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

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:40 pm

If my palm were narrower, the medium length fingers would make it fire/water. But my palm is not narrow enough to be a fire/water hand. and fire/water is not my mode of expression.

edit PS I didn't answer your question. The palm represents the body, the fingers represent the mind. Short fingers on a fire hand are more impulsive, instinctive. Longer fingers on a fire hand tend to think about things more before acting (ie adds air element).

Yes of course I have other features on my hand that are ruled by air element (so does everyone - we all have a headline of some form!). But here we are talking about handshape, how you use your energy out in the world, your mode of expression.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:05 pm

Lynn wrote:If my palm were narrower, the medium length fingers would make it fire/water. But my palm is not narrow enough to be a fire/water hand. and fire/water is not my mode of expression.

edit PS I didn't answer your question. The palm represents the body, the fingers represent the mind. Short fingers on a fire hand are more impulsive, instinctive. Longer fingers on a fire hand tend to think about things more before acting (ie adds air element).

Sorry, but your measurements indicate that your palm IS slightly narrow (because of the relatively high finger to palm breadth ratio).

So, I still don't understand why make make any direct connection with air.

PS. Maybe it is interesting here for you to take a look at the distance of your finger length ratios to in respective the F, A and W button: your coordinates are at closer distance to the A-button than the W-button. Maybe that could indicate how to interpretate your coordinates?

Be aware Lynn... we made a discovery, but we are still in the process of how to 'translate' the discovery into practical guidelines, etc. So, I hope you will continue thinking about how to interpretate the axes... instead of suddenly jumping into conclusions that may at the end may turn out to have not much ground below at all.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:08 pm

PS. I have an unanswered question open for you to answer:

After you shared the CS-guidelines for the dimensions for finger length, palm length and palm breadth for a typical fire hand... I wondered whether you have likewise guidelins available for the other hand types?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:15 pm

Lynn, maybe your 'problem' is another clue:

I think I should add some zones in the picture, which should illustrate the typical borders for each of the 4 hand shapes. That would make it much more easy to assess how far an individual is positioned from the typical dimensions for each hand shape.

I guess that was a missing element in the picture so far!!!

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:26 pm

I have just made an important improvement regarding the starting point of the axes in the picture, resulting in that my earlier assessment for the hands of Lynn, Patti and Tap now have changed a bit, see the earlier post:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1975p15-about-finger-length-do-you-have-normal-finger-length#20988

I hope this makes sense for you all?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:43 pm

Lynn, after defining the starting points of the axes... it now looks like the picture points out that the 'water hand' is probably the least common of the 4 hand types (because only a small part of the water-axis is inside the elipse shaped 'common variations''-zone).

And regarding the combinations, fire/air appears to be most common. And earth/water is the only combination that is not possible at all - that makes sense! Very Happy

What is your experience regarding these points?

PS. I think these observations perfectly make sense, and these indicate to me that re-defining the starting points is another huge step ahead!

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Hi Martijn

Is there some way you could label the starting points of the axes with the number they initiate at, or just post it somewhere in the key? It is very difficult to see exactly where they start.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:59 pm

tap wrote:Hi Martijn

Is there some way you could label the starting points of the axes with the number they initiate at, or just post it somewhere in the key? It is very difficult to see exactly where they start.

Excellent point Tap!

For practical purposes it is useful to have those finger coordinates more explicitely available in the picture. I will work on that later today - thank you for making this request.

Thumbs up!

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:09 pm

Lynn

I am going to retake my measurements the way you do in 5 element and redo the other ones I did. It does seem like it really would make a difference. Measuring the palm wider is changing classifications with the hand shapes. Although this change to the chart, might negate the need ?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:17 pm

tap wrote:Lynn

I am going to retake my measurements the way you do in 5 element and redo the other ones I did. It does seem like it really would make a difference. Measuring the palm wider is changing classifications with the hand shapes. Although this change to the chart, might negate the need ?

(Sounds fine with me to experiment with Lynn's approach as well - as long as you are fully aware that 'palm breadth' in my pictures is defined as palm width at the end of the metacarpals. Because it would not make sense for me if the results that I have presented are directly being used to make assessment based on other method for finding palm width.

So Tap, if you start using Lynn's approach to palm width... then you should also adopt her standards for long/short fingers, etc. - instead of the guidelines that I present in my pictures)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:20 pm

tap wrote:Hi Martijn

Is there some way you could label the starting points of the axes with the number they initiate at, or just post it somewhere in the key? It is very difficult to see exactly where they start.

