Re: III - Thumbrule DMIT - IQ TEST: Does intelligence correlate with fingerprints & dermatoglyphics?

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:43 pm

Hello mister Karan Behl,

First of all, welcome at this forum!!!

And thank you for joining this discussion & expressing your interest in this discussion. I also appreciate you sharing your points of view - e.g. by explaining the marketing point of view.

But beyond the aspects that relate to marketing, my major focus of interest (and worries) relate to the 'validity' of the Dermatoglyphic Multiple Intelligene Test.

In this perspective I find you choice-of-words interesting, because you started describing DMIT here as a 'new theory'. However, the marketing strategy for this product at your website suggests that DMIT is not just a 'theory' - because your website describes the following (http://www.thumbrule.in/faqs.htm):

"Q3. How accurate is the dermatoglyphics multiple intelligences test?

Dermatoglyphics is a professional industry that combines neurobiology, genetics and embrology. Fingerprint patterns are not random. They are arranged according to individual genetic make up.

Dermatoglyphics multiple intelligences test is scientifically proven. Besides, the data acquisition process is computerised. Therefore, we can achieve an accuracy of more than 80%."

I think these words raise a lot of questions. for example, it remains unclear what the '80% accuracy' really implicates. Therefore I would like to invite you to respond/answer the following 4 questions of mine:

1 - How was the '80% accuracy' established? Can you share with us at least a few more details?

(Preferably details that are not yet mentioned at your website, because I have reasons to assume that this percentage only relates to the technical reliability related to scanning a fingerprint. But I think that the 80% percentage is not an indication for the 'validity' of the DMIT test)

2 - Can you please explain how the 'validity' of the DMIT test is safeguared?

(Are you sure that DMIT really measures what it says - NOTICE: the PDF-file that describes the concept of DMIT suggests that the test measures various types of intelligence, it says: "Assess your EQ, IQ, AQ, CQ" ... but I believe it is obvious that there is no single test in the world which would dare to make such an ambitious claim, and therefore this obviously raises the question: is this really a realist claim?)

3 - Obviously DMIT works with Howard Gardner's theory about 'multiple intelligences'. But despite the vocabulary used in his theory, Gardner has explained that his theory much more relates to talents ... than IQ (you can see this confirmed in the video below - which I have presented earlier in this topic).

But your website does suggest that DMIT can the measure the IQ of a person. How can we understand this in the perspective of the fact that Howard Gardner explained himself that his theory about 'multiple intelligences' is by fact not about IQ at al...???

4 - And what are your thoughts regarding so-called 'Barnum-effect' (or 'Forer-effect')? Would you think that these psychological phenomena could play a role in how parents, actors, singers and sportspersons perceive the outcome of the DMIT test?

Dear mister Karan Behl, I would really appreciate if you try to answer these questions carefully.

Thanks!

karanbehl Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:43 pm

Dear Martinj,

Thanks for your reply.

My answer is as below :

1 - How was the '80% accuracy' established? Can you share with us at least a few more details?

"An independent research was done by the taiwan based researchers on hundreds of children excelling in any of the eight intelligences and studying their finger print patterns. When we launched this India, we took a sample size of more than 50 children for each intelligence which were believed to be higher in one particular intelligence (lets say children with good inborn musical abilities came out to be higher on musical intelligence, 2nd highest was linguistic intelligence, children with good mental mathematics abilities came out be high on logical intelligence and so forth) which reconfirmed the validity of the report.

Another validation which we did at our end by giving paper pen based MI test to more than thousand people who understood psychometric testing very well and could understand the questions and answer these in right way (many of them were psychologists or corporate people). Our DMIT report which was done by taking finger print scans and their own assessment results came out to be 80% same and on the basis of this, we can make a claim of 80% accuracy. Those both tests by done by separate groups, so that results are not influenced. "

2 - Can you please explain how the 'validity' of the DMIT test is safeguared?

(Are you sure that DMIT really measures what it says - NOTICE: the PDF-file that describes the concept of DMIT suggests that the test measures various types of intelligence, it says: "Assess your EQ, IQ, AQ, CQ" ... but I believe it is obvious that there is no single test in the world which would dare to make such an ambitious claim, and therefore this obviously raises the question: is this really a realist claim?)

"I totally agree with your objection that these words (if taken in exact sense) are not rightly describing the concept. It is again multiple intelligence. In our theory, EQ is nothing but a combination of Intrapersonal & Interpersonal intelligence, IQ is Logical + Linguistic intelligence, AQ is bodily kinesthetic & Naturalistic intelligence, CQ is visual spatial & Musical intelligence. These quotients are very well defined in our report and we have no intention to confuse the customer taking this test. This is our definition of these quotients clearly mentioned in the report"

3 - Obviously DMIT works with Howard Gardner's theory about 'multiple intelligences'. But despite the vocabulary used in his theory, Gardner has explained that his theory much more relates to talents ... than IQ (you can see this confirmed in the video below - which I have presented earlier in this topic).

"Again a difference of vocabulary. In our country, people only knew about IQ test and no one was aware of Multiple intelligence. So we used IQ to show their logical & linguistic ability. The main purpose of MI theory is to tell people that every one is unique and you can not compare 2 human beings on the basis of their IQ score. A very good sportperson might not have high IQ score but very high bodily kinesthetic talent, same is true with musician. Our reports are intra comparative reports which means that you highest ability (which means your highest ridge count of one finger) is considered as your highest ability and all other abilities are compared to this. you can not compare reports of 2 different people just by looking at the size of bar graph. This help parents understanding their own child rather than comparing him/her with other children."

