Re: Do you have normal finger length? [locked]

**Lynn** Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:14 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:Martijn,
Maybe you have hit on something brilliant here, I don't know! I know you have put a lot of work into it. I haven't had time to study it in depth but I have looked at the chart and at the measurements people presented, and at the calculations done in order to ascertain their hand shape.... and it seems very complicated!!

as an example, Mooky's hand:
Mooky's hands:

Right: Finger length = 8.0, palm breadth = 8.5, palm length = 11.5 (fl/pb = 0.941, fl/pl = 0.696, pb/pl = 0.739)
Hand shape code: + | ++ | - - => FIRE hand shape

Left: Finger length = 8.0, palm breadth = 8.8, palm length = 11.7 (fl/pb = 0.909, fl/pl = 0.683, pb/pl = 0.752)
Hand shape code: ++ | ++ | - => FIRE hand shape

It seems unnecessary to do all those calculations! First glance at the palm width & palm length measurements instantly tell us (without working out %) that the palm is much longer than it is wide ie it is a rectangular palm. ...

Sorry Lynn,

Indirectly you are now suggesting that doing 'calculations' is only a a part of my 'hand shape profile'-approach - but I would like to point out here that in time you and Johnny became aware that working with (proportional) percentages for finger length vs. palm length is a requirement in order to make an assessment.

What I meant was.... in Mooky's case you only have to look at the measurements
finger length = 8.0, palm breadth = 8.5, palm length = 11.5
to instantly see that palm is rectangular and fingers are short. All the fl/pl and pb/pl and fl/pb calculations are uneccessary.

And regarding your conclusion about Mooky's proportions:

"... the palm is much longer than it is wide ie it is a rectangular palm"

these words leave me wonder what the words 'much longer' here exactly implicates(?)

given that standard fire palm (in CS system) is 8cm wide and 10cm long, Mooky's 8.5 x 11.5 is a longer rectangle.

Lynn, according my view we are confronted here with a key-problem in the C.S. appoach: because these do not present any specific guidelines for discriminating what is called a 'square palm' from a 'rectangle palm'.

For, regarding your choice of words, I could even argue here that when I take your words literally... those words could even apply for far most 'earth hands' - simply because for the human hand it is perfectly normal to have palm length exceeding palm width!

(I think in more than 99% of all hands the palm length is much longer than it's width", which includes a large majority 'earth hand shape' cases as well...!

This leaves me wondering... how do the advanced C.S. rules exactly define the difference between a 'square palm' and a 'rectangle palm'? ( )

But (Mooky's hand) 8.5 x 11.5 does not in any way resemble a square. So it could not apply to any earth hands! I agree with you tho that CS system does not specify measurements regarding "how square is square", and I agree that even square palms are not usually exactly square.

**Lynn** Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:32 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:These are excellent questions Lynn!

1) The 'pure' hand shape proportions come from the average proportions for each hand shape.

2) Well, regarding the word 'accurate': it is hard to understand exactly what the word 'accurate' here means. However, during the process of sorting things out I have found various clues that the average proportions are not far away from the expected average proportions according this model... basically this is because each of the 4 axes is very close to the 'central axis' in the 4 zones. So, if I would add more examples, I would expect each of the 4 axes to move toward the central axis in the colored zones.

This implicates that AFTER adding more examples, I would probably be able to make the model even more accurate... however I have reasons to expect that the numbers in the 'hand shape profile' picture would hardly change at all (because in most cases the proportional differences would probably chance only a few hundreds of a percent - and since I have presented the numbers 'rounded' to tenths of a percentage, therefore some of the numbers would probably not change at all).

1) is based on 4 examples of each hand shape from the books? when actually we are even questioning whether some of those examples are 'pure' handshapes? I think you need a bigger database of pure handshapes to base it on.

2) again I am wondering about this 'average' that we talked about before. I still haven't got my head around this, whether we are talking about the same thing when we talk about 'average' - are you talking 'average' or are you talking 'medium' - I don't think it is the same thing. If most people in UK have fire shape hands, that is not the same as saying that 'fire shape' is 'average'. "Average" handshape for Uk in general would not be the same as "average" for India in general. "Average" in a study of academics (air) hands would not be the same as "average" in a study of rural farmers (earth) hands and in a study of general (UK) population there would be more fire hands than all the other elements. (sorry I am still trying to understand this 'average' in the centre of your chart).

3) I also suspect that "AFTER adding more examples, I would probably be able to make the model even more accurate." You might be correct that "I have reasons to expect that the numbers in the 'hand shape profile' picture would hardly change at all." But I would like to see more examples of 'pure hands' than the 16 that you based it on.

**Lynn** Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:51 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:By the way Lynn, your words and arguments are getting more and more confusing for me.

For example, in the above post you wrote:

"I am still not convinced that fl/pb calculation is neccessary unless they have combination hand shape."

What do these words exactly mean?

Because, I wonder: Lynn, are you saying here that according the C.S. guidelines a 'combination hand shape' is indicated when finger length and palm width are the same? (That would sound like a new C.S. principle to me, which would make wonder whether there are any other principles for recognizing a combi hand shape!)

Or were you just thinking out loud in response to my ideas?

Sorry my words & arguments were confusing. Just like tonight, I was trying to answer several posts at a late hour! No I wasn't thinking out loud re
"I am still not convinced that fl/pb calculation is neccessary unless they have combination hand shape."
and I wasn't saying that "according the C.S. guidelines a 'combination hand shape' is indicated when finger length and palm width are the same?"

