woudn't say they are 'normal.'

Lynn wrote:

Pamelah wrote:Martijn, my only concern about thsi is that the posting is under 'normal' lines as if there were such a thing. I would say there are 'common' ways lines look but woudn't say they are 'normal.'

I understand what Pamelah is saying here. I think the majority of people we read for come under the vast spectrum of degrees of 'normal', but 'statistically' I also understand what Martijn is saying.
It is difficult to know what word to use when doing readings.
eg you can't say "this is an abnormal feature" if you are reading for one of the 3% of the general population who have a simian line, because it would immediately alarm the client! Unusual maybe a better word? (but if you were reading the hand of someone with Downs you would say - this is 'normal'!).

I once said to a lady who had many loop fingerprints, "Loops are the most commonly found fingerprint". She (jokingly) said "Are you saying that I am common?". She made me aware that my words can be misundertood!... 'common' can be taken as an insult in English language! To call someone 'common' is saying they are "of the lower classes"! So I corrected myself by saying "Loops are the most frequently found fingerprint"
but 'Frequently Found Fingerprint' is not easy to say, what we call a 'tongue-twister', like "She sells seashells on the seashore".

It's not easy to know how best to phrase things in readings sometimes, without inadvertently upsetting somebody!

Thanks Lynn,

One of your examples illustrates how the 'choice of words' indeed really depends on the perspective one is talking about... for, you are very right: for a person having Down's syndrome it is 'perfectly normal' to have a simian line, and the same is true if that person also has 10 loops.

But in the 'normal' ( ) population... both the simian line and 'monomorphic loops' (= 10 loops) can each be described as a (minor) 'abnormality' - though only the 'simian line' became known as a MPA (= 'minor physical anomaly').


In a reading one can add regarding the simian line that MPA's are basically described by medical science as 'harmless body markers' (which only induce a 'worrisome' element when they are combined with MANY other 'minor physical anomalies' - though these can also manifest beyond the hand as certain skin markers, foot markers, head markers, etc.).

And finally, one can also add that a large majority of people have one or a few of those 'minor physical anomalies' ... while their health is generally just fine.