But your website does suggest that DMIT can the measure the IQ of a person. How can we understand this in the perspective of the fact that Howard Gardner explained himself that his theory about 'multiple intelligences' is by fact not about IQ at al...???

"Again IQ is not the number which we are measuring but we are only measuring their logical and linguistic intelligence."

4 - And what are your thoughts regarding so-called 'Barnum-effect' (or 'Forer-effect')? Would you think that these psychological phenomena could play a role in how parents, actors, singers and sportspersons perceive the outcome of the DMIT test?

" I believe Barnum effect is applicable to all Psychometric testing, Palmistry, horoscopes but yes, in DMIT we have one very good example to quote which makes me believe that there is no Barnum effect. Once all marketing team did test on few children and from the results, we had to identify children with learning disabilities and I can tell, we could very well do it. Now I leave this open for everyone who is taking DMI assessment to decide about the Barnum effect."

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:11 pm

karanbehl wrote:Dear Martinj,

Thanks for your reply.

My answer is as below :

1 - How was the '80% accuracy' established? Can you share with us at least a few more details?

"An independent research was done by the taiwan based researchers on hundreds of children excelling in any of the eight intelligences and studying their finger print patterns. When we launched this India, we took a sample size of more than 50 children for each intelligence which were believed to be higher in one particular intelligence (lets say children with good inborn musical abilities came out to be higher on musical intelligence, 2nd highest was linguistic intelligence, children with good mental mathematics abilities came out be high on logical intelligence and so forth) which reconfirmed the validity of the report.

Another validation which we did at our end by giving paper pen based MI test to more than thousand people who understood psychometric testing very well and could understand the questions and answer these in right way (many of them were psychologists or corporate people). Our DMIT report which was done by taking finger print scans and their own assessment results came out to be 80% same and on the basis of this, we can make a claim of 80% accuracy. Those both tests by done by separate groups, so that results are not influenced. "

Hello mister Karan Behl,

Thank you very much for your efforts to answer my questions. Thumb up

Though I must admit that your answers are fascinating at first sight, I would like to ask you to share more details in order to get the validity of your answers confirmed.

For example:

In your answer to my first question, you've mentioned 3 studies: beyond your own two studies, you have referred to a study from Taiwan.

I also notice that you are using a rather 'unusual' way to describe the test-persons involved in your studies:

- e.g. "...50 children for each intelligence which were believed to be higher in one particular intelligence "
- e.g. "....thousand people who understood psychometric testing very well..."

Your words sounds like there was some kind of a selection-process involved in order to find suitable test-persons, but because your words are rather 'ambiguous'... this makes me wonder: did your selection process continue after an analysis of the DMIT results became known? If not, can you describe more details about the selection process?

So, basically I am wondering: are you willing to share more details about your own studies? I assume that there is some kind of written reports available to you: would you be willing to share more details regarding the statistical analysis of the data & your research procedure, etc?

Secondly, regarding the study from Taiwan: I am wondering... are you referring here to Mary Lai's research, or Tom Lim's research partners in Taiwan? Or are you referring a study made by other researchers?

Anyway, can you please present more details about how the Taiwanees study exactly relates to DMIT?

PS. In advance, I would be surprized (again) IF you are using Mary Lai's study or Roger Lin's studies as an 'independent research' as a validation of your DMIT product, because... this would imply that you indirectly claim that Mary Lai or Tom Lim has TESTED your product - which is as far as I know not the case.

Maybe I am making incorrect associations here regarding Mary Lai & Tom Lim, but Ed Campbell sort of informed me in the past that there have been contacts between Mary Lai and Tom Lim, the CEO. of 'GeneCode International' (www.genecode.com.my).

I guess it would also be interesting to hear a bit more about how 'Thumbrule' relates to 'Gened Code International'? Is there any connection between both companies?

PPS. I have a few more questions, but for the moment I'll now first wait for your answers to the questions that I have just presented.

**Handreadered** Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:01 pm

In your cultural insularity, after disparaging the advertisement of potential child suicides, you said “In this perspective. It is quite shocking for me to see that Ed Campbell recently became a franchisee of the DMIT product.” So you accused me of being a shocking person.

You went on to say “Very disappointing that Ed - despite his rich experience - did not recognize that this D.M.I.T. method is up to the bone a commercial product - which could best be described as a non-scientific method which tends to suggest that it is just trying to be 'helpfull' (for parents and their young children). But the marketing technique includes not only immoral claims, ....

I have always known DMIT is a commercial product and have advocated that such products need to exist for decades. I see nothing immoral in the products. The advertising may be in error on historical points (of no particular significance except to some academic with his nose lost in the books. Martjin are you saying (and a Dutchman yet!) that commerce is immoral? I believe that Karan Behl has answered you morality arguments.

Well if I misquoted you it was a minor error as you seemed to have adopted Patti’s observations, at least where it was convenient for you to do so.

I would not put Martjin up as a leading light on fingerprints or dermatoglyphics. I highly respect him for his proven ability as a webmaster. His websites have been remarkable. But I do not put him in the same league as Dr. Wang Chenxia, with over two dozen books to her credit, and research based upon 230,000 patients. She has even offered to me, if I can put the resources together, to let me translate and digitize her entire medical library with its 230,000 photos of hands taken by her and at her clinic. She even has photos of my hands. You can’t visit her clinic without getting your hands photographed (with very good DSLR cameras). Perhaps her records might satisfy Martjin that she can diagnose at least a hundred and twenty or more medical conditions from the hand, including more recently her own stage one cervical cancer. I may loose this rare opportunity to put together fth first major international hand library because I an lacking funding to cover even the initial costs of analyzing what it will costs to do the work and set up this eventually multilingual research library that would be available on the web.. As you have little regard for commercial purposes, how good is your printing press Martjin?

