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

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:25 pm

Patti wrote:
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.

Yes, I understand that both of you would like to see an 'average area'. But it is quite hard to do that as in the elemental system there are no 'average' categories available.

Though Lynn mentioned that in her approach she is using 0.80 (between 0.75 and 0.85) as a 'medium' for finger length versus palm length... however, she also says that any score below 0.80 could indicate 'short fingers', and any score above could indicate 'longer fingers'.

Actually, I think this relates to the issue that Patti described:

"Air and Fire become almost the same, yet the energies of the elements are so different."

I guess, in the Elemental philosophy... a small difference regarding finger length can have large implications regarding the interpretation. And therefore for me it makes sense that the elemental system does not have an 'average area'.

(Which implicates that I don't expect that the 'framework' at the end will describe such an 'average area' category, because that is simply not how things work according the elemental system. Fortunately, it does provide some space work with combined categories, such as 'fire/air hand shape', etc.)

wave

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:31 pm

Martijn

When you have not looked at a lot of hands it does help, because the authors do not put up specific images/prints of mixed hands like they do for the "pure" hands. For example, a few people I put on the chart were far away from the center, yet almost directly in the middle of two types of hand shapes/a combination. So although their hands were not really in the normal range (like your first chart) I went back and forth on whether they were the one type or the other (although I did lean to one of the types). In your first chart they were earth only. In the second chart (with the revised axes) they were right in the middle of earth and fire.So their hand shapes really did represent the combined traits of both hand shapes. So when reading hands, the hand shape represents the basic/ first layer of assessing the hands. I think the chart does help (for beginners).

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:40 pm

tap wrote: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.

Tap, basically the different classification between your hands is probably the result of that both of your hands... are not far away from the 'border' where 'fire hand shape' becomes 'fire/air hand shape'.

(This is probably because both of your hands are positioned at a considerable distance from the 'F' button)

However, there is no 'sharp' border to discriminate both categories - that is because of how the elemental system is constructed.

By the way, Fred Gettings writes in another book that Palmistry has historically been a matter of observation and not a matter of measurement.

However, as the field began to develop as a 'science' (e.g. via the study of dermatoglyphics, digit ratio, minor physical anomalies, etc)... it became obvious that measurements are sometimes necessary of make decisions about 'short' vs. 'long', etc.

So, despite my attempt to create a more clear system... there is no sharp line regarding where a category exactly begins and ends.

(Maybe after you read this, my earlier post might make more sense for you?)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:47 pm

tap wrote:Martijn

When you have not looked at a lot of hands it does help, because the authors do not put up specific images/prints of mixed hands like they do for the "pure" hands. For example, a few people I put on the chart were far away from the center, yet almost directly in the middle of two types of hand shapes/a combination. So although their hands were not really in the normal range (like your first chart) I went back and forth on whether they were the one type or the other (although I did lean to one of the types). In your first chart they were earth only. In the second chart (with the revised axes) they were right in the middle of earth and fire.So their hand shapes really did represent the combined traits of both hand shapes. So when reading hands, the hand shape represents the basic/ first layer of assessing the hands. I think the chart does help (for beginners).

Thanks again for sharing your enthousiasm about the chart, Tap!

I think your response and Mirrzzaa's response indicate that the chart indeed has great potential, especially for 'hand reading students', as a visual map for how the elemental system works regarding hand shape... by detail.

E.g. I think the chart describes many things that we have not yet discussed!

By the way, I think I am very close to 'defining' the 4 hand shapes based on the essential characteristics seen in the chart. After making that presentation (in the new 'finger length' section at my website), I expect that some of your questions will finally get an answer - I hope!

Thanks!

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:21 pm

Though Lynn mentioned that in her approach she is
using 0.80 (between 0.75 and 0.85) as a 'medium' for finger length
versus palm length... however, she also says that any score below 0.80
could indicate 'short fingers', and any score above could indicate
'longer fingers'.

No I didn't say that "any score below 0.80
could indicate 'short fingers'". I think maybe you misinterpreted what I said when I was talking about your green triangle being too big. I said something like "No earth hand could have a score above 80%". I was including any hand that had an earth combination ie earth/air. The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%, but those fingers would be long for an earth hand!

Sorry I can't keep up with all these posts on two threads! Martijn somewhere you asked if I agreed that earth/water is an impossible combination - yes of course it is impossible!

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:42 pm

Lynn wrote:
Though Lynn mentioned that in her approach she is
using 0.80 (between 0.75 and 0.85) as a 'medium' for finger length
versus palm length... however, she also says that any score below 0.80
could indicate 'short fingers', and any score above could indicate
'longer fingers'.
No I didn't say that "any score below 0.80
could indicate 'short fingers'". I think maybe you misinterpreted what I said when I was talking about your green triangle being too big. I said something like "No earth hand could have a score above 80%". I was including any hand that had an earth combination ie earth/air. The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%, but those fingers would be long for an earth hand!

Sorry I can't keep up with all these posts on two threads! Martijn somewhere you asked if I agreed that earth/water is an impossible combination - yes of course it is impossible!

Okay Lynn, thank you for correcting what you had actually described.

Though, from my point of view your words "The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%" sort of confirm my point that any percentage below 80% could become the basis for an earth classification - which is defined with the requirement to be featured with 'short fingers'.

Because the implication is here kind of the same regarding Tap's and Patti's request for an 'average area': while your guidelines do include a 'medium' category (at around 80%), I don't believe that we can not use that as some kind of intermediate category - which I think is needed to fulfill the request related to an 'average area'.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what you had said.

Thanks!

**Lynn** Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:16 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:Though, from my point of view your words "The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%" sort of confirm my point that any percentage below 80% could become the basis for an earth classification - which is defined with the requirement to be featured with 'short fingers'.

Because the implication is here kind of the same regarding Tap's and Patti's request for an 'average area': while your guidelines do include a 'medium' category (at around 80%), I don't believe that we can not use that as some kind of intermediate category - which I think is needed to fulfill the request related to an 'average area'.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what you had said.