I hope I have already answered these points in my previous posts tonight.
ie fl/pb does not need to be taken into account for 'pure'handshapes, because it is implied already eg square palm + short fingers = earth. so, if the palm is square and the fingers are shorter than the palm length, then the fingers would obviously be shorter than palm width. The fl/pb calculation is not neccessary.
It is only in combination handshapes where this calculation becomes useful to discern which combination of elements it is. (see Christopher's guidelines).

PS. My sense for logics says that your reasoning about Patti's right hand (rectangle palm with sort of medium finger length) being possibly a 'fire/air' combination does not make sense in the perspective of the following:

Fire hand shape = rectangle palm + short fingers
Water hand shape = rectangle palm + long fingers

Then, wouldn't it make sense here that the combi fire/water can best be described as: rectangle palm + medium fingers?

... Now Lynn, I know that you have considered Patti's palm shape ratio as well. So, I sort of understand why you associate Patti's hand with 'fire/air' anyway. However, your arguments are rather weak here (and unacceptable in the perspective of my fire/water example).

And therefore... since you have no specific criterium available for recognizing a 'square' palm I think Patti's example could actually substantiate my point that measurements and ratio-calculations are actually necessary to understand your assessment![/color]

No - water palm shape is narrower than Patti's rectangle.
Anyway I have reassessed Patti's hand as being fire with a bit of earth in the (squarer) palm dimensions. Thanks for the flower, it is more acceptable than a banana

**Lynn** Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:10 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Hi Lynn,

Here are the photo examples from Johnny's book.

Before we start making an assessment for those hands, I have featured each photo with a small dot representing the central location at the distal wrist crease and the crease connecting the 3th finger with the palm.

Would you first mind to check if we agree about those locations?

(Maybe it might be an idea to check the those locations as well from your copy of Johnny's book)

Then, if we agree about those locations, I would suggest that you make an assessment of the hand shape - and I will start making my assessment... and afterwards we can see what the results are, etc.)

OK finally Martijn I get to catch up enough to answer your question!
Illustration 18 of earth hand - we have a slight problem in that the hand is not aligned at the wrist which can distort the hand shape.
illustration 25 air hand - in the photo above I notice the picture seems to be taken at an angle with the fingers leaning back away from the lens. This could affect our results.
Illustration 21 water hand - the thumb is held close to the hand which also distorts the hand shape. (and again hand is not aligned to wrist)
so already we are working with 3 things that might alter the perceived shape.
Also I am aware that working with pictures from books, we can't be sure that the editors/printers didn't slightly alter the dimensions of the photo (to fit it on the page or whatever). Working with these photos on screen I am aware that my screen resolution can make a difference (but I have the book so I can see the original pictures there).

Now I have forgotten what you asked me
oh yes, the dots .....
crease at base of 3rd finger looks Ok
earth and water hand wrist dot look slightly too far to the right, I think the other two look ok. But I don't want to argue much over the wrist dots.
I will look at the book now to make my assessments of the handshapes.

Thanks Lynn,

Okay, I will adjust the position of the dots slightly to the left in the earth and water hand.

Yes, I agree regarding regarding your general observations about the 4 hands. I consider the '~~fire~~' 'air' hand being by far the worst example in Johnny's photo examples... because the photo is not taken 'frontal'. And for this reason it would probably not make sense to include that example in our discussion.

By the way, I do not consider the issue of wrist alignment as problematic - because the center of the upper wrist crease will not leave it's position (this is because that crease relates to the wrist bones).

Regarding the closed thumb in the water hand example, yes I agree. We would need to correct for palm breadth, which is probably slightly wider than suggested by the photo. Though I think the correction would only need to be very small.

Hmmm... after considering these issues I have to conclude here at this early stage that at least 1 of Johnny's photo examples (the air hand) can not serve as a new point of reference in this discussion.

(Not sure how to proceed from here, but I see not better options right now than to wait for your assessments for the other 3 hands)

OK I think I have finally caught up with the other posts, and can spend some time looking at the examples in Johnny's book. Thanks for your comments about these hands Martijn, so we agree that there are some problems with the pics - tho actually I thought fire was the most obvious example, but you see it as the most problematic! ...tho later you say 'air' is least reliable (?)
I printed out your enlarged picture and measured the hands. But I was a passenger in a car at the time that I did the work, so I wonder about their accuracy! (too many road bumps and turning corners!)

Martijn, it's late here now and I have spoken enough tonight! Please would you post your measurements and assessments of the 4 hands from Johnny's book. Then I will post mine. If they are very different from yours, I will re-measure them, and post you both sets of measurements/assessments tomorrow.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:50 am

Hi Lynn,

Sorry for the confusion: I had only Johnny's 'air hand' photo example in mind (where I wrote 'fire hand') being the most problematic example. So, we do agree about that aspect.

I will correct that in my post.

wave

**Lynn** Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:23 pm

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Hand-s10

Here are the measurements I took (on a car journey, hope they are accurate!).
Martijn, before we assess the handshapes, can you confirm if our measurements and % agree?

EARTH HAND
fl 2.9
pb 3.5
pl 4.2

FL/PB 0.82
FL/PL 0.69
PB/PL 0.83

FIRE HAND
fl 3
pb 3.4
pl 4.3

FL/PB 0.88
FL/PL 0.69
PB/PL 0.79

AIR HAND
fl 3.2
pb 3.8
pl 4.3

FL/PB 0.84
FL/PL 0.74
PB/PL 0.88

WATER HAND
fl 3.5
pb 3.1
pl 4.6

FL/PB 1.12
FL/PL 0.76
PB/PL 0.67

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:26 pm

Thanks Lynn, your measurements look fine to me.