Of course, I would put Mary Lai close to Chenxia’s level. Mary has not published as many books, but has taken her program to many areas in Asia and studied thousands of children, over 100,000 by now. One of her books she had translated into English for me: “The Value of Applying Dermatoglyphics To Special Education.” It was published in the papers of the 16th World Congress of the IUAES in 2009 in Kunming, China. The IUAES is the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. The study actually contains some statistical charts. It was made with the support of the following participating organizations: Xiamen Academy of Education Science, China Xiamen Siming District Special Education School, National Hualien Special Education School, Hong Kong Horizons Development Centre (where PDC students studied) HHCKLA Buddhist Po Kwong School and Indonesia Autistic School. You can order a copy from Mary’s Mind Measurement Education Association in Taipei. But you, Martjin, are so brilliant that without ever going to such conferences or reading the literature, you dan state that all of DMIT is without any scientific foundation.

Martjin: You are not qualified to judge the subject.

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:20 pm

Handreadered wrote:... Martjin: You are not qualified to judge the subject.

Ed, can you please explain... what would have made me a 'qualified judge' for this DMIT subject - from your point of view?

PS. Can I remind you:

You have informed us via your recent e-mail that the DMIT-company does not share any research data - which they consider as 'closely guarded trade secrets' (your words).

Additionally... Ed, since I am a 'data guy'... I am also very aware that you yourself have never put any 'data requirements' for people/companies to present their research in an IBMBS presentation.

However, don't you think that the complex nature of 'biometrics'... always requires a proper data analysis? (I do think so, and without any doubt: you will get this confirmed by any traditional biometry-professional - since in the perspective of 'biometrics' this is just common sense)

Now, since the DMIT guys have made no data available to the world... I think that THEY leave an outsider (like me) only the opportunity to judge the quality of the DMIT product via the sample-reports & websites.

Based on those materials I have shared quite a few examples which indicate that quite some of their claims are not realistic. I'll give you another example of this:

At page 10 in the 'Thumbrule Booklet' we can read that they developers suggest that Down syndrome is typically featured with a 'total ridge count' < 60, but from my experience I know that this is for sure... 100% NONSENSE!

(What you should know is that I have collected many materials related to this specific topic - including handprints of people who have Down syndrome - and I could even present technical evidence why the info presented at page 10 is not reliable at all. The truth is that average TRC in Down syndrome is usually within the range 90 to 135, and often only slightly lower than the TRC in normal controls)

Ed, this brings me to a second question:

If I had joined the 2011 IBMBS conference, do you really think that this would have made me a 'qualified judge' regarding DMIT?

(I hope your answer will be a 'no', however, from my point of view you have suggested thus far with your words that maybe for you this could make the difference)

Patti Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:37 am

karanbehl wrote:. Our product speaks for us and I request anyone who is interested in taking a demo test can send us their finger print scans and see the results before commenting on the subject.

Hello Karan,

Welcome to the forum and thank you for participating in this discussion.

I am definitely interested in participating in a demo test!

Thanks!

**Handreadered** Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:06 am

Martjin: If you really want to follow the studies that Mary Lai and other dermatoglyphic students have made in Asia you should get copies of her published works the Value of Applying Dermatoglyphics to Special Education 2009. There are at least three statistical studies reported there, along with an explanation of how she and MME developed the work using gheir data base of over 10,000 by comparing quantitative results eoith the findings of neuropsychologists on psychological and cognitive development. For further studies you should then refer to the report in the 1st MME & Dactylographic Research Announcement Conference 2006 with 13 + contributions including one by the leading expert from China on dermatoglyphics, Zhang HaiGuo, Department of Medical Genetics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. For the latest I suggest that you study the report of the 2010 MME conference, with its many statistical studies found in the 25 contributions. You will also find that ADRC, which represents Thumbrule, is made of of multilingual staff, some, such as Marcus Leng, who are fluent in Chinese. Those in the west are far behind the curve on these studies. It has been my pleasure and privilege to meet many of these people and other leading students of dermatoglyphics in Asia. The Chinese are long serious students in this field of science as shown by another I met in China, Research Professor Shao Ziwang, Vice Director of Dermatoglyphics Group of China Genetics Society and Vice Director of Scientific Committee of Henan Province Old People Sports Association and author of the 1989 published study “Selection of Athletes by Dermatoglyphics.” I covered more of her work in my upcoming book. She had the privilege to make statistical studies of China’s world class and Olympian athletes as well as normal sports men and women and statistically compare their fingerprints. Obviously she must have had some support and cooperation from the PRC. She, like Wang Chenxia, is one of their special treasures who can only travel abroad by special permission. She did find some correspondences to success in sports and a certain print. I have an autographed copy of her book that she gave me. The ISBN # is 7-5009-0403-7 G . 380 if you want to order it but unfortunately it is in Chinese. However, since you are a young man you may find it useful to learn the language if you want to contribute to the future of this field and understand the research being conducted in it. I am 74 so I shall not really be needing it and they tolerate me (probably the Asian respect for age) furnishing me guides and translators for my visits.

I am sure that if your studies are so relaible, then you must have published them somewhere besides your own web site. I am sure they would have been welcome at the Asian conferences I attended and you were always welcome (but perhaps too good) to attend and present your studies at our IBMBS conferences. Perhapos it is just safer to sit back in Holland and kibitz

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:37 am

Handreadered wrote:Martjin: If you really want to follow the studies that Mary Lai and other dermatoglyphic students have made in Asia you should get copies of her published works the Value of Applying Dermatoglyphics to Special Education 2009. ... There are at least three statistical studies reported there, along with an explanation of how she and MME developed the work ..