Oh either I am not explaining myself well or you are not understanding me well!

"The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%"
sort of confirm my point that any percentage below 80% could become the
basis for an earth classification - which is defined with the
requirement to be featured with 'short fingers'.

Please get the idea out of your head that earth hands can have fingers of 80%!! Earth hands have square palm and short fingers, short = 75% or less of palm length.
A square palm with medium fingers 80% would be an earth/air combination, the longer fingers add some air element - as I explained before, someone who uses brains as well as brawn! but who is mainly based in the physical, material realm rather than the air realm of ideas & thoughts. A square palm with medium fingers cannot be an air hand because the fingers are too short. It is not a pure earth hand because the fingers are too long. It is a combination, and this combination of earth /air is rarely seen. In fact some people have been known to argue that it doesn't exist!! Wink

**Lynn** Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:20 am

Regarding average area. As I've said before, handshapes are a spectrum, from rectangular to square palm, from long to short fingers, from earth to fire to water & air. As Johnny says, it's only worth concerning ourselves with archetypal handshapes. If the hand shape is not obvious, then don't waste time on it, there are plenty more features to look at on a hand!

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:39 am

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, regarding the exact coordinates... sorry, I have not calculated these exactly. The starting points of the axes result from the positions of the E, F, A and W buttons.

But I have now illustrated those locations more precisely: the axes are now starting with a sharp point - so that leaves little doubt about the exact location.

NOTICE: There is not much space between the starting point of the fire axis and the air axis.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:49 am

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:Though, from my point of view your words "The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%" sort of confirm my point that any percentage below 80% could become the basis for an earth classification - which is defined with the requirement to be featured with 'short fingers'.

Because the implication is here kind of the same regarding Tap's and Patti's request for an 'average area': while your guidelines do include a 'medium' category (at around 80%), I don't believe that we can not use that as some kind of intermediate category - which I think is needed to fulfill the request related to an 'average area'.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what you had said.

Oh either I am not explaining myself well or you are not understanding me well!

"The most that any earth combination hand could have is 80%"
sort of confirm my point that any percentage below 80% could become the
basis for an earth classification - which is defined with the
requirement to be featured with 'short fingers'.

Please get the idea out of your head that earth hands can have fingers of 80%!! Earth hands have square palm and short fingers, short = 75% or less of palm length.
A square palm with medium fingers 80% would be an earth/air combination, the longer fingers add some air element - as I explained before, someone who uses brains as well as brawn! but who is mainly based in the physical, material realm rather than the air realm of ideas & thoughts. A square palm with medium fingers cannot be an air hand because the fingers are too short. It is not a pure earth hand because the fingers are too long. It is a combination, and this combination of earth /air is rarely seen. In fact some people have been known to argue that it doesn't exist!!

Aha, Lynn okay... thanks for explaining that explicitly. Now I understand that your word choice 'earth combination' was essential in that sentence!

Sorry for misinterpreting your words.

**Lynn** Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:56 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Aha, Lynn okay... thanks for explaining that explicitly. Now I understand that your word choice 'earth combination' was essential in that sentence!

Sorry for misinterpreting your words.

Eureka!
(Capice?) Wink

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:01 am

Lynn wrote:Regarding average area. As I've said before, handshapes are a spectrum, from rectangular to square palm, from long to short fingers, from earth to fire to water & air. As Johnny says, it's only worth concerning ourselves with archetypal handshapes. If the hand shape is not obvious, then don't waste time on it, there are plenty more features to look at on a hand!

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Aha, Lynn okay... thanks for explaining that explicitly. Now I understand that your word choice 'earth combination' was essential in that sentence!

Sorry for misinterpreting your words.

Eureka!
(Capice?)

Hahaha... sounds all fine with me Lynn (since this does not violate my assumption that the elemental approach does not present any space for an 'average area').

But this leaves plenty of space to wonder... if any 'hand shape combination' (such as: 'earth/air hand shape') could represent - what you call - an 'archetypal handshape'?

For, the elemental system describes only 4 hand types, so my sense for logics makes me now wonder about the implication of Johnny's guideline... because one can wonder whether any 'hand shape combination' can be described as an 'archetypal handshape'??? Wink

(Don't worry Lynn, this is a rethoric question only! - If you prefer not to respond that will leave no question open to be answered... Razz

)

**Lynn** Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:13 am

an 'archetypal handshape' would not be a combination, it would be a 'pure' earth, water, fire or air. I have given you measurements for standard fire as I was taught it (10 length x8 width x7.5 finger) . I will try to find the others. But you have the basics - square or rectangular palm, short or long fingers, water hand being narrower than fire hand, square air palm being bigger than earth palm. Of course the C.Soc way are measured across centre of palm, which is different from your measurements across metacarpals anyway.

**Lynn** Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:27 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
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, what did you mean by instead of suddenly jumping into conclusions that may at the end may turn out to have not much ground below at all.? I guess you are talking about my final paragraph above. I haven't suddenly jumped to any conclusions. You have posted your charts and are labelling hands according to the elements. The practical guidelines about how to interpret hands according to the elements have been in place for many years! You can't re-invent an existing system. You can create a new one if you like. You can criticise the existing system when you've studied it and understood it, but I mean no disrespect when I say that so far you seem to be at beginners stage with the 5 element system. If you are classifying things according to the elements, then you have to interpret them according to the elements!
By the way, "not much ground below at all" is an earth element phrase, relating to structures, foundations (or lack of them).