(By the way, since we agree that Johnny's air-photo example is not taken frontal... I think we should exclude that example from our considerations - because the finger length 'looks' shorter than the palm width so it doesn't meet Johnny's guidelines for the air hand that it should have longer fingers - since the fl/pl ratio is 0.74... which would indicate 'short fingers', etc.)

Using your ratios this results in the following 'hand shape profiles':

* EARTH HAND PHOTO (FL/PB 0.82, FL/PL 0.69, PB/PL 0.83)
=> ++ | ++ | + = earth hand shape

* FIRE HAND PHOTO (FL/PB 0.88, FL/PL 0.69, PB/PL 0.79)
=> ++ | ++ | - = fire hand shape

* WATER HAND PHOTO (FL/PB 1.12, FL/PL 0.76, PB/PL 0.67)
=> - - | + | - - = water (+ fire) hand shape

(Again, I prefer to ignore the AIR hand photo because it's not good example at all)

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Shape-profiles-elemental-hand-shapes

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Shape-profiles-elemental-hand-shapes

Now, then we can start looking at how these 3 examples would influence my model if these 3 examples would have been included in my analysis as well:

- The EARTH HAND PHOTO has the finger-coordinaties: FL/PB 0.82 & FL/PL 0.69. This would implicate that if this example had been included in my model the average of the 5 earth hands would have shifted towards the center axis of the green zone, which confirms my expectation.

- The FIRE HAND PHOTO has the finger-coordinates: FL/PB 0.88 & FL/PL 0.69. This would implicate that if this example had been included in my model the average value of the 5 fire hands would have been shifted towards the central axis of the red zone, which confirms my expectation as well.

- The WATER HAND PHOTO has the finger-coordinates: FL/PB 1.12 & FL/PL 0.76. This would implicate that if this example had been included in my model the average value of the 5 fire hands would have been shifted away from the central axis of the blue zone - however the average would continue to be close to the central axis of the blue zone, which sort of fits within my expectation as well.

So, I think these 3 photo examples together bring supportive validation that the model works fine.

And my model also points out the following:

While Johnny's water example does not meet the key-charateristic of a water hand (which requires to have fl/pl close to 0.87 - while your measurements says 0.76), the finger length is clearly longer than palm width... and therefore finger length should not be described as 'short'. While, despite that Johnny presented it as a 'water hand' example, applying the formal C.S. rules to that example could even result in a 'fire hand' classification - though I should add here that your pb/pl ratio indicates that the palm shape is probably too narrow for classifying this hand as a (female) fire hand shape.

Lynn, I hope my analysis of your measurements make sense (you can find the 'finger-coordinates' via the horizontal- and vertical axes in the picture below).

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Finger-length-proportions-elemental-hand-shapes

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Finger-length-proportions-elemental-hand-shapes

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:20 pm

Lynn, thank you for your other responses.

A few more thoughts:

- Nice to see you confirming that Patti's hand can probably best be described as a 'mix' of fire and earth (which I read as confirmation for my 'earth(+ fire)' assessment, since in the C.S. approach does not discriminate 'fire/earth' from 'earth/fire', etc)! Very Happy

- Nice to see you confirming that in the C.S. approach the 'grey area' is sort of the result of the absence of clear border between 'square palm' and 'rectangle palm'! Very Happy

- Regarding Christopher's guidelines, I these are very helpful in our discussion... especially since Christopher used the 'palm width' to define all AIR-variations (= the 'Air Hand' AND the 'Fire-Air hand' AND the 'Water-Air Hand'):

"Air Hand: Large square palm, Earth finger 85% length of the palm and shorter than the width of the palm"

"In the Fire-Air hand, we have a Fire shape palm with the Earth finger as long as or longer than the width of the palm (hence the Earth finger is longer)."

"Water-Air: 'Wide oblong' or 'narrow square' palm shape, Earth finger 85% length of palm but the same length as the width of the palm."

Lynn, I observe that this is a clear clue that in the C.S. approach 'palm width' always matters...! However, one can add that in most hand shape variants (most pure hand shapes & most 'mixed' combinations) the 'palm width' does not become a key-feature.
I guess this explains why you replied:

Lynn wrote:With regard to the 'pure' handshapes, the middle finger vs palm width criteria that Christopher posts here would happen 'by default'. I never used them because it happens automatically. ie it is obvious that in an earth hand with square palm and finger 75% length of palm, that the finger would also be shorter than the width. etc etc.

Lynn, your comment does makes sense for me. But I think your comment should be understood in the perspective of the observation above.

Because I think it is interesting here to observe how the 'palm width'-aspect in Christopher's definition for the Air Hand... is sort of a crucial element to understand all hand shapes properly (as defined in the C.S. approach)!

Unfortunately... this specific guideline is missing in all books (Dukes, Fincham, Hirsch & Gettings)!!! Smile

Lynn, I would love to hear your thought regarding this observation.

(Edit: Because after reading Christopher's guide lines for the Air Hand shape... I sort of had an 'eureka' moment, because I realized that this guideline was a new essential clue for me for understand the 4 hand shapes together! Fortunately, my model confirms the significance of Christopher's guideline for the 'Air Hand' that finger length requires to be smaller than 'palm width' => my model describes for the air hand shape: fl/pb = '-')

Thanks!

PS. For me it would be very interesting to hear from Christopher what he thinks of the fact that in all books his 'palm width' aspect for the Air Hand is not mentioned at all! Anyway, please do thank him for allowing you to share here a copy of his materials. applause

Patti Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:37 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:PS. For me it would be very interesting to hear from Christopher what he thinks of the fact that in all books his 'palm width' aspect for the Air Hand is not mentioned at all! Anyway, please do thank him for allowing you to share here a copy of his materials. :=D>:

I think that it's possible the width isn't mentioned because in most squares the width is equal to the length. Perhaps what you are asking is how big or how true a square the palm must be to be an air palm. And this true square would also relate to which side (length or width) is a bit too long or too short to be square.