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your suggestion(s) regarding books. But since you also mentioned that Mary Lai's work is usually not available in English language... is the title that you mentioned available in English language?

And where would I be able to get a copy of her work?
Does she have a website?

(I can not find any info about the title that you have mentioned above, can you confirm that you spelled it correctly: 'Value of Applying Dermatoglyphics to Special Education')

wave

PS. By the way, Ed I want you also to know that your own words have fueled my doubts about DMIT as well - since you have informed me in the past that the DMIT-guys decided to go 'the commercial way'... and Mary didn't like that at all, resulting in that the two parties decided to go their own way. This gives me reasons to assume that Mary is not involved in any validation proces of the DMIT product. So, despite my fundamental interest in Mary's work ... I dare to question whether that will help me to change my opinion about DMIT, because I observe so many 'speculative elements' in their work PLUS quite a few obvious mistakes - like the 'Total Ridge Count' (TRC) example which I mentioned in my former post. Maybe it would be helpfull if you share your thoughts regarding that TRC example with me ...?

karanbehl Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:07 pm

Hi Martinj,

Thanks for your queries. I am running short of time today, will reply back tomorrow.

@ Patti :

Hello Karan,

Welcome to the forum and thank you for participating in this discussion.

I am definitely interested in participating in a demo test!

you can send us your finger print scans, if you have an access to any biometric scanner we will generate a report for you and send you the same.

Thanks for your interest..

Patti Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:23 pm

karanbehl wrote:Hi Martinj,

Thanks for your queries. I am running short of time today, will reply back tomorrow.

@ Patti :

Hello Karan,

Welcome to the forum and thank you for participating in this discussion.

I am definitely interested in participating in a demo test!

you can send us your finger print scans, if you have an access to any biometric scanner we will generate a report for you and send you the same.

Thanks for your interest..

Oh, too bad, I would only be able to send normal ink prints.
Thanks anyway.

**Handreadered** Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:11 pm

Martjin: You said that “What you should know is that I have collected many materials related to this specific topic - including handprints of people who have Down syndrome - and I could even present technical evidence why the info presented at page 10 is not reliable at all. The truth is that average TRC in Down syndrome is usually within the range 90 to 135, and often only slightly lower than the TRC in normal controls.” That is nice. What did you do with it? Mary Lai and MME published their study of dermatoglyphic features including atd angle of 149 Down’s Syndrom babies in her work, “The Value of Applying Dermatoglyphics to Special Education.)

Presented at the 16th IUAES Conference at Hunnan University in Kunming, China in 2009. You might like that little book, with its statistics, charts, drawings and perhaps a few case studies. She also presented her study of 107 autistic children until September, 2006 and a comparison relationship of autism with Down’s syndrome. She discussed behavior and the relationship found with various dermatoglyphic patterns.

You said, Martjin: “you have informed me in the past that the DMIT-guys decided to go 'the commercial way'... and Mary didn't like that at all, resulting in that the two parties decided to go their own way. This gives me reasons to assume that Mary is not involved in any validation process of the DMIT product.” Please send me a copy of that statement as I do not recall ever making it. The MMEA product is commercial. It is not given away for free. In England you can contact Miffy Loxton (Fang Jung Lai) an educator in Leeds, and a former chief assistant to Mary Lai who represents MME in the UK. Writer me at my regular email and I will give you her contact. She can train you or any other interested person in or who can get to the UK in how to use the MMEA system and set you up with an account.. She can also help you to get a copy of the book if copies are still available. She has been the chief translator for messages between Mary and I for some time. Also, please send me a copy ofmy statement that Mary Lai didn’t like the commercialization of the product by others, such as Lysander Poon and Marcus Leng. I really do not recall ever making such a statement.

I am sure Miffy can answer questions on ridge counting better than I. I concentrate on patterns, not ridge counting. One does not need to know about ridge counting to apply my work. But I am learning and will learn more in time. One thing I learned while in Malaysia, from the retired police official Sivaraj, is that in forensics one does not count the interstitial ridges. So that requires a resolution good enough to recognize the sweat pours in the ridges to distinguish them from interstitial ridges. I presume this will become the standard of Thumbrule as Sivaraj has become a consultant. I don’t know if this was applied to earlier studies or if it may make that big of a difference. I do know that interstitial ridges may form in adults, and are more likely formed in males than females, or so the forensic literature I have seen says. When ever formed, they make no significant difference in the patterns.

karanbehl Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:03 am

Hi Martinj,

My reply is below :

In your answer to my first question, you've mentioned 3 studies: beyond your own two studies, you have referred to a study from Taiwan.

I also notice that you are using a rather 'unusual' way to describe the test-persons involved in your studies:

- e.g. "...50 children for each intelligence which were believed to be higher in one particular intelligence "
- e.g. "....thousand people who understood psychometric testing very well..."

Your words sounds like there was some kind of a selection-process involved in order to find suitable test-persons, but because your words are rather 'ambiguous'... this makes me wonder: did your selection process continue after an analysis of the DMIT results became known? If not, can you describe more details about the selection process?

So, basically I am wondering: are you willing to share more details about your own studies? I assume that there is some kind of written reports available to you: would you be willing to share more details regarding the statistical analysis of the data & your research procedure, etc?

" First of all, there was no as such Suspicious selection process. The 50 children which we choose for our first study were those who were excelling in music, another 50 students were doing in activities like extempore, public speech etc, another 50 who were good in mental mathematics etc..so children from 8 different fields were selected.

