Your opinion & share...
Latest topics
» Palm reading please reply.
Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:47 pm by Keeperlit19

» Seeking Medical Palmistry Author
Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:11 pm by jezlucky

» Travel Lines
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:12 am by kalki

» Simian Line / Single Transverse Palmar Crease
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:26 pm by Martijn (admin)

» Hasta Samudrika Shastra - the most ancient palmistry system!
Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:13 am by Martijn (admin)

» Hands & the Major Factor of Personality!
Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:41 pm by Martijn (admin)

» best way to learn
Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:00 pm by Martijn (admin)

» THE MOST CHALLENGING HAND: Simian Lines, Murderer’s Thumbs & Radial loops
Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:05 am by lawrencerook

» Palm is blackish
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:57 am by pravin kumar

» Worries and stress
Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:03 pm by bmcgowra

» is chinese palmistry compatible with western palmistry
Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:49 pm by nuttyprofessor

» wheel sign on the palm
Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:53 pm by appanna

» White spots on palm
Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:05 am by Lynn

» What Does Broken Life Line Indicate?
Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:50 am by amit_plawat

» Discover Multi-Perspective Palm Reading!
Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:55 pm by Martijn (admin)

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Who is online?
In total there are 39 users online :: 2 Registered, 0 Hidden and 37 Guests

Alex90, wilsonhao

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 293 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:22 am
Moderators & partners

• Discover the Modern Hand Reading Forum partners:

Would you like to see your website listed?

Modern Hand Reading Forum Partners

Pointing finger: check this out!

Statistics
We have 5223 registered users
The newest registered user is Alex90

Our users have posted a total of 43287 messages in 4302 subjects
Top posting users this week
Juno
 
pravin kumar
 
kalki
 

Recommendations

• The FREE hand reading services at the Modern Hand Reading Forum are being continued in 2015 with the assistance of Google adsense!


Pointing finger: check this out!



Google+
MAJOR HAND READING SYNONYMS
Palmistry, Palm Reading, Hand Analysis, Chirology & Chiromancy.

Learn how to read hands according the Modern Hand Reading paradigm & you can use this forum as your palm reading guide!

Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:16 am

Hello martijn, palmistry experts and members Smile

Here we could see how the recent palmists mis-leads many peoples by presenting their empty speculations , in the name of "modern palmistry "

stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn, Smile When you explain about the relation between the length of finger and sex hormones, you need to be aware of some scientific facts. They are ,
1. gonads are endocrine glands. Hence, Blood circulation is the only way through which every cell of the body receives the hormones via receptors. Why then, either estrogen increases the length of index finger or testosterone increases the length of ring finger. If you assume that sex hormone increases the size of the fingers during the time of pregnancy, it suppose to increase the size of every cell of the human body. why did these hormones have special affinity in particular fingers? where did you lost the relation or reasoning? Smile


stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn, Smile

you appears to be not giving any reasonings about the testosterone theory with finger length ratio for past two years. That was the reason why i was questioning about your reasoning power . What you say as a scientific relation is not accepted by any school of science. your single word reasoning like "testosterone" provide any sense to any intellectual mind. Without caring it you keep on repeating the same stories.

Copied over from the following thread:
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/iia-questions-about-your-hands-f9/why-do-fingers-not-have-the-same-measurements-t428.htm#3808

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:12 pm


Sorry Stalin,

I can not recognize this as a serious effort to discuss Manning's theory.


I invited you to create a new topic for a discussion about Manning's theory - which you've indeed mentioned in the title of your new topic... but this looks more like misleading 'propaganda' - (edit:) illustrated by the fact that your post only includes quotes from your own words!

(Despite my earlier feedback that I noticed a problem regarding your choice of words in the other discussion - but you decided to simply repeat these words here anyway.)


A 'fair' method to create a discussion?

I will try to explain why I can not take your words as a serious effort to discuss Manning's theory:

For a start, you wrote:

"Why then, either estrogen increases the length of index finger or testosterone increases the length of ring finger."