The descriptions above of an air hand having shorter fingers than palm width fits the description I have always used to describe my palms as air - squarish palms too small and fingers too long to be earth, so must be air.

Personally, I think that if my palm is considered rectangle and fire, then the concept of a square palm is clearly not clear.

<EDIT> and P.S.:

If I compare this to my astrological chart the places where it strongly compares is that I am evenly spread with earth/air/fire with little water (Western system). Water is the one thing my hands clearly are not and using one method or another they contain a little of each of the other three elements. Perhaps this system better identifies pure types and mixed types showing a least dominant element. The clue and important factor may really be what is missing rather than what is so obviously there.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:56 pm

Yes Patti, I think your problem directly relates to the missing of a clear definition in the C.S. approach for discriminating a 'squarish palm' from a 'rectangle palm'.

(Lynn has sort of confirmed that this is where the 'grey zones' in the C.S. approach are found)

Regarding your hands, Christopher's 'Air Hand' definition says:

"Air Hand: Large square palm, Earth finger 85% length of the palm and shorter than the
width of the palm"

This can be translated into two requirements:
- fl/pl = 85%
- and fl < pb

Your hands do not meet the first requirement, because your fl/pl is even smaller than 80%. So your hands for sure do not meet Christopher's description for the Air Hand (your hands only meet the 2nd requirement).

So, your palms are only 'Air-ish' regarding the first requirement. And your fingers are short in the perspective of both aspects of the palm.... so, I could argue here that regarding the 'Air Hand' your hands actually only meet 1 of the 3 requirements.

CONCLUSION: Both of your hands should strictly not be associated with air hand shape at all (confirmed by your 'hand shape profile').

But that leaves your question unanswered:

''How squarish is 'squarish' really?''

lol!

This evening I have found a clear example which illustrates that Christopher's guidelines leave this question unanswered as well.

Because, if we take a look at his descriptions for the 'Earth Hand' and 'Air Hand' (both are said to have a 'squarish palm')... then I observe an interesting inconsistency which sort of illustrate the problems rising from these definitions:

"Earth Hand: Square palm,
Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width of the palm"

"Air Hand: Large square palm, Earth finger 85% length of the palm and shorter than the
width of the palm"

For example, I could argue here that the following 2 proportions meet Christopher's criteria:

Earth hand proportional example: 7.5 (f/l) - 7.6 (pb) - 10 (pl)

Air hand proportional example: 8.5 (fl) - 8.6 (pb) - 10 (pl)

However, if we take a look at the pb/pl ratios in both examples... than we can see that both are not only far from 'squarish' (because a true 'square' would implicate that both aspects would be about equal)... there is even a considerable high difference visible in these proportions. Because in the first 'square palm' example the pb/pl ratio is 76%, while in the second example the pb/pl ratio if 86%.

So, this implicates that according Christopher's guidelines even a pb/pl ratio of 76% could end up to be rated as a 'squarish palm'... while from a rational point of view it is quite strange to describe such proportions as 'squarish', of course!

And in the perspective of these examples, one could also wonder about his use of the words 'narrow square' in his 'Water-Air hand':

"Water-Air: 'Wide oblong' or 'narrow square' palm shape, Earth finger 85% length of palm but the same length as the width of the palm."

So, while I am very happy with Christopher's guidelines for finger length to palm width in all air-variants... for me it is also clear that his guidelines do leave some 'grey zones' (Lynn's words). And therefore in the C.S. approach there is no clear way out at all... one can only 'stop thinking' and simply accept the (inconsistent) definitions!

(I think my example above serves as a clear example of an 'inconsistency' in the C.S. approach; which is probably the direct result of the missing of clear definition regarding what the requirements are to describe a palm as 'squarish')

So Patti, I think we are confronted here with a fundamental problem in the C.S. guidelines... which probably explains why during the past 2 decades various advanced students (Lynn, Johnny & Jennifer) felt the need to re-define the C.S. criteria & guidelines, etc. There is no way out in the system itself, but I do think that my 'hand shape profile' model does provide quite a few clues to specify each of the 4 hand shapes in terms of fl/pb, fl/pl and pb/pl...!!!!!

So, I can only hope that others will recognize that there is for sure a way out...! Very Happy

(I hope this makes sense, because it's a rather fundamental problem that we are discussing here)

**Lynn** Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:10 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:[color=darkred]
Thanks Lynn, your measurements look fine to me.

(By the way, since we agree that Johnny's air-photo example is not taken frontal... I think we should exclude that example from our considerations - because the finger length 'looks' shorter than the palm width so it doesn't meet Johnny's guidelines for the air hand that it should have longer fingers - since the fl/pl ratio is 0.74... which would indicate 'short fingers', etc.)

Using your ratios this results in the following 'hand shape profiles':

* EARTH HAND PHOTO (FL/PB 0.82, FL/PL 0.69, PB/PL 0.83)
=> ++ | ++ | + = earth hand shape

* FIRE HAND PHOTO (FL/PB 0.88, FL/PL 0.69, PB/PL 0.79)
=> ++ | ++ | - = fire hand shape

* WATER HAND PHOTO (FL/PB 1.12, FL/PL 0.76, PB/PL 0.67)
=> - - | + | - - = water (+ fire) hand shape

(Again, I prefer to ignore the AIR hand photo because it's not good example at all)

Martijn, as I'm not used to working with the % of your charts, but more usually working with actual hand measurements, I have translated the figures as proportional to a 10 cm length palm as that way I can more easily assess it via CS methods.
I haven't included the air hand as we agree the photo is not taken at a reliable angle.