Second study (where I mentioned people who understood psychometric testing well), we choose people who have already been giving psychometric test or were involved in conducting these test..Tthe simple reason for this was, if we gave it to some layman or some student we could not expect them to understand the questions & answer them correctly.. The disadvantage of psychometric testing is that the result depends on your understanding of questions..You might read a question casually and tick on any answer.. So we wanted a batch of serious people who could answer about themselves.

What came out from our study was just our own validity of the test and results of this study is the very base of our software. If we share this results, anyone can create a software for DMI and start running a company. But yes, we are submitting it to national institute of psychology to get their validation. This research process is still going on and we will be having a number of close to 5000 in another 3-4 months time."

Secondly, regarding the study from Taiwan: I am wondering... are you referring here to Mary Lai's research, or Tom Lim's research partners in Taiwan? Or are you referring a study made by other researchers?

Anyway, can you please present more details about how the Taiwanees study exactly relates to DMIT?

"We are no way related to Mary Lai research. Program which me and Tom Lim company use has come from the same source in Taiwan and I don't think we can reveal the name of our source on a public forum. Interesting point here is Genecode still doesn't own their software and they are dependent on a company in Taiwan for their report generation. They only have their own template which is presenting the results of study in their own format"

PS. In advance, I would be surprized (again) IF you are using Mary Lai's study or Roger Lin's studies as an 'independent research' as a validation of your DMIT product, because... this would imply that you indirectly claim that Mary Lai or Tom Lim has TESTED your product - which is as far as I know not the case.

Maybe I am making incorrect associations here regarding Mary Lai & Tom Lim, but Ed Campbell sort of informed me in the past that there have been contacts between Mary Lai and Tom Lim, the CEO. of 'GeneCode International' ( www.genecode.com.my).

I guess it would also be interesting to hear a bit more about how 'Thumbrule' relates to 'Gened Code International'? Is there any connection between both companies?

" Thumbrule has no association with Genecode. We are 2 different companies with no relation to each other."

cargoluxter Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:32 pm

Question:
Bioinformatics elaborates two types of genes i.e. dominant and recessive genes. With dominant genes our known abilities/characters are described. whereas character and abilities of recessive genes are not expressed. How finger prints aids in the discription of recessive genes?

Kindly
Karan
Martijn
And
Ed Campbell
Please Give Your Thoughts.

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:06 pm

karanbehl wrote:... If we share this results, anyone can create a software for DMI and start running a company. But yes, we are submitting it to national institute of psychology to get their validation. This research process is still going on and we will be having a number of close to 5000 in another 3-4 months time."

... "We are no way related to Mary Lai research. Program which me and Tom Lim company use has come from the same source in Taiwan and I don't think we can reveal the name of our source on a public forum. [/color]

Hello Karan Behl,

Thank you again for your attempts to answer my questions.

In summary, I can not accept your answers for 2 reasons:

- First of all, I have asked you to share at least a few more details from the results in your studies. And though you have shared some info, you obviously refuse to share ANY details from your studies at all - with the argument that it could hurt the interests of your company, because you fear that "anyone can create a software for DMI and start running a company".

Sorry, this sounds quite unrealistic to me. Because I wasn't asking you to share your full database & the results that you found - I only asked you to share the results of your data analysis.

- Second, I have asked you to reveal the names of the people from Taiwan who are involved in the 'independent research' that you've mentioned. And again ... you appear to be hiding behind an unrealistic argument: "I don't think we can reveal the name of our source on a public forum".

Sorry again, but I don't understand why are you are not willing to share the name of those Taiwanees researchers. Because, you claim that your product is supported by serious (independend) research... but if you are not willing to substantiate this claim, then your claim becomes meaningless. Please be aware: for the world.... any 'fraud' could make likewise claims!!!

Finally, after sharing my questions and studying your answers... I conclude that you are using claims that you can not support at all.

Because you are claiming that your product "... can achieve an accuracy of more than 80%". But I have noticed that GeneCode is using exactly the same claim, though they are using sort of the same percentage in a completely different perspective, because GeneCode (http://www.genecode.com.my/v2/derma_faq02.html ) claims the following:

"Q7. Will fingerprints explain innate defects?
They will assist in determining innate defects. Through clinical trials, fingerprints and palm prints are analysed to help determine the presence of genetic diseases, psychological disorders and other related ailments. According to recent reports, dozens of genetic diseases can be identified through fingerprint analysis, and some of them can be identified through this means alone with more than 80% accuracy. For examples: Articles regarding dyslexia and autism."

Coincidence? I don't think so, because, while you claim that ThumbRule has no connection with GeneCode at all, I think it is very obviously (from the details presented at both websites) that both compagnies are claiming that the validity of their product is backed by an (unknown) Taiwanees source.

And this conclusion of mine is confirmed by a passage on page 5 in your sample report ( http://www.thumbrule.in/samplereport.htm ) , which says:

"... In fact, in Germany dermatoglyphic assessment has been taken very seriously indeed, to the extend that computer programmes have now been designed to perform rapid multi-variate assessments of hand imprints which can predict with up to 80% accuracy the chances of a new born child developing heart disease, cancer, leukaemia, diabetes or mental illness."

There is the '80%' again...!???

So. obviously you are using a 80% claim in multiple-perspectives! And though I recognize that the 80% claim in the quote above can probably be tracked down to the work of Alexander Rodewald from Germany... I am also aware that Rodewald's claims relate to medical problems only. So, one can certainly not make likewise high claims regarding any aspect from the fields of psychology.