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:07 am

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
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, what did you mean by instead of suddenly jumping into conclusions that may at the end may turn out to have not much ground below at all.? I guess you are talking about my final paragraph above. I haven't suddenly jumped to any conclusions. You have posted your charts and are labelling hands according to the elements. The practical guidelines about how to interpret hands according to the elements have been in place for many years! You can't re-invent an existing system. You can create a new one if you like. You can criticise the existing system when you've studied it and understood it, but I mean no disrespect when I say that so far you seem to be at beginners stage with the 5 element system. If you are classifying things according to the elements, then you have to interpret them according to the elements!
By the way, "not much ground below at all" is an earth element phrase, relating to structures, foundations (or lack of them).

Lynn, I perceived a problem regarding your starting point "If my palm were narrower...".

Because I don't think there is any specific (C.S.) guideline available for how much narrower your palm would have to become in order to be assessed as a water palm shape - or to be assessed as a fire/water hand in the perspective of your 'medium' finger length.

And since we are talking about measurements only, then your argument regarding your behavior made me think... that you were about to walk away from further considerations because of those perceptions for your own palm only.

PS. Earlier tonight Patti also posted a comment questioning you about how to understand your 'logic' - because she pointed also towards the strange jump that the combination of 'medium' finger length with fire palm shape creates the combination 'fire/air hand shape'.

You answered:

"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."

I guess, that is how you learned to think about that combination. But for me and Patti it is inconsistent with the basics of how the hand shapes are defined. I have tried to describe that and I think Patti has tried to describe that as well.

But at the end, I do understand that this strange 'logic' is probably the indirect result of some of the other rules. Because after specifying for the starting points of the axes... the chart shows why jumping from 'fire' into 'air' is much more common (which resulted in my chart from the average values for the 4 hand shape types), that is now also visible in my picture as well.

Finally Lynn, regarding my search for a re-definition...earlier in this discussion you discovered yourself that the issue of palm breadth had not been defined very precisely in the C.S. system. Dukes described the issue in general - however, specific guidelines are missing there as well... and some of Dukes guidelines are even quite unrealistic - e.g. I mentioned his rather strange definition for 'long fingers' - later you and Johnny had to re-define the definition!!!!

(So I am wondering whether more 'experience' would bring answers & understanding... or just an extra set of incomplete rules - (edit) because specific rules for palm width appear to be missing in your approach, according my view)

Anyway, I hope that you have noticed that some beginners (Tap & Mirrzzaa) have hopes that you and I are able to find some agreement regarding the chart. So... the hopes are growing, all with your input & assistance of course! Thumbs up!

So... I am looking forward to see you re-assessing the prints for which your presented some data last night. Then we can see if your assessments still match with what the axes say (now, featured with new starting points of course!).

**Lynn** Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:07 am

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

Narrow according to your criteria. Not narrow according to standard fire palm dimensions. which is why I said "If my palm was narrower..."

Thanks for explaining what you meant above about groundless statements. Regarding the 'strange logic', I will explain more when I get time.

So... I am looking forward to see you re-assessing the prints for which your presented some data last night. Then we can see if your assessments still match with what the axes say (now, featured with new starting points of course!).

Actually now I can't find the piece of paper where I noted which hand pictures & prints I had used! Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 3 148122

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 3 148122

I can only find the graph which is useless on it's own to reassess the same prints! I will get onto it next week.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:28 am

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).......
Narrow according to your criteria. Not narrow according to standard fire palm dimensions. which is why I said "If my palm was narrower..."

Thanks for explaining what you meant above about groundless statements. Regarding the 'strange logic', I will explain more when I get time.

So... I am looking forward to see you re-assessing the prints for which your presented some data last night. Then we can see if your assessments still match with what the axes say (now, featured with new starting points of course!).
Actually now I can't find the piece of paper where I noted which hand pictures & prints I had used! I can only find the graph which is useless on it's own to reassess the same prints! I will get onto it next week.

Thanks Lynn,

I am looking forword (next week is fine) to you new assessments.

PS. You mentioned: "Not narrow according to standard fire palm dimensions. which is why I said "If my palm was narrower...". Okay, I get it now. But only because you mentioned that the dimension ratios for a fire palm are: 7.5 - 8 - 10 (where the 2nd for palm width is measured above the thumb). You haven't shared your ratios in that perspective (and I am not asking you to share those).

But I wonder: since you have no likewise dimensions for the water hand, then IF your hand is a bit smaller than the standard fire hand... I think that would make it quite impossible for you to judge wheter your hand is still within the 'fire-range' or in the 'water range'! Because, again, you have no ratios for the water hand available!

And guess what? At the end of this discussion my picture might provide the opportunity to answer questions ... that you can not answer - because of the missing of ratios for a typical water hand.

Because Lynn, in my figures the palm breadth versus palm length ratio for the average fire hand shape (based on the examples in the books) is: 75.4% (with your method for measuring palm breadth the percentage arrives at 80.0% - according the standard fire hand dimensions).

However... according my figures the ratio for the average water hand shape is: 73.9%.

So, regarding the palm width versus palm length ratio a tiny difference of only 1% could be enough to make a difference!

Finally, when I look at your palm breadth versus palm length ratios with my method (right hand: 76.5% and left hand: 76.2%)... I think it is pretty clear what my method says about you palm dimensions:

very typical for a fire hand!

(Maybe even more typical than you ever imagined - only we got somewhere confused about the possibility of you having a water hand... but probably only because of how I had positioned the hand shape axes initially!)

This implicates that in my model the typical hand shape dimensions for all 4 hand shape types are already available... but I never pointed this out, because I started this project from the topic 'finger length'!

lol!

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:46 am

Lynn, in my model the dimensions for: 'finger length - palm breadth - palm length' are probably very close to:

EARTH HAND: 7.7 - 8.8 - 10.0 (widest palm of the 4 hand shapes)

FIRE HAND: 7.3 - 7.5 - 10.0 (shortest fingers of the 4 hand shapes)

AIR HAND: 8.7 - 8.4 - 10.0 (longest fingers of the 4 hand shapes)

WATER HAND: 8.3 - 7.4 - 10.0 (narrowest palm of the 4 hand shapes)

MEDIUM HAND would become: 8.0 - 8.0 - 10.0 (Wow... this can not be coincidence!!!)