EARTH HAND
fl 2.9 x 2.38 = 6.9
pb 3.5 x 2.38 = 8.33
pl 4.2 x 2.38 = 10

fingers short in relation to palm length. The palm is not much wider than standard (8cm) fire shape, but is slightly squarer. so I would say this is earth/fire handshape. But in the picture it looks like earth shape! I am not going to argue with yours & Johnny's assessment of earth.

FIRE HAND
fl 3 = 6.96
pb 3.4 x 7.9
pl 4.3 x 2.32 = 10

Standard fire palm 8x10, so this is close enough to be a fire palm, fingers less than 75% length of palm = fire hand.

WATER HAND
fl 3.5 x 2.17= 7.59
pb 3.1 x 2.17= 6.7
pl 4.6 x 2.17 = 10

Yes the palm is a narrow rectangle, too narrow to be fire palm. But the fingers are not long, they are not even medium! (in relation to palm length), so I would say this is a fire/water hand. (because of the narrow palm).

So although we are going about this from a different approach, we agree on the final assessment of handshape.

**Lynn** Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:21 pm

If we wanted to use an air hand example, I wondered if we could use Johnny's own hands.
But actually, they are not held up at a completely frontal angle either.

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Johnny10

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Johnny10

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:20 pm

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for your analyses. Thanks!

In general, I understand your arguments. By the way, just wondering ( Wink

) ... do you always 'calculate' the proportions?

(I would say that calculating the proportions might actually turn out to be slightly more complicated than calculating only the 'ratios')

More important: very nice to see that there is not much difference between our assessments!

Regarding Johnny's 'Earth Hand', using your proportional formula is quite interesting here... because I think we get confronted then with one of the 'grey zones' in the C.S. approach:

Lynn wrote:EARTH HAND
fl 2.9 x 2.38 = 6.9
pb 3.5 x 2.38 = 8.33
pl 4.2 x 2.38 = 10

Because if we now take a look at Christopher's requirements for the 'Earth Hand', 'Earth-Fire Hand', and 'Fire Hand':

"Earth Hand: Square palm,
Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width of the palm"

"Fire-Earth: Squarer oblong palm, Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width of the palm."

"Fire Hand: Oblong palm, Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width
of the palm"

... then it's quite hard to say which of these 3 definitions is most accurate for describing Johnny's earth example (because Christopher's guidelines do not describe any specific criteria for discriminatiing these 'palm shape' variations by means of the proportions!).

Lynn, though I fully understand your argument for that example (83% is indeed above the 80% of a typical fire hand shape, and thus it is more squarisch than the fire palm + probably not high enough to be classified as 'pure earth'), I am wondering... how much higher would you want to see the percentage rise... in order to classify it as an 'earth hand shape'?

(I think we are confronted here again with a 'missing element' in the C.S. approach, because as there are only typical proportions available for the fire hand shape... it sort of becomes an issue of 'arbitrary judgement' whether a pb/pl ratio of 0.83 would be high enough to describe it as a 'square palm'... or not. And you picked the last option)

Anyway, I do understand your argument/choice for describing it as an 'earth/fire hand shape' - though it's a bit confusing that you also prefered to add that it 'looks' like earth shape. But it is also obvious for me that your words indicate that you don't want to start an argument about the details... because I think we are sort of confronted here with an aspect of the 'grey zones' in the C.S. approach.

I suppose ( Razz

) that none of your students ever questioned you to describe where the 'grey zones' exactly start...? (If they ever raised a question that forced you to start talking about 'grey zones' at all???)

Anyway, thanks again Lynn for sharing your thoughts! Thumb up

PS. Regarding Johnny's hands, I agree with your observation that his hands are obviously not presented 'frontal' in both photos... and therefore it would not make sense for me to make any measurements (because due to the position of the camera the palm not only looks shorter... his fingers might also look slightly longer than their true dimensions - especially in the 2nd photo where the fingers are sort of pointing a bit towards a positions above the camera; maybe the photographer is a bit smaller than Johnny?).

**Lynn** Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:20 am

Martijn (admin) wrote: just wondering ( ) ... do you always 'calculate' the proportions?

(I would say that calculating the proportions might actually turn out to be slightly more complicated than calculating only the 'ratios')

No I don't always calculate the proportions. Of course I am normally faced with a hand that is of normal size, not one that is 4mm long! I only translated it to 10 cm palm to give me an idea of the 'real' measurement proportions and what it looks like!

Regarding Johnny's 'Earth Hand', using your proportional formula is quite interesting here... because I think we get confronted then with one of the 'grey zones' in the C.S. approach:

Lynn wrote:EARTH HAND
fl 2.9 x 2.38 = 6.9
pb 3.5 x 2.38 = 8.33
pl 4.2 x 2.38 = 10

Because if we now take a look at Christopher's requirements for the 'Earth Hand', 'Earth-Fire Hand', and 'Fire Hand':

"Earth Hand: Square palm,
Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width of the palm"

"Fire-Earth: Squarer oblong palm, Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width of the palm."

"Fire Hand: Oblong palm, Earth finger 75% length of the palm and shorter than the width
of the palm"

... then it's quite hard to say which of these 3 definitions is most accurate for describing Johnny's earth example (because Christopher's guidelines do not describe any specific criteria for discriminatiing these 'palm shape' variations by means of the proportions!).