Oh, and by the way... the claims presented by GeneCode are not realistic either - for multiple reasons. For example: I am very aware of the few dermatoglyphic reports available related to the topic of 'dyslexia', and by far these reports do not reach anyhow to a percentage of 80% in the perspective of issues of reliability/validity.

PS. Regarding your comment:

karanbehl wrote:"I totally agree with your objection that these words (if taken in exact sense) are not rightly describing the concept. It is again multiple intelligence. In our theory, EQ is nothing but a combination of Intrapersonal & Interpersonal intelligence, IQ is Logical + Linguistic intelligence, AQ is bodily kinesthetic & Naturalistic intelligence, CQ is visual spatial & Musical intelligence. These quotients are very well defined in our report and we have no intention to confuse the customer taking this test. This is our definition of these quotients clearly mentioned in the report"

Sorry, this answer is quite unacceptable. Because in your materials you explicitely use the example of Down syndrome to back your claims. However, Down syndrome obviously relates directly to a low IQ - as defined according the classic definition of intelligence.

I can present 2 examples which illustrate how you have incorporated confusing materials regarding the issue of intelligence:

EXAMPLE 1:

I already pointed out to Ed that:

"At page 10 in the 'Thumbrule Booklet' we can read that they developers suggest that Down syndrome is typically featured with a 'total ridge count' < 60, but from my experience I know that this is for sure... 100% NONSENSE!"

So, obviously you are presenting materials which suggest that when you are talking about IQ, you are talking about the traditional concept of intelligence (= IQ). And while you have claimed that in your product IQ is defined in a different way: "IQ is Logical + Linguistic intelligence"... the truth is that you are sort of only re-producing the concepts used by Howard Gardner. But these become highly confusing concepts in the context that you have created yourself.

Because, again, in your definition of IQ you are suggesting that you are not using the traditional concept to define IQ. However, many traditional IQ-tests include a 'logic' and a 'linguistic' component. So... what is the difference really?

EXAMPLE 2:

Also, on page 16 in your sample report ( http://www.thumbrule.in/samplereport.htm ) you are using the concept 'learning sensitivity' and you are suggesting that this concept directly relates to the palmar dermatoglyphics: the AtD angle.

At first sight this could make sense, because the speed of processing info... is for sure an issue which has a strong and high correlation with intelligence (IQ) - because any IQ-test usually requires a person to perform the test within a certain amount of time. And because a high AtD-angle is nearly always seen in Down syndrome, one could expect that the AtD-angle also plays a significant role in intelligence.

However... it is quite funny to notice that you are even presenting the results of a study in your section 'scientific data' which suggests that there is no correlation at all between the AtD-angle and IQ at all, see: http://www.thumbrule.in/scientificdata.htm

"Abstract: This research applies the Combined Ravens Test by Li Dan et al on 767 primary and secondary students ranging from 8 to 13 years old. This test provides us with information regarding their intellect and fingerprint. Effectual results total up to 723 sets. Multivariate regression, multiple stepwise regression and other related methods were used to analyse the correlation between intellect and fingerprint patterns. The results show that intellect and the atd angle, the number of a-b inter-ridge pattern and bow-type pattern yield no significant correlation. Higher level of correlation is detected for Wd, Lr, SC, I3 and I4ridges. With that, the regression equation between Lr, I3 and I4 is deduced and poses huge benefits for subject choices for young children."

NOTICE: The 'Raven test' is known as a rather popular IQ test - focussed on a non-verbal visual aspect of general intelligence.

So, this reference includes CONTRACTIVE evidence regarding your claims. Oh, and by the way... regarding the Barcelona-study that you mentioned on that page as well, I am familiar with the details of that study, and for sure: that study does not present any evidence which confirms that the results can be applied reliably to individuals.

Mister Karan Behl, for me it is very obvious that your website raises the question:
how much experience do you really have in both fields - the field of dermatoglyphics AND the field of psychology?

Because the IQ-related concepts on your websites are quite confusing (basically because you have mixed Howard Gardner's theory with the traditional definition of IQ), you do not seem understand that your claims are far too ambitious to be true, and there are also contradictive elements in the materials that you present (I have just described 2 examples).

And then it is also worrisome to notice that you show no willingness to share any authentic details from the studies - nor share the names of any of the what you called 'independent' researchers - of which you assume that they confirm the reliability of the DMIT. So far you have only presented smooth talks... but 'zero' evidence.

Now, if DMIT would really work... that would make it the very first biometric IQ-test in the world, and I am quite sure that you could easily become a MILLIONAIRE if you would be able to present solid evidence for the validity of this test.

But so far, from my point of view, everything points into the direction that DMIT is not much more than a pseudo-scientific product build constructed with unvalidated ideas & theories. And since the argument used for not sharing any research details... is not backed by sharing any PROOF that those studies really exist, one could even argue that this argument could even be recognized as a 'cheap trick' that can be used by anyone - especially a smart marketeer.

**kiwihands** Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:44 pm

Without actually meaning to get involved in this discussion (no publicly available information, so I can't form an opinion), I have to note that phrases like "can predict with up to 80% accuracy" always sound like deepest legalese to me, which never inspires much confidence. If anyone was to complain that the analysis didn't work, they can always say, well, we didn't claim that the system does predict with 80% accuracy.

I can (in theory) hit a target with a crossbow with up to 80% accuracy, if the wind is right and I have a lucky day, even if I'd be miles off for the rest of the year.

Just sayin'... Wink

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:01 pm

cargoluxter wrote:Question:
Bioinformatics elaborates two types of genes i.e. dominant and recessive genes. With dominant genes our known abilities/characters are described. whereas character and abilities of recessive genes are not expressed. How finger prints aids in the discription of recessive genes?