Stalin, I think this is basically the only question that you have in mind - because your other question is sort of a repetition of your first question... featured with another choice of words:

"If you assume that sex hormone increases the size of the fingers during the time of pregnancy, it suppose to increase the size of every cell of the human body. why did these hormones have special affinity in particular fingers?"

To me both questions look like you've only described Manning's theory... and then you added the word 'why?' in front of that theory...!???

Is that a fair method to conclude that a theory is 'unscientific speculation' - like you suggested in your title?

Where's your argument to jump into that conclusion? (I haven't spotted any argument in your words so far... I see you only wondering: 'why?')


By the way, I never noticed you doing this type of 'why?'-questioning regarding the ancient writings that you are often referring to yourself.

And therefore I repeat: Stalin, you are putting standards to the writings of others... that you do not appear to apply to your own writtings.




"Why is an apple round... and a pear not?"

Not all questions are relveant - why waiste any time on answering such a question?


Writing down Manning's theory and putting down a question-mark behind the theory by asking 'why?' ... can easily be described as a likewise irrelevant method of postulating a question - especially since you haven't made any direct reference to Manning's work!!


Stalin, as you know: Manning wrote two books, where he explained his theory + the related evidence with great detail and many references to the work of others. See for example chapter 2 in his first book 'Digit Ratio':
Associations with testosterone and estrogen


Hundreds of scientific publications - presented by e.g. doctors, biologists, anthropologists, psychologists - from all over the world have published referrences to Manning's theory.

This fact proofs that Manning's theory is actually a part of science... which implicates that you title of this topic is probably nothing more than a denial of this fact.


Therefore I am wondering... Stalin, why do you describe Manning's theory about the role of prental hormones in the development of the 2D:4D ratio as 'unscientific speculation'?


NOTICE: You have not described any single argument at all to back up your title - I only see you wondering twice: 'why?'.

But just asking 'why?'.... is simply not enough to put any 'scientific' doubts on any theory!

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:41 pm

Hello martijn, Smile

Your arguements shows your lacking knowledge in human physiology. Growth hormone which secreted by pitutary gland is the hormone responsible for human growth ie., cell, tissue etc., Apart from that, every endocrine induces the growth. However, unless you name the specialized receptors of finger which receives the sex hormones, manning theory would remain empty speculation. If all are following the same means, it does not mean that i should also follow them like sheep. They are just wish to support their own theory. Hence, They dont want reasonings . But, I can look for scientific evidences rather than your philosophical arguments.

why apple is round? Genetics can answer your questions by means of providing you the name of the gene. infact unless you see the philosophical background of it, you can get the answer from science. Philosophy answers only the unexplained and mysterious portion of science. Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Lynn on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:08 pm

stalin, scientists did an experiment on pheasants that showed prenatal exposure to testosterone affected digit ratio.

link to abstract

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2408
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:39 pm

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 13:41) wrote:Hello martijn, Smile

Your arguements shows your lacking knowledge in human physiology. Growth hormone which secreted by pitutary gland is the hormone responsible for human growth ie., cell, tissue etc., Apart from that, every endocrine induces the growth. However, unless you name the specialized receptors of finger which receives the sex hormones, manning theory would remain empty speculation. If all are following the same means, it does not mean that i should also follow them like sheep. They are just wish to support their own theory. Hence, They dont want reasonings . But, I can look for scientific evidences rather than your philosophical arguments.

why apple is round? Genetics can answer your questions by means of providing you the name of the gene. infact unless you see the philosophical background of it, you can get the answer from science. Philosophy answers only the unexplained and mysterious portion of science. Smile

Stalin,

Good Lord.... what 'arguments' are you talking about???
So far I haven't shared a single word about the physiology related to this topic!!!


Regarding your question:

"However, unless you name the specialized receptors of finger which receives the sex hormones, manning theory would remain empty speculation."

So... in your view the validity of Manning's theory depends on MY ability to answer your questions???