Hi Tap,

On second thought it become quite easy for me to process your request: I have now added some colored points at the axes in the picture - which represent the starting points of the 4 axes.

Is that helpful?

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:26 pm

Hi Martijn

I need to reread through all this. I am not sure I am understanding it all. So on your chart the area in between the starting points of the axes is neutral?

I really hope the chart works out because it seems to be very useful for the 5 element system.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:43 pm

tap wrote:Hi Martijn

I need to reread through all this. I am not sure I am understanding it all. So on your chart the area in between the starting points of the axes is neutral?

I really hope the chart works out because it seems to be very useful for the 5 element system.

Tap, I am not sure what your word 'neutral' means here (because I am no longer using that word after I re-defined the starting point of the axes).

Assuming that you are talking about the zone between the new starting points of the 4 axes... in that zone you can always focus for any point (hand) on the closest distance to the 4 axes.

For example:

Regarding the rather small zone BETWEEN the starting point of the fire-axis and the air-axis - one can say that the distance to both axes in that small zone is sort of always about to be equal. And therefore, for that zone I would not focus on finding out which distance is the shortest... instead for that zone I would always prefer to speak of a 'fire/air hand shape'... or 'air/fire hand shape'(depending on which distance is the smallest!).

Because the distance difference to both axes is then "too close to call".

And you can use the same principle for any other zone in the picture: only when a distance to one of the axes is clearly much shorter than the distance to the other axes... then one can speak of a clear indication the classification of one single hand type.

Does this make sense?

(I am thinking out loud here)

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:52 pm

Okay

Thanks for adding the dots, but it would be nice to know the exact number each dot represents. I am not sure how my hand changed by the starting point of the axes being defined. It seems like my finger length (.777) is too short to be air, since the air dot is above the 80% mark, but I do see the air shape got narrower.

Anyhow, I hope you and Lynn agree on the measuring and and in turn the chart.

PS I meant neutral as average, but I see what you are saying.

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:53 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
PS. I have an unanswered question open for you to answer:

After you shared the CS-guidelines for the dimensions for finger length, palm length and palm breadth for a typical fire hand... I wondered whether you have likewise guidelins available for the other hand types?

I will check.

Patti Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:54 pm

Lynn wrote:If my palm were narrower, the medium length fingers would make it fire/water. But my palm is not narrow enough to be a fire/water hand. and fire/water is not my mode of expression.

edit PS I didn't answer your question. The palm represents the body, the fingers represent the mind. Short fingers on a fire hand are more impulsive, instinctive. Longer fingers on a fire hand tend to think about things more before acting (ie adds air element).

Yes of course I have other features on my hand that are ruled by air element (so does everyone - we all have a headline of some form!). But here we are talking about handshape, how you use your energy out in the world, your mode of expression.

Hi Lynn, I understand what you are saying about how a little longer adds another element quality.... but.... isn't it basically square palms with short and long fingers (earth - air) and long palms with short and long fingers (fire - water). So... wouldn't "longer fingers on a long fire hand" become water and not air mix as it becomes long fingers on a long palm?

p.s.

BTW - I wouldn't see you as a water type - fire/air fits you.

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:09 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:Sorry, but your measurements indicate that your palm IS slightly narrow (because of the relatively high finger to palm breadth ratio).

As my fingers are slightly longer in relation to palm length than a standard fire hand, then why does the above not show that my fingers are slightly long in relation to palm width (as opposed to palm being slightly narrow in relation to finger length)?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:12 pm

tap wrote:Okay

Thanks for adding the dots, but it would be nice to know the exact number each dot represents. I am not sure how my hand changed by the starting point of the axes being defined. It seems like my finger length (.777) is too short to be air, since the air dot is above the 80% mark, but I do see the air shape got narrower.

Anyhow, I hope you and Lynn agree on the measuring and and in turn the chart.

PS I meant neutral as average, but I see what you are saying.

Tap, I think I can explain this by detail:

For, only when a hand does not qualify for one single classification... then a combined classification becomes an option - such as my 'fire/air hand shape' for your left hand.

But regarding the 'air'-part in this combined classification, it would not makes sense to compare this with requirements for an 'air hand shape'... because the combined classification implicates that your left hand does not meet the requirment for 'air hand shape'!

So, yes: 0.777 (for finger length to palm length ratio) is for sure too small to be classified as 'air hand shape', however... your 1.027 (for the finger length to palm width ratio) is also too high to be classified as 'fire hand shape'.

But both observations together here explain the combination: 'fire/air hand shape'!

Does this make sense for you as well?

PS. This concerns partly a matter of applying logics.