Would be interesting to hear if this kind of fits with your ideas about the widest palm, shortest fingers, etc.?

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:18 pm

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 3 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes-axes-2

While the 'hand shape axes' chart appears to work fine, I have noticed that it is a rather difficult task to read the hand shape directly from the picture above. Therefore I present in this post a method to find the MOST DOMINANT element for the hand shape. It does require some (simple) calculations... but the result is astonishing and very detailed!

But before finding the hand shape, we first have to summarize the hand shape in a new formula: the HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS FORMULA. And it is important to know in advance that each of the 4 hand shapes has a very typical 'dynamic profile' for this formula... which makes it sometimes even possible to 'read' the hand shape from the numbers only!!! happy move

The ratios for the dimensions of the hand can be described with the following formula describing all proportional ratios of

HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS FORMULA = fl/pl x 10 | pb/pl x 10 | pl/pl x 10 (+ fl/pb x 10)

(NOTICE: the ratio pl/pl x 10 is always '10' for any hand!)

Applying these formulas to a MEDIUM HAND SHAPE results in the following rather simple formula:

* MEDIUM HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 8.0 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 10.0)

Now, applying these to the average elemental hand shapes as presented in the picture above leads to an interesting development regarding the typical numbers for each of the 4 hand shape types:

- FIRE HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 7.3 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.7)
(NOTICE: all numbers are lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = lower - lower - lower)

- EARTH HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 7.7 | 8.8 | 10 (+ 8.7)
(NOTICE: 1st and last number is lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = lower | higher | lower)

- WATER HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 8.3 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 11.3)
(NOTICE: only 2nd number is lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = higher | lower | higher)

- AIR HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 8.7 | 8.4 | 10 (+ 10.3)
(NOTICE: no numbers lower than medium proportions:
dynamic profile = higher | higher | higher)[/b][/b]

In order to find out which of the 4 elements is most dominant for any hand one can follow the following procedure:

- First: measure the the 3 hand dimensions (finger length [fl], palm breadth [pb] and palm length [pl]).
- Second: put the measurements in the formula for the hand shape proportions:
HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS = fl/pl x 10 | pb/pl x 10 | pl/pl x 10 - fl/pb x 10
- Third: calculate for each of the 4 hand shape types the summarized difference between the numbers for typical hand shape proportions and the numbers of the hand.
- Fourth, check for exact matches between the proportional hand scores and the typical proportional scores for the elements.
- Fifth, then find the hand shape type that has the smallest summarized difference towards the hand shape proportions: this is the most dominant hand shape type. If this element has a 'summarized difference' that is 1.0 or smaller, OR representing less than 12.5% all variations towards the 4 elements together, then this element represent probably the (only) dominant element for the hand shape.

NOTICE: When the smallest 'summarized difference' score is higher than 1.0 this is indicative for a mix-variant - and then the proportional score is probably not representing less than 12.5% of all variation of all 4 elements summarized. Depending on the actual ratios one can decide whether to speak of a mix of 2 hand types or 3 hand types; if a score-difference is almost twice as high as another score-difference then the hand shape type displaying the highest score can be considered as non-dominant.

- Finally, always check the result via the 'dynamic profile' of the hand (see the description of the typical hand shape proportions above); in case some hand shape types have the same score then one can use the 'dynamic profile' in order judge which of those is most dominant, and check if one of those elements made any exact matches. And at the end one can check the result with the visual chart for the elemental axes above.

Example for how to apply these guidelines:

I'll show how it works in practice via the measurements that I have posted earlier for my own hands:

MY RIGHT HAND:

Finger length (middle finger): 8.7 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 8.8 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 11.65 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 8.7 / 11.65 = 0.75 => proportion = 7.5
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 8.8 / 11.65 = 0.76 => proportion = 7.6
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 8.7 / 8.8 = 0.99 => proportion = 9.9

MY LEFT HAND:

Finger length (middle finger): 8.85 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 9.05 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 11.55 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 8.85 / 11.55 = 0.77 => proportion = 7.7
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 9.05 / 11.55 = 0.78 => proportion = 7.8
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 8.85 / 9.05 = 0.98 => proportion = 9.8

Filling up the proportions in the HAND SHAPE PROPORTION FORMULA for each hand gives:

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9)
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 )

Notice: compared to the medium hand shape ratios [8.0 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 10.0)] one sees for both hands the 'dynamic profile' which is typical for FIRE hand shape: lower | lower | lower. So, here is an important first indication that the element FIRE plays a part in both hands.

But it is always necessary to compare the numbers in the hand shape proportion for each hand with the typical elemental hand shape formulas:

* FIRE: The typical fire hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.3 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.7)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 = 0.5
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.4 + 0.3 + 0.1 = 0.8

As described by the guidelines, a score of 1.0 or lower is usually indicative that the element is the most dominant element. So in both of my hands FIRE is probably the most dominant element.

And the 'summarized difference' scores for the other elements are indeed much higher (see below):

* EARTH: The typical earth hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.7 | 8.8 | 10 (+ 8.7)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 2.6
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0 + 1.0 + 1.1 = 2.1

* WATER: The typical water hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.3 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 11.3)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.8 + 0.2 + 1.4 = 2.4
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.6 + 0.4 + 1.5 = 2.6

* AIR: The typical air hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.7 | 8.4 | 10 (+ 10.3)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for AIR: 1.2 + 0.8 + 0.4 = 2.4
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for AIR: 1.0 + 0.6 + 0.5 = 2.6

So, the summerized difference to the elemental profiles for my right hand are: FIRE: 0.5, EARTH: 2.6, WATER: 2.4, and AIR: 2,6:
Difference to elemental profiles for left hand: FIRE: 0.8, EARTH: 2.1, WATER: 2.6, and AIR: 2.6.