Sorry again, I can not recognize that as a serious approach to build a constructive discussion.


Nevertheless, I can provide you an answer to your question:

In chapter 2 on page 30 Manning describes the role of the 'androgen receptors' which appear to play a role in finger length development (which is basically guided by the so-called HOX genes):

"If this is so we should find that all or some of the tissues of the 4th digit are liberally endowed with androgen receptors, while the other digits and especially the 2nd digits have fewer such receptors."


Stalin, I think your approach in this discussion is going nowhere.... because obviously your title of this topic suggests that you already decided to live with your 'self-made' conclusions regarding Manning's theory.

But I still haven't spotted a single argument which could illustrate that your title choice is based on a well informed opinion.

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:47 pm

Hello lynn, Smile

your link certainly supports my point that how manning's theory is hypothesis!
"However, the hypothesis that digit ratio depends on the androgen effect during development has never been tested".

Usually, english system of medicine experiments their medicine to the animals in order to know it's effective ness. Later, License will be issued to medical companies for the sales. This itself a foolishness. What we consider as a poisonous plants remain food for many animals. This is the same case.

I can give you likewise many examples of abstract science which remains hypothesis and empty speculation. These are the reason why palmistry lacks it's recognition in the scientific communities. Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:11 pm

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 14:47) wrote:Hello lynn, Smile

your link certainly supports my point that how manning's theory is hypothesis!
"However, the hypothesis that digit ratio depends on the androgen effect during development has never been tested".

Oh...nooo! ... Stalin, your response indicates that you probably cherish the idea: that ANY HYPOTHESIS can not be described as 'scientific'.

But that is not realistic at all!!!
Because the process of designing theories and testing hypotheses... is actually how (academic) science develops!

And yes, I am aware that certain aspects of Manning's theory about the link between prenatal hormones and finger lenght ratios... could certainly be described as 'hypothesis only'!

But one can not simply conclude from that point that Manning's theory is 'unscientific speculation'. Because any person who makes such a huge step, very likely also has an incorrect idea of what academic science is all about.


(Though I realize that even people who had a succesful education at an academic institute could make likewise incorrect assumptions)

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Lynn on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:15 pm

stalin.v (Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:47 pm) wrote:Hello lynn, Smile

your link certainly supports my point that how manning's theory is hypothesis!
"However, the hypothesis that digit ratio depends on the androgen effect during development has never been tested".

yes, that's why they were testing it! But you ignore their final quote
"Thus, present results are consistent with the hypothesis that variation in testosterone levels during development affects digit ratios."

Manning himself says that there is assumption & hypothesis about testosterone influence, and that more evidence is needed. All science starts with a hypothesis. But that experiment on pheasants shows there is a link between testosterone levels in the embryo & digit ratio.

It doesn't answer your original question "WHY then, either estrogen increases the length of index finger or testosterone increases the length of ring finger."
I guess as yet nobody really knows WHY, just that testosterone has an effect on digit ratio in development.

Now that some 'proof' has been shown to you, do you now retract your statement
"What you say as a scientific relation is not accepted by any school of science. your single word reasoning like "testosterone" provide any sense to any intellectual mind."
Question

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2408
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Lynn (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 15:15) wrote:
(To stalin)
...
Now that some 'proof' has been shown to you, do you now retract your statement "What you say as a scientific relation is not accepted by any school of science. your single word reasoning like "testosterone" provide any sense to any intellectual mind."
Question

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for sharing your perception on how Stalin responded to your reference + your description of how science works..

And I also support your question in return:
sounds like a 'fair' question for Stalin to answer!