Lynn, though I fully understand your argument for that example (83% is indeed above the 80% of a typical fire hand shape, and thus it is more squarisch than the fire palm + probably not high enough to be classified as 'pure earth'), I am wondering... how much higher would you want to see the percentage rise... in order to classify it as an 'earth hand shape'? Anyway, I do understand your argument/choice for describing it as an 'earth/fire hand shape' - though it's a bit confusing that you also prefered to add that it 'looks' like earth shape....

Yes I understand that the definitions are a bit vague and could cover combination handshapes as well as pure ones. The clue is in the palm shape, but maybe it takes a trained eye (which I agree could have some subjectivity) to differentiate 'square' from 'obling' from 'narrow oblong'. Regarding 'it looks like' - I meant appearance from the book, at first glance appears to be square palm & short fingers, tho I would prefer to see the hand aligned with the wrist. If you pin me down to %.... would like pb/pl 85% minimum for square hand. I'd prefer 90% to be sure.

I suppose ( ) that none of your students ever questioned you to describe where the 'grey zones' exactly start...? (If they ever raised a question that forced you to start talking about 'grey zones' at all???)

well, as Christopher said, it's more of a general guide rather than a precise measurement. And as I said, it is a spectrum from earth-fire-water-air, so it kinda blends in rather than having specific demarcations!

PS. Regarding Johnny's hands, I agree with your observation that his hands are obviously not presented 'frontal' in both photos... and therefore it would not make sense for me to make any measurements (because due to the position of the camera the palm not only looks shorter... his fingers might also look slightly longer than their true dimensions - especially in the 2nd photo where the fingers are sort of pointing a bit towards a positions above the camera; maybe the photographer is a bit smaller than Johnny?)

Yes Ok as soon as I posted the pics, I thought that maybe they are not frontal enough. Perhaps I should just ask Johnny to measure his hands! But actually even the angle that people hold their hands up gives some clue about elemental bias. Fingertips held towards the camera - prominencing the air element.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:16 am

Thanks Lynn.

I am very happy with your initiative to share Christopher's guidelines. Because these became very helpful for me to recognize that the rather simple descriptions 'square palm versus rectangle palm' and 'short finger versus longer fingers' are not accurate at all in order to assess hand shapes in the elemental perspective.

For, I think this is clearly illustrated by Christopher's guidelines... who sort of describes 4 different palm shapes AND 4 different finger lengths - which confirms the key-element in my model: every hand shape has typical proportions, which vary on all 3 dimensions to each other! (This implicates that the ratios between the 3 dimensions show essential differences on every aspect)

And I perceive that this is also confirmed by Dukes' various guidelines in his book - words and pictures; though his guidelines became a bit confusing regarding especially his use of the word 'square' (and Christopher appears to have adopted this choice of words).

However, Christopher's guidelines regarding the finger length versus palm breadth clearly confirm that by principle this ratio should always be used in the perspective of elemental hand shape assessment... because that is only a logical consequence of the fact that it is a crucial element in the air hand shape.

(Because for the other hand shapes one has to rule out the 'air' characteristics!)

How can we proceed this discussion?

Not sure that it would help us much if you asked Johnny to measure his hands. As an alternative I could invite you to share some 'pure' hand examples for each of the 4 elemental hand types from your collection, then I could use them to study the effects of your in my model in order to re-callibrate my model for the purpose to check/adjust the numbers that are now featured in my 'hand shape profile picture'.

And then we can also see if my model would become more useful for you with numbers that are founded on your examples.

Though, I think I have already shown that the major benefit of my model should be perceived in the opportunity to make an assessment based on rather simple measurements... with results that so far appear to be for a large part in line with your own assessments!

(Not to mention that there are hardly any 'grey zones' in my model... because even when the ratios of a hand fall exactly between two categories of 2 different hand shape types, then one can simply describe/focus on which element is dominant at this borderline hand shape, etc.)

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:00 am

... By the way Lynn, one more thought:

I now also understand how my model can be translated into rather simple guidelines that are not far away from the C.S. approach, based on the similarities in the various 'hand shape code' variants that are listed for each hand shape.

(What I have in mind is that I would now already be able to present a description for the 'pure hand shapes' in terms of the 3 ratios, and additionally I would now also be able to point out which of the 3 ratios are the strict requirements and which of the ratios can show considerable variations without entering the 'mixed' categories!)

wave

**Christopher Jones** Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:51 pm

Martijn wrote: PS. For me it would be very interesting to hear from Christopher what he thinks of the fact that in all books his 'palm width' aspect for the Air Hand is not mentioned at all! Anyway, please do thank him for allowing you to share here a copy of his materials.

Hi Martijn,

as you are becoming aware,there is a lot of material in my written works which you won't find anywhere else :-). The extract the Lynn posted was written around 1992 as a definitive exposition on handshape and skin textures as a summary of my experiential knowledge as a handreader; clearly, there were more than just four handshape types.

The first person to elaborate on the four handshapes developed by Gettings was Dylan Warraen-Davis, who was my primary tutor in handreading as was secretary of the CS at that time. Fire handshapes are by far the most frequently found in western cultures but when you look at them, you notice that they are not all the same shape - some are thinner, some are longer etc. Dylan was the first to suggest 'sub-types' of the fire handshape, namely the fire-water handshape and the fire-air handshape, though he never formalised it as I did later, just 'some look narrower' therefore more watery and some look wider' so therefore more airy...... Together with the fire-earth sub-type, I ended up with a seven fold handshape classification.

There may well be others - other handshape types may also have sub-types - but I confined myself to those that I had seen in experience. I leave it to people in other cultures to tell me whether there are Water-air, Water-fire handshapes.. ( I doubt if you could have an earth type Water handshape!!)