CONCLUSION FOR MY HANDS:

The scores for both of my hands clearly indicate that FIRE is the dominant element in my hands, and this is also confirmed by the 'dynamic profile' observed in each hand

Therefore my dominant hand shape type is:
- right hand: FIRE
- left hand: FIRE

PS. My earlier report for my hands was:

"My hands:
- right hand (fl/pb: 0.989, fl/pl: 0.747): ~~close to~~ fire hand shape
- left hand (fl/pb: 0.978, fl/pl: 0.766): fire hand shape"

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:55 pm

In this post present a likewise analysis for the hands of Lynn, Patti, Tap & Mirrzza:

Lynn's hands:

- Lynn's right hand:

Finger length (middle finger): 8.0 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 7.8 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 10.2 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 8.0 / 10.2 = 0.78 => proportion = 7.8
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 7.8 / 10.2 = 0.76 => proportion = 7.6
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 8.0 / 7.8 = 1.03 => proportion = 10.3

- Lynn's left hand:

Finger length (middle finger): 7.9 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 7.7 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 10.1 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 7.9 / 10.1 = 0.78 => proportion = 7.8
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 7.7 / 10.1 = 0.76 => proportion = 7.6
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 7.9 / 7.7 = 1.03 => proportion = 10.3

Filling up the proportions in the HAND SHAPE PROPORTION FORMULA for each hand gives:

- Right hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3)
- Left hand: 7.8 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 10.3 )

Notice: compared to the medium hand shape ratios [8.0 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 10.0)] one sees for both hands the 'dynamic profile': lower | lower | higher. This particular combination does not point clearly in the direction of a specific hand type... so, her hands are likely to be assessed as a mix of various elements.

Then one can compare the numbers in the hand shape proportion for each hand with the typical elemental hand shape formulas:

* FIRE: The typical fire hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.3 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.7)

- Lynn's right hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.6 = 1.2
- Lynn's left hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.5 + 0.1 + 0.6 = 1.2

* EARTH: The typical earth hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.7 | 8.8 | 10 (+ 8.7)

- Lynn's right hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0.1 + 1.2 + 1.6 = 2.9
- Lynn's left hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0.1 + 1.2 + 1.6 = 2.9

* WATER: The typical water hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.3 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 11.3)

- Lynn's right hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.5 + 0.2 + 1.0 = 1.7
- Lynn's left hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.5 + 0.2 + 1.0 = 1.7

* AIR: The typical air hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.7 | 8.4 | 10 (+ 10.3)

- Lynn's right hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for AIR: 0.9 + 0.8 + 0 = 1.7
- Lynn's left hand: 7.8 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 10.3) => summarized difference for AIR: 0.9 + 0.8 + 0 = 1.7

So, the summarized difference to the elemental profiles for Lynn's right hand are: FIRE: 1.2, EARTH: 2.9, WATER: 1.7, and AIR: 1,7
Difference to elemental profiles for left hand: FIRE: 1.2, EARTH: 2.9, WATER: 1.7, and AIR: 1.7.

CONCLUSION FOR LYNN'S HANDS:

The scores for both of Lynn's hands indicate that a mix with FIRE involved is the dominant element in her hands (because the smallest proportions are higher than 1% and both are also larger than 12.5% of all variation regarding the typical elemental profiles - therefore one can speak of a mix between elements). There is one exact match with the element AIR (for finger length relative to palm width). The variation towards FIRE is clearly the smallest proportion, but it is not very small compared to the variation to the other elements). In the mix the elements WATER and/or AIR are most likely involved, and then the exact match with AIR (for finger length vs. palm breadth) becomes decisive.

And when taking a closer look at the map for the elemental axes, Lynn's finger coordinates indicate that a mix with AIR (and not with WATER) is probably the best choice for both hands.

Therefore Lynn's dominant hand shape type is:
- right hand: FIRE (+ AIR)
- left hand: FIRE (+ AIR)

PS. My earlier conclusion for Lynn's hands was:

"Lynn's hands:
- right hand (fl/pb: 1.026, fl/pl: 0.784): ~~fire/water~~ fire/air hand shape
- left hand (fl/pb: 1.026, fl/pl: 0.782): ~~fire/water~~ fire/air hand shape"

Patti's hands:

- Patti's right hand:

Finger length (middle finger): 7.9 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 7.9 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 9.6 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 7.9 / 9.6 = 0.82 => proportion = 8.2
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 7.9 / 9.6 = 0.82 => proportion = 8.2
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 7.9 / 7.9 = 1.00 => proportion = 10.0

- Patti's left hand:

Finger length (middle finger): 7.7 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 7.8 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 9.7 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 7.7 / 9.7 = 0.79 => proportion = 7.9
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 7.8 / 9.7 = 0.80 => proportion = 8.0
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 7.7 / 7.8 = 0.99 => proportion = 9.9

Filling up the proportions in the HAND SHAPE PROPORTION FORMULA for each hand gives:

- Right hand: 8.2 | 8.2 | 10 (+ 10.0)
- Left hand: 7.9 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 9.9 )

Notice: compared to the medium hand shape ratios [8.0 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 10.0)] one can see that for both hands the 'dynamic profile' is different - and both do not match with any of the typical 'dynamic profiles' for the hand shapes. Therefore one can expect that Patti's hands can best be described as a mix of various elements.