Kindly
Karan
Martijn
And
Ed Campbell
Please Give Your Thoughts.

Hello cargoluxter,

That's quite a fascinating question!

But I think this forum does not include any gene-experts at all. And I am not sure whether the link between various types of genes & fingerprints (which indeed has been described in various studies)... has ever been studied in the perspective of behavior related qualities - like the example of 'character' that you've mentioned.

So, I am not able to answer your specific question (and I don't want to speculate about issues related to fingerprints that possibly have never ever been studied by reseachers).

Thanks!

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:25 pm

Dear Ed,

Now, almost 2 weeks later after we continued this discussion about DMIT... I have found a 2nd dramatic mistake in your responses to my words:

I will now first point out to the sequence in your postings - which indicates that a LARGE PART of your writings about me... appears to be a projection of your feelings about Patti's words....!!!?

Because, after I have pointed out to the following horrible 'misquote' in your writing:

Handreadered wrote:Martjin, You said: “This system is very similar in way to Richard Unger’s system in that it consists of concepts about dermatoglyphics that have yet to be proven. There are no statistics other than people’s self reports. I would imagine the placebo effect (which a large portion of the human population is sensitive to) accounts for a large number of clients pleased with the results.” You could also make the same remarks about my work, that of Jennifer Hirsch, Ronelle Coburn and works going back to Noel Jaquin in the 1930's. You basically call us all liars or stupid.

... you responded first with a short appology (which I accept), but then you made another likewise mistake by assuming that I had somewhere accepted Patti's associations between DMIT & Richard Unger's work. For, you wrote:

Handreadered wrote:Well if I misquoted you it was a minor error as you seemed to have adopted Patti’s observations, at least where it was convenient for you to do so.

Ed, if you start reading back to page 4 of this topic (where Patti made her comment about DMIT & Richard Unger)... you will see that I have only thanked Patti for sharing her thoughts, and I have shared a short response focussed on the aspect of validation - but I did not comment at all on how Patti perceives similarities between DMIT & Richard Unger's system

Secondly, Ed, please be aware: on page 5 of this topic both Patti & Lynn have signaled to you earlier in this topic that you gave them the impression that you got confused:

Patti wrote: "I think there might be some miscommunication between you and Martijn."

Lynn wrote: "Ed, just to let you know I am also reading this, I think you have completely misunderstood where Martijn is coming from in his arguments."

(And later I was able to find the 'misquote' in your words, and now I have pointed out that you made the assumption that I have confirmed the passage in the 'misqute'... which I have by fact not confirmed at all since I did not respond to that passage anyhow at all)

PS. I must also add that you might have misunderstood Patti's association between DMIT & Richard Unger's work as well; because while Patti only pointed out to the 'pioneering' nature of the concepts used in both methods (which I think Patti meant in a positive manner), in response to that specific quote you wrote on page 5 e.g.: [i]"You basically call us all liars or stupid" - (Ed, see the first quote above).

Ed, I hope that this short summary will help you to understand why so many comments that were made by you ... appear to have lost track with reality.

Patti Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:34 pm

Patti wrote:"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

I have been studying some of the materials involved in marketing this concept and have hesitated to get more involved because there are no results of success. The field is too new.

At the same time, I am watching it with great interest. This system is very similar in a way to Richard Unger's system in that it consists of concepts about dermatoglypics that have yet to be proven. There are no statistics other than people's self reports. I would imagine the placebo effect (which a large portion of the human population is sensitive to) accounts for a large number of clients pleased with the results.

Hopefully, in the coming years as these systems are used by more people, the developers (or competitors) could provide data to support (or discredit) their claims.

This is where my interest lies - results.

Perhaps the cries of fraud and lack of scientific evidence will help to inspire these developers to provide credible evidence to support their claims. So to that end, I would not wish to discourage these systems to be actively used.

It seems that this post of mine is being used in a distracting way to settle a disagreement between Martijn , Ed and the various people marketing the DMIT and similar programs.

Most palmistry books, if not all of them, lack data to show the accuracy of their content. It is all based on hand-me-down information and the writer's own experience and additional input. A reader either takes the information at face value or tests it out by putting it into practice. Even when the new information is adopted by professional hand analysts because of the positive responses in readings, the confirmation of this information is based on self-reporting.

Research papers on the other hand contain data that shows the percentage of times something works against the times it doesn't work and should be based on a large number of participants.

I am all for pioneers in this field of hand reading and would like to think of myself as a pioneer with my interest in limb development and using it in combination with other known information on hands and human experience.

I think the argument in this topic is not about anything that I have posted, at all. Instead it is more likely about the threat of the challenging posts that Martijn has made and their influence on the marketing of this system/product.

Hopefully, more information can be forthcoming to support the claims made by those who create new systems in the handreading arena. Otherwise it is about faith and not facts.

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:59 pm

Hi Patti,

Well said, and thank you for explaining the nature of your ealier comments; sounds very realistic to me.

(Again, I did not have any problems myself regarding the passage that was mistakenly quoted by Ed from your post)

Thanks!

Patti Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:00 pm

I would also like to add, that if more time were spent studying the development of the dermatoglyphics and their function, a whole different attitude would come into being and such things as purpose in life and level of intelligence would take second place to "how" a person processes information.

This is a topic I touched on in my written presentation to the IBMBS and to this moment I have only had responses from people I personally shared the report with and not a word from anyone at or related to the conference.

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:12 pm

Patti wrote:I would also like to add, that if more time were spent studying the development of the dermatoglyphics and their function, a whole different attitude would come into being and such things as purpose in life and level of intelligence would take second place to "how" a person processes information.