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:14 pm

Patti wrote:Hi Lynn, I understand what you are saying about how a little longer adds another element quality.... but.... isn't it basically square palms with short and long fingers (earth - air) and long palms with short and long fingers (fire - water). So... wouldn't "longer fingers on a long fire hand" become water and not air mix as it becomes long fingers on a long palm?

It's a rectangular palm but it is not narrow enough to be a water palm shape. If you go back to basics of traditional palmistry and think of the difference between short and long fingers, longer fingers adds air.

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:18 pm

Okay

I do not completely understand the 5 element system, but I think my finger lengths are average (between 75% and 80% / right in the middle of short and long) so, with my palm being narrower and rectangle shaped shouldn't I be just fire in both hands? confused

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:21 pm

Martijn wrote

Tap, I think I can explain this by detail:

For, only when a hand does not qualify for one single classification... then a combined classification becomes an option - such as my 'fire/air hand shape' for your left hand.

But regarding the 'air'-part in this combined classification, it would not makes sense to compare this with requirements for an 'air hand shape'... because the combined classification implicates that your left hand does not meet the requirment for 'air hand shape'!

So, yes: 0.777 (for finger length to palm length ratio) is for sure too small to be classified as 'air hand shape', however... your 1.027 (for the finger length to palm width ratio) is also too high to be classified as 'fire hand shape'.

But both observations together here explain the combination: 'fire/air hand shape'!

Does this make sense for you as well?

PS. This concerns partly a matter of applying logics.

Nope, not getting it.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:34 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:Sorry, but your measurements indicate that your palm IS slightly narrow (because of the relatively high finger to palm breadth ratio).
As my fingers are slightly longer in relation to palm length than a standard fire hand, then why does the above not show that my fingers are slightly long in relation to palm width (as opposed to palm being slightly narrow in relation to finger length)?

Lynn... that is because the 'large finger'-effect is (in both of your hands) more pronounced regarding palm width - compared to the effect regarding palm length!

Your 'large finger'-effect is visible for both dimensions of the palm, however the effect is larger for palm width than palm length; and because of this... that makes your palm (slightly) 'narrow'.

NOTICE: This also implicates that IF your hands would have shown the effect to be higher regarding palm length (compared to the effect regarding palm width) then your palm could have been described as (slighly) 'short'.

Makes sense now?

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:35 pm

I think in my case I am to close to normal/average/neutral to use the hand shape as any defining character traits. But I still think the chart is good and I still like the 5 element system. Thumbs up!

In my opinion the chart needs a "average" area in the center. I am pretty sure that is standard in assessing hand shape.
It did work on some of the other people I charted, because they were much farther from the center.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:54 pm

tap wrote:Okay

I do not completely understand the 5 element system, but I think my finger lengths are average (between 75% and 80% / right in the middle of short and long) so, with my palm being narrower and rectangle shaped shouldn't I be just fire in both hands?

Tap, that is because in your left hand your fingers are relatively long regarding palm width... and this effect is larger than the effect that your finger length is relatively short compared to palm width.

By the way, you can see that in the fact that your coordinates are positioned clearly at the right sight for the average of females (this illustrates that in your left hand the long finger effect is relatively long).

NOTICE: The coordinates for the average for women are: fl/pb = 1.005, fl/pl = 0.773; and your coordinates for your left hand are: fl/pb = 1.027, fl/pl = 0.777. Which shows that the effect for palm breadt is about 4x larger.

PS. IBy the way, don't think it is necessary to consider all these details; because at the ends it is all the result of how the 'elemental hand shapes' have been defined - which became visible in hand examples presented by the 4 hand reading authors, etc. etc.!

Patti Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:10 pm

tap wrote:I think in my case I am to close to normal/average/neutral to use the hand shape as any defining character traits. But I still think the chart is good and I still like the 5 element system.

In my opinion the chart needs a "average" area in the center. I am pretty sure that is standard in assessing hand shape.
It did work on some of the other people I charted, because they were much farther from the center.

I agree with you Tap. When you study the chart it's pretty obvious that most of these samples fit into a mid range or norm. Air and Fire become almost the same, yet the energies of the elements are so different. It is only when you move into the outer ranges that the differences become obvious. All the hands that look about the same (middle of chart) are more likely balanced of all four elements instead of just a mix of two. Which is probably why the system moves you on to the next features to see how the other features fall into particular elements as this basic point often becomes nearly neutral. I think I like thinking in terms of balanced better than mixed.

The earth and water hands are obvious at a glance. The fire and air take a little more study and even then they remain similar until extremes, and those extremes should stand out as well.

Sponsored content