Then one can compare the numbers in the hand shape proportion for each hand with the typical elemental hand shape formulas:

* FIRE: The typical fire hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.3 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.7)

- Patti's right hand: 8.2 | 8.2 | 10 (+ 10.0) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.9 + 0.7 + 0.3 = 1.9
- Patti's left hand: 7.9 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 9.9 ) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.6 + 0.5 + 0.2 = 1.3

* EARTH: The typical earth hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.7 | 8.8 | 10 (+ 8.7)

- Patti's right hand: 8.2 | 8.2 | 10 (+ 10.0) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0.5 + 0.6 + 1.3 = 2.4
- Patti's left hand: 7.9 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 9.9 ) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0.2 + 0.8 + 1.2 = 2.2

* WATER: The typical water hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.3 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 11.3)

- Patti's right hand: 8.2 | 8.2 | 10 (+ 10.0) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.1 + 0.8 + 1.3 = 2.2
- Patti's left hand: 7.9 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 9.9 ) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.4 + 0.6 + 1.4 = 2.4

* AIR: The typical air hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.7 | 8.4 | 10 (+ 10.3)

- Patti's right hand: 8.2 | 8.2 | 10 (+ 10.0) => summarized difference for AIR: 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.3 = 1.0
- Patti's left hand: 7.9 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 9.9 ) => summarized difference for AIR: 0.8 + 0.4 + 0.4 = 1.6

So, the summarized difference to the elemental profiles for Patti's right hand are: FIRE: 1.9, EARTH: 2.4, WATER: 2.2, and AIR: 1,0:
Difference to elemental profiles for left hand: FIRE: 1.3, EARTH: 2.2, WATER: 2.4, and AIR: 1.6.

CONCLUSION FOR PATTI'S HANDS:

The scores for Patti's hands indicate that the elements play a different role in each hand. There are no perfect matches with individual elements. For her right hand the most dominant is clearly AIR (1% is borderline to speak of one dominant element and though the percentage is higher than 12.5%, the 2nd smallest proportion is almost twice as high, which indicates that the influence of AIR is relatively large). For her left hand the most dominant is FIRE, mixing with AIR.

Patti's finger coordinates' in the chart with elemental axes indicate that these combinations are probably the best choice.

Therefore Patti's dominant hand shape type is:
- right hand: AIR
- left hand: FIRE (+ AIR)

PS. My earlier conclusion for Patti's hands was:

"Patti's hands:
- right hand (fl/pb: 1.000, fl/pl: 0.823): air hand shape
- left hand (fl/pb: 0.987, fl/pl: 0.794): ~~close to neutral (most close to earth hand shape)~~ fire/air hand shape"

( thinking

Hmmm... though the analysis of the numbers works just fine and more precisely than reading hand shape from the chart with the elemental hand shape axes, it obviously takes time to make an analysis. Anyway, Tap & Mirrzzaa's analysis will later follow; the numbers below can be ignored for the moment...)

Tap's dominant hand shape type: fire mixed with air (both hands)
- right hand: 7.8 - 7.9 - 10 (+ finger length to palm breadth ratio = 9.9)
Difference to elemental profiles: EARTH: 2.2, FIRE: 1.1, AIR: 1.8, WATER: 2.4
- left hand: 7.8 - 7.6 - 10 (+ finger length to palm breadth ratio = 10.3)
Difference to elemental profiles: EARTH: 2.9, FIRE: 1.2, AIR: 1.7, WATER: 1.7

Mirrzzaa's dominant hand shape type: fire mixed with earth (right) + fire (left)
- right hand: 7.3 - 8.0 - 10 (+ finger length to palm breadth ratio = 9.1)
Difference to elemental profiles: EARTH: 1.6, FIRE: 1.1, AIR: 3.0, WATER: 2.8
- left hand: 7.3 - 7.9 - 10 (+ finger length to palm breadth ratio = 9.2)
Difference to elemental profiles: EARTH: 1.8, FIRE: 0.9, AIR: 3.1, WATER: 3.6

chakraborty Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:49 am

Dear Martijn,

After going thru this topic, I decided to check my palm & finger - for the very first time. I am aware that my palm is probably slightly odd when compared to average people.

Following are the dimensions & ratios.

Left Hand
Finger length (FL) : 7.5
Palm-length (PL) : 10.5
Palm- width (PB) : 7.8

Ratios are (%) :

Finger length to palm length (FL/PL) : 70.47
Palm breadth to palm length (PB/PL) : 74.04
Finger length to Palm breadth (FL/PB) : 94.87

For Right hand, the corresponding lengths & ratios are slightly different

PL - 10.6, PB - 8.0, FL - 7.5

FL/PL = 70.75, PB/PL = 74.28 & FL/PB = 93.75

(Got a short thumb)

Can you please specify in which category my palm belong ? BTW, I am right handed, short (5'5") male.

regards

Chakraborty

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:19 am

chakraborty wrote:Dear Martijn,

After going thru this topic, I decided to check my palm & finger - for the very first time. I am aware that my palm is probably slightly odd when compared to average people.

Following are the dimensions & ratios.

Left Hand
Finger length (FL) : 7.5
Palm-length (PL) : 10.5
Palm- width (PB) : 7.8

Ratios are (%) :

Finger length to palm length (FL/PL) : 70.47
Palm breadth to palm length (PB/PL) : 74.04
Finger length to Palm breadth (FL/PB) : 94.87

For Right hand, the corresponding lengths & ratios are slightly different

PL - 10.6, PB - 8.0, FL - 7.5

FL/PL = 70.75, PB/PL = 74.28 & FL/PB = 93.75

(Got a short thumb)

Can you please specify in which category my palm belong ? BTW, I am right handed, short (5'5") male.

regards

Chakraborty

Hi Chakraborty,

Thank you for sharing your measurements! Thumbs up!

Your proportional formula is:

Right hand: 7.1 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.4)
Left hand: 7.1 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 9.6)

(By the way, these numbers are based on the measurements that you presented; because I noticed that your ratio-calculations for you left hand do not always match with you measurements)

Now, if we compare that with the typical proportions for a MEDIUM HAND SHAPE:

(Medium hand shape proportions are: 8 | 8 | 10 (+ 10)

... then we can see that in both hands your scores are all LOWER; which results in the following 'dynamic profile': lower - lower - lower.

And this implicates that you have a FIRE HAND SHAPE (for both hands), because your 'dynamic profile' is very typical for a fire hand shape (I have highlighted the dynamic profiles for each hand shape below).