(Lynn, though I already concluded that stalin's statement was quite unrealistic in the perspective that so many scientists around the world have made references to Manning's basic theory, etc. Your reference is certainly useful to illustrate that science has developed since Manning's first book was published! Thumbs up! )

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:07 pm

Hello lynn and martijn, Smile

If any member in this forum say that all hypothesis are science, i can gladly retain my words back. However, The main action of testosterone is to develop the sexual organs. Hence, I can never take this hypothesis as true. Infact, Through the placenta of the mother, embryo receives all endocrine hormones . Why testosterone is been specified by manning. He just tries to relate the variation of finger ratio that identified in male and females with hormones. It doesnt make any sense to anyone. What you have explained as androgen receptor are commonly seen in sex organs and muscles. Nevertheless, During the embryogenesis itself, the various finger ratio develops rather than the specific influences. Rather, Growth hormone and other endocrine hormones are general indicators of growth nor any specificity is applied unless you specify any specialized receptor of the fingers. Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Lynn on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:31 pm

stalin.v (Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:07 pm) wrote: Growth hormone and other endocrine hormones are general indicators of growth nor any specificity is applied unless you specify any specialized receptor of the fingers. Smile

stalin have you read the link Martijn gave from Manning's book?
If there is no specifity, how do you explain about hair on 2nd phalanx of 4th digit ... page 30 ??

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2408
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:41 pm

Hello Lynn, Smile

Continuing a scientific discussion require scientific details rather than philosophical arguemets. Just name the "specific receptor" if you referred so much sources. Hair on the fingers is not same to all humans. Again it depends on the individual genetic code. Infact, we can not generalize the characteristic of the individual in genetic studies Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:52 pm

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 16:07) wrote:Hello lynn and martijn, Smile

If any member in this forum say that all hypothesis are science, i can gladly retain my words back. ...

Oh...nooo! ... This sound like just one more 'unrealistic' requirement: why would you want to make such a proposal?

If this is just a joke to admit that both Lynn and I made a 'fair' point regarding the position of 'hypothesis' in science... please, why can't you tell us directly!!?


Stalin, Lynn nor I suggested that 'all hypothesis are science'. Of course: not all hypotheses can can be described as 'science'. But it is only a fact that the concept of 'testing hypotheses' is a major concept in the development of (academic) science.

Unfortunately your words indicate... that you do not recognize the important role of this essential element in academic science.

Check this wikipedia article about 'science':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Experimentation_and_hypothesizing

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:06 pm

Hello martijn and lynn, Smile

First of all, It is nice to know that you and lynn are being aware atleast that manning's theories are based on hypothesis. The deal alread got over. Talking about abstract science is useless until it is proved.

Regarding your discussion on the word "hypothesis", surely we will discuss them in off-topic forum if you're interested. Because, It appears to obstruct the main scientific discussion. Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:15 pm

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 16:07) wrote:...

However, The main action of testosterone is to develop the sexual organs. Hence, I can never take this hypothesis as true. Infact, Through the placenta of the mother, embryo receives all endocrine hormones . Why testosterone is been specified by manning. He just tries to relate the variation of finger ratio that identified in male and females with hormones. It doesnt make any sense to anyone. What you have explained as androgen receptor are commonly seen in sex organs and muscles. Nevertheless, During the embryogenesis itself, the various finger ratio develops rather than the specific influences. Rather, Growth hormone and other endocrine hormones are general indicators of growth nor any specificity is applied unless you specify any specialized receptor of the fingers. Smile

Stalin,

Lynn just mentioned the occurence of more hair on the ring finger... which Manning already mentioned in his first book. This is indeed another direct 'clue' for the aspect in Manning's hypothesis that ring finger length does relate to (prental) testosterone!

Hair growth directly relates to testosterone: that is a 'hard' fact... and more important: it clearly shows that Manning's hypothesis does make sense!


From your side, you are just continueing with a summarization of a few (arbitrary) other facts... but I still haven't spotted one single solid argument which I could use against Manning's hypothesis.


PS. Lynn and I have tried to answer some of your questions about this topic... but somehow you are not able to respect our answers (which directly refer to Manning's work).

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:20 pm

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 17:06) wrote:Hello martijn and lynn, Smile

First of all, It is nice to know that you and lynn are being aware atleast that manning's theories are based on hypothesis. The deal alread got over. Talking about abstract science is useless until it is proved.