From experience, I then created the formulas that I developed to determine whether one hand was Fire-water or Fire-air by using the length of the middle finger in relation to the width of the palm. I concede that this was only an approximate measurement and perhaps not quite sufficient for your standards, but it was a useful guideline when confronted with a myriad of hands.

As far as I know, I was the first person to come up with this notion of comparing the length of the middle finger with the width of the palm - when you are teaching people you need to find some way of conveying to them what you mean! So, it was more of a practical aid to help people learn how to differentiate successive fire handshapes than a mathematical tool.

Of course, these observations came to the fore in my work on Vocational Analysis from the hand as handshpes are a key part of that analysis.

Johnny should have talked about these handshape types in his book (I can't remember) - his whole section on handshapes is derived largely from that essay of c 1992 (which he considered to be one of the best expositions on handshapes ever written at the time). Dukes knew nothing of it, of course - he only did anything in handreading from around 1975-1983; Gettings is way too early; and Lori Reid just gleaned her approach from Gettings

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:04 am

Hi Christopher,

Nice to see you posting in this topic!
Thank you for sharing your memories about how things developed in time.

Thumb up

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:58 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
... By the way Lynn, one more thought:

I now also understand how my model can be translated into rather simple guidelines that are not far away from the C.S. approach, based on the similarities in the various 'hand shape code' variants that are listed for each hand shape.

(What I have in mind is that I would now already be able to present a description for the 'pure hand shapes' in terms of the 3 ratios, and additionally I would now also be able to point out which of the 3 ratios are the strict requirements and which of the ratios can show considerable variations without entering the 'mixed' categories!)

Lynn, according my model so far one could best describe the 4 hand shapes as follows:

- Any earth hand shape should meet the following 4 requirements:

Earth aspect 1) finger length < 100% palm breadth;
Earth aspect 2) finger length < 80% of palm length;
Earth aspect 3) palm breadth > 80% of palm length;
Earth aspect 4) IF finger length < 75% of palm length, then finger length requires to be < 92% palm breadth (otherwise it's a 'fire (+earth) hand shape').

- Any fire hand shape should meet the following 3 requirements:

Fire aspect 1) finger length < 100% palm breadth;
Fire aspect 2) finger length < 80% of palm length;
Fire aspect 3) palm breadth < 80% of palm length.

- Any air hand shape should meet the following 3 requirements:

Air aspect 1) finger length > 100% palm breadth;
Air aspect 2) finger length > 80% of palm length;
Air aspect 3) palm breadth > 80% of palm length.

- Any water hand shape should meet the following 4 requirements:

Water aspect 1) finger length > 100% palm breadth;
Water aspect 2) finger length > 80% of palm length;
Water aspect 3) palm breadth < 80% of palm length;
Water aspect 4) IF finger length > 85.5% of palm length, then finger length requires to be > 108% palm breadth (otherwise it's an 'air (+water) hand shape').

And the hands that do not meet all criteria for one hand shape will end up in one of the 'mixed' hand shapes categories. These rather simple principles leave no 'grey zones' at all.

flower

Simples!

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:19 pm

Christopher Jones wrote:...

Dylan was the first to suggest 'sub-types' of the fire handshape, namely the fire-water handshape and the fire-air handshape, though he never formalised it as I did later, just 'some look narrower' therefore more watery and some look wider' so therefore more airy...... Together with the fire-earth sub-type, I ended up with a seven fold handshape classification.

There may well be others - other handshape types may also have sub-types - but I confined myself to those that I had seen in experience. I leave it to people in other cultures to tell me whether there are Water-air, Water-fire handshapes.. ( I doubt if you could have an earth type Water handshape!!)

Hi Christopher,

Interesting to hear you talking about sub-types. And interesting to hear that you had ideas about sub-dividing the 3 major sub-types that you identified... by looking at the width of the palm.

In my study I found 10 sub-types that each have their own typical proportions.

(And yes, my study pointed out as well that any sub-type combination of 'earth' and 'water' is impossible.)

wave

**Lynn** Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:54 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
... By the way Lynn, one more thought:

I now also understand how my model can be translated into rather simple guidelines that are not far away from the C.S. approach, based on the similarities in the various 'hand shape code' variants that are listed for each hand shape.

(What I have in mind is that I would now already be able to present a description for the 'pure hand shapes' in terms of the 3 ratios, and additionally I would now also be able to point out which of the 3 ratios are the strict requirements and which of the ratios can show considerable variations without entering the 'mixed' categories!)

Lynn, according my model so far one could best describe the 4 hand shapes as follows:

- Any earth hand shape should meet the following 4 requirements:

Earth aspect 1) finger length < 100% palm breadth;
Earth aspect 2) finger length < 80% of palm length;
Earth aspect 3) palm breadth > 80% of palm length;
Earth aspect 4) IF finger length < 75% of palm length, then finger length requires to be < 92% palm breadth (otherwise it's a 'fire (+earth) hand shape').

- Any fire hand shape should meet the following 3 requirements:

Fire aspect 1) finger length < 100% palm breadth;
Fire aspect 2) finger length < 80% of palm length;
Fire aspect 3) palm breadth < 80% of palm length.

- Any air hand shape should meet the following 3 requirements:

Air aspect 1) finger length > 100% palm breadth;
Air aspect 2) finger length > 80% of palm length;
Air aspect 3) palm breadth > 80% of palm length.

- Any water hand shape should meet the following 4 requirements:

Water aspect 1) finger length > 100% palm breadth;
Water aspect 2) finger length > 80% of palm length;
Water aspect 3) palm breadth < 80% of palm length;
Water aspect 4) IF finger length > ~~75%~~ 85.5% of palm length, then finger length requires to be ~~< 92%~~ > 108% palm breadth (otherwise it's an 'air (+water) hand shape').