And if I check your finger-coordinates in the chart with the hand shapes axes then we see this confirmed (both are positioned not far away from to the red axis - between button F4 and F2).

Your hand shape proportions are not unusual, because they are positioned in the 'normal range'. However, in India people tend to have very often sort of a 'water hand shape' (which is much narrower than your hand shape). Maybe this explains why you described your hand shape as 'slightly odd'?

(The differences between your right and left hand are relatively small; you have a positive 'hand index', but a shorter left palm... a small contradiction, but since it is rather small you are probably right handed?)

CONCLUSION FOR YOUR FINGER LENGTH & HAND SHAPE:

- Your fingers are slightly short (compared to both hand breadth & hand length);
- You have a FIRE hand shape (within the common range);
- Your hand dimensions are not typical for a male from India (where the hands are usually more narrow);
- You are probably right handed.

PS. I'll present here the typical 'dynamic profiles' for the 4 hand shapes in general once again:

- FIRE HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 7.3 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.7)
(NOTICE: all numbers are lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = lower - lower - lower)

- EARTH HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 7.7 | 8.8 | 10 (+ 8.7)
(NOTICE: 1st and last number is lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = lower | higher | lower)

- WATER HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 8.3 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 11.3)
(NOTICE: only 2nd number is lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = higher | lower | higher)

- AIR HAND SHAPE PROPORTIONS: 8.7 | 8.4 | 10 (+ 10.3)
(NOTICE: no numbers lower than medium proportions:
'dynamic profile' = higher | higher | higher)

**tap** Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:03 pm

I would like to go back to the chart.

Now, one of my stumbling blocks when I used the 5 element system was classifying 2 different hands I had on file into their hand shape.

First let me note that the parameters I was using at the time was:
*Earth - middle finger 75% length (going off visual picture in book, if I read more carefully I would have noticed he said no longer than 75%)
- square palm
*Fire –fingers ¾ length of length of palm
- Palm slightly broader than water hand (narrow, rectangular palm)

* From Johnny Fincham’s book The Spellbinding Power of Palmistry

I am not putting images up, but here are the ratios for the two different hands that I went back and forth on what shape they were considered.

Hand 1
Finger length 8.2 cm
Palm width 9.8 cm
Palm length 11.9

Finger length to palm width .837 ( 8.2/9.8 )
Finger length to palm length .689 (8.2/11.9)

Hand 2
Finger length 8.7 cm
Palm width 9.7 cm
Palm length 11.6

Finger length to palm width .897 ( 8.7/9.7 )
Finger length to palm length .75 (8.7/11.6)

Visually, to me, hand 1 had shorter fingers then hand 2 and the palms looked relatively the same. So I had issues on how that changed them. I figured that hand 1 was quicker in thinking than hand 2, and that was the difference. Anyhow, I eventually decided:
hand 1 was earth
hand 2 was earth with air. (after reading more carfully I would have said fire?)

Now charting them I found out that they both fall pretty close to the line that separates earth from fire with hand 1 significantly farther away from center than hand 2.; meaning to me, both hands have a fairly even mixture of earth and fire, but hand one had less of the other elements than hand 2. Now I have :

Hand 1 earth/fire
Hand 2 earth/ fire, but having more of the other elements playing a role.

For a beginner I think having another way ( like a chart) besides looking at examples of the "pure" hand type to varify your intial visual classification is helpfull.

Hope this makes sense.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:26 pm

Hi Tap,

Please give me a little bit more time... because I think this afternoon I have made a breakthrough in finding the 'hand shape profile' in a rather simple way!

For the moment I can only report that the PORPORTIONAL formula is essential for finding hand shape.

I will soon (later today) present a rather simple method to assess handshape with proportional formula's that I have described (in my former posts) for a MEDIUM HAND SHAPE plus the formulas for the 4 hand shape types!

wave

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:41 pm

tap wrote:I would like to go back to the chart.

Now, one of my stumbling blocks when I used the 5 element system was classifying 2 different hands I had on file into their hand shape.

First let me note that the parameters I was using at the time was:
*Earth - middle finger 75% length (going off visual picture in book, if I read more carefully I would have noticed he said no longer than 75%)
- square palm
*Fire –fingers ¾ length of length of palm
- Palm slightly broader than water hand (narrow, rectangular palm)

* From Johnny Fincham’s book The Spellbinding Power of Palmistry

I am not putting images up, but here are the ratios for the two different hands that I went back and forth on what shape they were considered.

Hand 1
Finger length 8.2 cm
Palm width 9.8 cm
Palm length 11.9

Finger length to palm width .837 ( 8.2/9.8 )
Finger length to palm length .689 (8.2/11.9)

Hand 2
Finger length 8.7 cm
Palm width 9.7 cm
Palm length 11.6

Finger length to palm width .897 ( 8.7/9.7 )
Finger length to palm length .75 (8.7/11.6)

Visually, to me, hand 1 had shorter fingers then hand 2 and the palms looked relatively the same. So I had issues on how that changed them. I figured that hand 1 was quicker in thinking than hand 2, and that was the difference. Anyhow, I eventually decided:
hand 1 was earth
hand 2 was earth with air. (after reading more carfully I would have said fire?)

Now charting them I found out that they both fall pretty close to the line that separates earth from fire with hand 1 significantly farther away from center than hand 2.; meaning to me, both hands have a fairly even mixture of earth and fire, but hand one had less of the other elements than hand 2. Now I have :

Hand 1 earth/fire
Hand 2 earth/ fire, but having more of the other elements playing a role.

For a beginner I think having another way ( like a chart) besides looking at examples of the "pure" hand type to varify your intial visual classification is helpfull.

Hope this makes sense.