Sounds fine with me, because finding significant statistics in a 'group study' is one thing... but studying the significance of the dermatoglypics in an individual is another thing.

Thumbs up!

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:13 pm

Ed, regarding your question:

Handreadered wrote:Martjin are you saying (and a Dutchman yet!) that commerce is immoral?

My answer is: no, not at all!

However, I think I have used 'fair' moral standards:

And I would say: when a product is sold by combining (pseudo-)scientific claims with 'half-truths'... then I think one can fairly describe that a product might have become 'up to the bone a commercial product' (quoted from my own words).

I have listed quite a few of my worries earlier in this topic, but I would like to respond now to how you (and Karan Behl) have reponded to the 'moral' element in my long list of worries - regarding the issue of how 'suicide' became a theme in the marketing technique of the DMIT products. I quote:

Handreadered wrote:In your cultural insularity, after disparaging the advertisement of potential child suicides, you said “In this perspective. It is quite shocking for me to see that Ed Campbell recently became a franchisee of the DMIT product.” So you accused me of being a shocking person.

No Ed, I have not suggested you to be a shocking person. But your decision to become a 'Thumbrule business partner' (which is e.g. explicitely exhibited at the ThumbRule website) has shocked and disappointed me. But this should not have surprized you, after I have shared my worries with you earlier this year - especially about how the 'suicide' theme is used in their marketing techniques.

Regarding this issue of the 'suicide' them Karan Behl responded:

karanbehl wrote:My another comment will be regarding the marketing of DMI in east by using an example of suicide rate. We are a country of 1.2 billion people and most of the parents want their kids to become doctor or engineer and no scope for other fields. Even in sports, only cricket is the only option but again you have to do well in maths & science, no matter what you do..If you score less than 95% of marks (in your countries, its grading system but here we have percentage), you will not get admission in your wishlist colleges. In this kind of competitive environment, children with learning disabilities are left with no option but to suicide.

And you asked me for a response in return:

Handreadered wrote:I believe that Karan Behl has answered you morality arguments.

Ed, at first sight Karan Behl's answer may represent an acurate description of how the Indian society works. However... you can not deny that his conclusion is rather remarkable:

"In this kind of competitive environment, children with learning disabilities are left with no option but to suicide."

I say in return: one can not deny that this is a rather provocative statement made by Karan Behl... and this needs a close consideration of the facts:

First of all, thouhg India is known to represent 17% of all suicides around the world - the true impact of this number should be understood in the persective that... 17% of the world population is living in India ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed, you asked me to wake-up for a 'running train'?
And you described my views as 'cultural insulatiry'...? scratch

Well Ed, in response I dare to claim... that the WHO facts should become right now your wake up call:

For, India is actually known to have a suicide rate that is only slightly higher than the average world population:

According 2009 WHO statistics the suicide rate in India is known to be about 10.4 in 100.000 people per year (of which only 37% is aged 30 or lower).

NOTICE: In my own country (The Netherlands) the suicide rate per year is known to be hardly lower compared to India: 9.3 per 100.000 people..

(In the US the suicide rate per year is slightly higher: 11.1 per 100.000 people)

Sources:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html
http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5545;year=2007;volume=49;issue=2;spage=81;epage=84;aulast=Vijaykumar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

thinking

Ed, since the suicide rate in India according the statistics provided by the World Health Organization can be described as: 'only slightly above world rate' (quoted from Wikipedia),

I think the WHO facts disqualify Karan Behl's argument (because even the chance that a child will commit an unsuccessful suicide attempt before the age of 30 is according the statistics for India is still less than 1.0%, and less than 0.1% regarding successful suicide attempt rates - quite a bizar difference compared to the 95% percentage that Karan Behl used in his argument and in the suggestive perspective presented at his website).... and I think the WHO facts also disqualify your suggestion that my moral worries raise from 'cultural insulatiry'.

Patti Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:48 am

At about 40 seconds in:

"in extreme cases there are suicides..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1tr1JgOyU0&context=C2503eADOEgsToPDskJTpq8b0jFDYcSuTBxYn7el

This was uploaded today, by the way.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:20 am

Thanks Patti,

Yes, it has remained a matter of 'extreme cases'. Also, 2010 Statistics indicate that suicide rates in India indeed have been rising significantly - especially among students (see: http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20100205-196894.html

But still, it remains an issue where the statistics also show that the chances for a person to become a suicide-attempt case (or a suicide case) somewhere in their life, are not much higher than double of the percentages that I have shared in my former post.

So reality shows that statements like: 'children with learning disabilities are left with no option but to suicide' (quoted from Karan Behl's words)... are far beyond reality.

Patti Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:12 pm

The article is shocking! I would call this 'death by proxy' rather than suicide. The parents apparently apply inhumane pressure that leads to the unworthy and hopeless youths who are not able to be proud of themselves unless they are the best. Did they forget about diversity. If everyone is an engineer or doctor who is going to fill all the other important and vital community occupations!?

In that sense this type of testing (such as DMIT) would have to based on near absolute confirmed results or those providing the tests are complicit in the future lives wasted and needlessly ended.

By implication, the promise of a biometric test that promises to help children achieve and compete for the top 1 to 5% against their peers adds even another pressure and sense of failure if they do not obtain this goal. Particularly if the testing showed they were qualified. They might then be accused of not achieving their fullest potential and identified as a slacker. But, in actuality they are brilliant, but misled children.

Sponsored content

III - Thumbrule DMIT - IQ TEST: Does intelligence correlate with fingerprints & dermatoglyphics?