Regarding your discussion on the word "hypothesis", surely we will discuss them in off-topic forum if you're interested. Because, It appears to obstruct the main scientific discussion. Smile

Gna...gna

Okay, I just spotted a new qualification in your vocabulary for Manning's work:
'abstract science'... which sounds much better than 'unscientific speculation'.

Stalin, can you please confirm that from your point of view 'abstract science' is an acceptable qualification to describe Manning's work?

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:55 pm

Hello martijn, Smile

What remains either to respect or argue on this hypothesis! manning can convince peoples who basically dont aware much about medical sciences. but not all. rolling on the floor

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:21 am

stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn, Smile

What remains either to respect or argue on this hypothesis! manning can convince peoples who basically dont aware much about medical sciences. but not all. rolling on the floor

Hi Stalin,

By the way, despite that I think that your words 'abstract theory' is much more acceptable than the vocabulary in your title... I do think that Manning's major theory is much more valuable than any true 'abstract theory' could ever become!

I have multiple arguments to explain this point:

1 - Nearly all of hundreds of 2D:4D studies that have been performed so far, are basically nearly ALL a direct spin-off from Manning's major theory!!!


2 - Beyond the 2D:4D finger length, Manning described an additional a second practical measure for getting an impression about the sensitivity of an individual to androgen in the dermis of the fingers: you can count the hairs on the individual phalanges of the finger!

Manning wrote on page 30 of his book 'Digit Ratio':

"... There is some circumstantial evidence that points to a high sensitivity to androgen in the dermis of the 4th digit. Look at the back of your fingers. The middle segments (phalanx 2 of P2) may have some hair on them. The presence of hair in this position is slightly more likely if you are male and much more likely on your 4th digit compared to your 3rd and 5th digit. Furthermore, the 3rd of middle finger tends to be hairier than the 5th of little finger. Why this pattern?"

(NOTICE: On page 30 you can read how Manning answer's that question, and on page XIII he describes that hair growth on the fingers depends on ... testosterone.)


3 - His guidelines for measuring the 2D:4D finger ratio ... is obviously VERY PRACTICAL, and can in certain circumstances lead to astonishing results - see the 2 videos below!!

Manning predicts the outcome of a 100m sprint race: a 'double blind experiment'!


Manning predicts the outcome of a 5000m sprint race: a 'double blind experiment'!


Manning explains the results of a visuo-spatial test performed by a group of people:


Manning explains the results of an empathy test performed by a group of people:



Stalin, I could easily use these 3 arguments + these 4 video examples to illustrated that your "hypothesis" ( Razz ) about Manning's theory that it is only an 'abstract theory'... can easily be REJECTED completely!!

And instead, I would prefer to say that it is quite an 'astonishing theory'.... with multiple practical purposes (though the results will only be reliable under certain conditions!).


CONCLUSION: One can not deny that Manning's theory has already resulted in quite a few practical applications!


PS. Another example from a completely different perspective is the recent study that purposed the 2D:4D digit ratio as a potential screening instrument for identifying males who are at higher risk for prostate cancer, see the discussion (e.g. Lynn's reports in december 2010):
http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t14-prostate-cancer-is-now-predicted-through-ring-fingers-length

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:49 am

Hello martijn, Smile

you have obviously agreed in your latest post that manning theories are hypothesis. Now, you claim that my statements on manning's hypothesis are being another hypothesis. Smile

I could only do nothing more than " rolling on the floor " after reading your latest post. At the mean while, you have to aware that you can achieve/use anything with the study of 2d:4d ratio, like neither diagnose a prostate cancer individual nor identify the spirint champion. You can only keep two possibility for the billion peoples of this world and can say either "this" or "that" through your 2d:4d scale. I dont know atlast what is your purpose of 2d:4d studies. you end nowhere finally. However, Let me once again " rolling on the floor "

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:26 pm


Hello Stalin,

Feel free to keep laughing... but EVERY theory can ALWAYS be described as a 'hypothesis'.... but appearantly, you were not aware of that?