Do you have normal finger length? [locked] - Page 3 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes-axes-3

NOTICE: This new picture now includes specific guidelines for the PROPORTIONS of the hand (see the comment below the 4 hand examples); I want to recommend to take especially a closer look at the "+" and "-" signs included, because these describe the ESSENTIAL difference for each hand type compared to the medium hand type (which has the easy to remember proportional formula: 8 | 8 | 10 | (1.0)

The 10 represents in this formular the 'palm length', which is in this formula the point of reference: this implicates that in any hand the third number is always 10. The 1st and 2nd number represent the proportion of the 'finger length' and 'palm breadth' relative to the 'palm length'. And the last number between the "(...)" represent the ratio of the finger length versus 'palm breadth'.

Hi Tap,

Thank you for presenting those examples. And yes, I can understand your problem here, because if we project the finger length ratio into the chart... then we can see that for both hands the coordinates are positioned close to the purple line between EARTH and FIRE.

So, the results of your assessment definitely make sense to me at first sight - as you have proposed to describe each hand as combination of earth and fire!

Now, in my earlier post I had mentioned that I made a new discovery for how to find the dominant element regarding the hand shape. So I will now use your two examples to illustrate how we can identify the hand shape very precisely.

STEP 1: Finding the hand shape proportions (+ 'dynamic profile')!

First the measurements have to be translated into the NEW CONCEPT that I am presenting here - which I call the 'proportional hand shape formula'.

[In the new picture above you can see that the formula for a MEDIUM HAND SHAPE is:
8 | 8 | 10 | (1.0)]

The 'proportional hand shape formula' for your two hand examples are:

HAND 1: 6.9 | 8.2 | 10 | 0.84 (=> the 'dynamic profile' for hand 1 is: - - | + | - -)

HAND 2: 7.5 | 8.4 | 10 | 0.90 (=> the 'dynamic profile' for hand 2 is: -/-- | + | - -)

STEP 2: Which 'dynamic profiles' are matching?

After describing the 'proportional hand shape formula' plus the 'dynamic profile' for each hand, we can now compare the 'dynamic profiles' for each hand with the 4 'dynamic profiles' for the typical elemental hand shapes.

This is very simple, because there are only 3 features in the 'dynamic profile' and each feature can only match with one of the 4 elements.

So, we only have to find out which which elements have match with each hand:

HAND 1:

- the first feature of the 'dynamic profile' says: "- -" => which creates a match with FIRE
- the second feature of the 'dynamic profile' says: "+" => which creates a match with AIR
- the third feature of the 'dynamic profile' says: "- -" => which creates a match with EARTH.

(Thiis implicates that WATER is ruled out here as an option, because there is NO connection!)

Now, IF we had found here 2 or 3 matches with one element... the analysis would have ended here. Because then that element would for sure be the dominant element.

NOTICE: Tap, maybe it is not surprising that the analysis for this hand does not end here... afterall, you wanted to discuss this hand because you perceived a problem to identify the dominant hand shape!

STEP 3: Did we find the dominant element? If not, we continue looking for 'dynamic profile' similarites:

Now that we know that the hand shape for this hand can only be described as 'mix of elements', we now have to find out which of the three elements is most dominant!

Therefore we now can starting comparing the full 'dynamic profile' ("- - | + | - -") with the profiles for each of the three elements left:

- FIRE: "- - | - | -" => match for 1st feature, 3rd feature points in the same direction
- EARTH: "- | ++ | - -" => match for 3rd feature, 1st feature points in the same direction
- AIR: "++| + | +" => only a match for 2nd feature.

Now we see that the similarity for HAND 1 with AIR is rather weak, because the 1st and 3rd feature actually show a large contradiction!

So, now we know that HAND 1 is a mix of FIRE & EARTH... which also expected by looking at the chart with the elemental axes!!! cheers

STEP 4: How to find out how strong the connection with an element is?

One can calculate the percentage for each element as follows for each of 3 aspects in the dynamic profile:

- count two points for any match;
- count one point if the hand and the element point into the same direction (for example one is '++' and the other is "+"; or one is "- -" and the other is "-");
- discount a half point if the hand and the element point in the opposite direction ("+" versus "-");
- discount one point if the hand and the element make a strong contradiction (such as "++" versus "-" or "--" versus "+");
- discount two points if the hand and the element make a full contradiction ("++" versus "- - ")

Now, applying these rules for HAND 1 this gives the following percentages for the mix between FIRE and EARTH:

- FIRE: 2.5 points out of max. 6 points = 43 %
- EARTH: 4 points out of max 6 points = 67 %

So, in hand 1 EARTH is the most dominant element... however it makes a strong mix with FIRE.

HAND 2:

Tap, the guidelines which presented at step 4 can also be used at once in order to calculate the percentages for each of the elements. Then it only requires an analysis of the 'matches' to find out which element is most dominant for the hand shape.

I will give you now the percentages for hands 2 (-/-- | + | - -) plus my conclusion, and I think this might now make sense for you:

- FIRE: "- - | - | -" (1 match)
- EARTH: "- | ++ | - -" => 2 matches, so hand 2 is EARTH hand shape!
- WATER: "+ | - - | ++" (0 matches)
- AIR: "++| + | +" (1 match)

IMPORTANT: Regarding the first aspect in the 'dynamic profile' for hand 2 ("-/-- | + | - -") since the first proportional element for hand 2 (7.5) is exactly between the first proportion for the fire hand (7.3) and the first proportion for the earth hand shape (7.7), one can simply chose between the "-" and the "- -" in order to make a percentage score as high as possible. This also explains why we find 4 'matches' for hand 2...!!!

Percentages for hand 2 are:

- FIRE: 42% (2.5 points out of max. 6 points) + 1 match
- EARTH: 67% (4 points out of max. 6 points) + 2 matches.
- WATER: 0% (-3.5 points)
- AIR: 0% (- 1 point) + 1 match

CONCLUSION FOR HAND 1 & HAND 2:

- Hand 1: mix of EARTH hand shape (67%) + FIRE hand shape (42%)
- Hand 2: EARTH hand shape (83%)

Sponsored content