And the hands that do not meet all criteria for one hand shape will end up in one of the 'mixed' hand shapes categories. These rather simple principles leave no 'grey zones' at all.

Simples!

I haven't checked all the details yet but at first glance it is looking good! I think you are right that this isn't far from CS approach. It is great that after all this discussion we have come to some agreement. I hope my input has been useful for you, as well as Christopher's. Good that you have put some more solid guidelines about "how square is square" etc to fill in the CS "grey areas", and also made your model much simpler as we progressed thru this.
well done Martijn Thumb up

(thinking out loud)
I question this one....
Water aspect 3) palm breadth < 80% of palm length;
I would expect more like </= 75% for pure water shape. (but then of course that would affect aspect 1 - which would then have to be more than 100%).

also Water aspect 4) IF finger length > 75% of palm length, then finger length requires to be < 92% palm breadth (otherwise it's an 'air (+water) hand shape').

should this be IF finger length > 75% of palm length but <80% ?
(or maybe I am just confused over this one)
Do you have a definition for fire/water handshape?

re "Simples!" Laughing

It makes me laugh every time you say it! lol!

(To prevent going ofto

I put the explanation here: https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2036-simples#21605 )

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:49 am

Lynn wrote:
I haven't checked all the details yet but at first glance it is looking good! I think you are right that this isn't far from CS approach. It is great that after all this discussion we have come to some agreement. I hope my input has been useful for you, as well as Christopher's. Good that you have put some more solid guidelines about "how square is square" etc to fill in the CS "grey areas", and also made your model much simpler as we progressed thru this.
well done Martijn

(thinking out loud)
I question this one....
Water aspect 3) palm breadth < 80% of palm length;
I would expect more like </= 75% for pure water shape. (but then of course that would affect aspect 1 - which would then have to be more than 100%).

also Water aspect 4) IF finger length > 75% of palm length, then finger length requires to be < 92% palm breadth (otherwise it's an 'air (+water) hand shape').

should this be IF finger length > 75% of palm length but <80% ?
(or maybe I am just confused over this one)
Do you have a definition for fire/water handshape?

re "Simples!" It makes me laugh every time you say it!
(To prevent going I put the explanation here: https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2036-simples#21605 )

Hi Lynn,

Very nice to see you talking about 'some agreement'! Very Happy

And yes, your input has been of great value in this proces... of course! Very Happy

Regarding your comment about 'pure water shape'... the 'hand shape profile' shows that the code '- - | - | - -' can be recognized as the most pure water hand shape, which is featured iwith the requirement palm breadth < 75% of palm length. And finger length requires to be > 108% of palm breadth.

So I think you are kind of struggling with 'how to read' the chart, because your ideas is actually confirmed by the chart!!!

(Regarding the 2nd point that you made there: sorry, I made a copy-and-paste mistake there... instead of '> 75%' I should have written 'IF finger length > 85.5% palm length' AND... instead of '< 92%' I should have written: IF palm breadth > 75% palm length. I'll correct those mistakes!)

Thanks!

+

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:17 am

Lynn wrote:...

Do you have a definition for fire/water handshape?

Well Lynn... I would first need to point out that this would require me to give you at least 2 definitions, because I could describe a definition for 'water (+ fire) hand shape' and a definition for 'fire (+water) hand shape'.

I assume that this makes sense so far?

Now, only for the 'fire (+water) hand shape' I can present a simple definition:

- Any fire (+water) hand shape should meet the following 3 requirements:

Fire (+water aspect 1) finger length > 100% palm breadth;
Fire (+water aspect 2) finger length < 80% of palm length;
Fire (+water aspect 3) palm breadth < 75% of palm length

Lynn, for the 'water (+ fire) hand shape' I would need to present a definition with 2 lists of aspects. Hmmm... maybe this is actually a clue that I should 'split' the combinations that I have listed for this hand shape mix into:

'water (+ fire) hand shape 1'
'water (+ fire) hand shape 2'

(By the way, this problem also becomes manifest in the 'earth (+ air) hand shape'; but the other mixed hand shapes can be described with 3 aspects only)

Smile

How does this sound to you so far?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:13 pm

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 10 Shape-profiles-elemental-hand-shapes-2

I have updated my article with a re-vision regarding how to describe hand shape more efficiently; e.g. some part of the system of have been reversed (in terms of the '+' and '-' signs) - I also made this decision to take a away some inconsistencies that had been incorporated in my earlier presentations.

The picture above describes the re-vision: e.g. the picture now shows more clearly how the finger proportions + the hand shape proportion relate to each other. And it is interesting to see how only in the FIRE hand shape and AIR hand shape the 'palm shape' tends to show characteristics that sort of 'contradict' compared the two finger length ratios.

There are 2 very important elements in the re-vision (which may appear confusing to what I had described so far in this topic) regarding:

- the 'hand shape profile' is now defined as: fl/pl | fl/pb | pl/pb (the earlier approach was: fl/pb | fl/pl | pb/pl)

- I also found that it is better to describe palm shape proportions in terms of 'pl/pb' (= palm length vs palm breadth, and not the reversed pb/pl proportion that I had used in this topic so far). One can understand this much better in the perspective of my research on the masculinity/femininity factor in the hand, see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2047-find-the-masculinity-femininity-factor-in-your-hands

In order to avoid confusion about this re-vision, I have decided to LOCK this topic, in order to make a fresh start for this matter (see the topic: Find your elemental hand shape in 3 steps!) - because this topic has kind of proved that finger length is a topic that can only be studied properly in terms of 'proportions' to the palm shape.

Sponsored content