So basically, there is nothing wrong with describing a scientific theory as a hypothesis!!

Actually, Manning himself described long ago (in his first book) that modern technology & medine can not measure prenatal hormone concentrations directly, so we know for years now that his major theory at best there can only be 'indirect' evidence for his theory.

So again, because 'hypotheses' are a fundamental element in science... obviously one can not use that as an argument to describe his theory as 'unscientific speculation'!
Contrary: your choice of words shows that you don't have a realistic perception of how science USUALLY works!

Resulting in that your claims are not correct - but we have seen that happen in early discussions as well (for example your discussion topic about Christopher Jones' work).

So, basically I think you are often jumping into conclusion.... without a proper proces of questioning; the fact that at the start of this discussion you didn't provide even one single QUOTE from Manning's work is just an illustration of your inefficient efforts.

Regarding your words...

stalin.v wrote:... At the mean while, you have to aware that you can achieve/use anything with the study of 2d:4d ratio, like neither diagnose a prostate cancer individual nor identify the spirint champion.

The first two video examples that I presented show how Manning was able to correctly identify the sprint champion in 2 athletics races!! And in both cases it was a carefully designed 'double blind experiment'... so, I think it is actually a bit strange to see that you still belief that this is not possible at all.

But you are welcome to keep on laughing anyway!!

lol!

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:11 pm

Hello martijn, Smile

The amusement in this study is that we can find the half of the human population of the world has the same 2d:4d ratio (either low or high) which includes cripples and physically challenged as well. Hope, you can atleast understand by now that how big grand generalization this studies makes! rolling on the floor rolling on the floor

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:31 pm


Stalin, in this discussion you excell in summarizing unrelated facts... without a single direct reference to Manning's work.

Your reference to crippeled- and disabled people is obviously an attempt to make Manning's theory look 'ridiculous'... but the side-effect might be that you are only disqualifying yourself as serious discussion partner.

Banana waving

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:39 pm

You need time to understand some simple facts. You could not even understand how the 2 possibility 2d:4d ratio can give 100 different studies (as you said in your earlier post). The conclusion will be nothing more than zero. Smile Hope, time will wake you up if at all now.

Anyway, Have a nice journey in your research! Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:20 pm

stalin.v wrote:... You could not even understand how the 2 possibility 2d:4d ratio can give 100 different studies (as you said in your earlier post). ...

Stalin, I have no idea to which words of mine your are referring - but regarding what you are suggesting here: I expect that you didn't read my words properly because your statement sounds like just another 'ridiculous' statement... now focussed on my efforts (while I have only tried to provide you some factual response to your provocative statements).


By the way, regarding YOUR idea about 'only 2 possibilities' - this illustrates again that you still have no realistic perception about Manning's method. Let me explain...

Manning's method really requires for every individual to make a very precise measurement resulting in two 2D:4D ratios for each hand (and both results will have to be putten in the perspective of: male vs. female, country, skin color, etc).

The illustration below provides an impression of the 2D:4D difference between a sample of males vs. females.


Regarding the many different human qualities (and diseases) that have been associated with the 2D:4D finger ratio, one can understand that in the perspective of the fact that a simian line can provide a 'clue' for dozens of completely different medical problems... but of course one needs to be able to identify more 'clues' before one can make any reliable speculation.


Basically, this is what 'modern hand reading' is all about:
identifying relevant COMBINATIONS of hand characteristics in an individual!

But one should always be aware:
one single 'clue'... means nothing!


Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:38 pm; edited 2 times in total

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5207
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

Post  sv-b on Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:36 pm

your explanation just reflects that 2d:4d ratio can only provide the possibility . we can see good number of examples which does not support 2d:4d studies as well. However, go ahead with your theories Smile

sv-b

Posts : 615
Join date : 2010-10-20

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum