Re: homosexuality in the hands - test :)

**zaobhand** Tue May 22, 2012 11:31 pm

Martijn, I don't quite follow the logic. Obviously we are talking about statistics. Rather than saying that "statistics cannot be applied to an individual", we should say that "a given correlation can be applied to an individual with a certain probability" or equivalently that "an individual with a certain feature would have a given probability for manifesting a given outcome". scratch

**kiwihands** Tue May 22, 2012 11:59 pm

zaobhand wrote:Martijn, I don't quite follow the logic. Obviously we are talking about statistics. Rather than saying that "statistics cannot be applied to an individual", we should say that "a given correlation can be applied to an individual with a certain probability" or equivalently that "an individual with a certain feature would have a given probability for manifesting a given outcome".

Thanks Boaz! This thought was rattling around half-formed in my head, but I couldn't put my finger on it, much less express it so eloquently.

Thumbs up!

**anand_palm** Wed May 23, 2012 2:12 am

Hello Matrijn

Regarding predictability don't you think more samples would be needed, as there is variability in the palmist experience and there is also a learning curve.

Thanks
Anand

**zaobhand** Wed May 23, 2012 3:45 am

kiwihands wrote:
zaobhand wrote:Martijn, I don't quite follow the logic. Obviously we are talking about statistics. Rather than saying that "statistics cannot be applied to an individual", we should say that "a given correlation can be applied to an individual with a certain probability" or equivalently that "an individual with a certain feature would have a given probability for manifesting a given outcome".

Thanks Boaz! This thought was rattling around half-formed in my head, but I couldn't put my finger on it, much less express it so eloquently.

Glad it helped kiwihands! Another thought that may be rattling half-formed in our heads, is why Martijn failed to acknowledge Patti's beautiful line of reasoning despite the difficulty of identifying clear markers for gender preference. Instead emphasizing the lack of any measure for gender preference in contrast to the link that he provided on his facebook. In summarizing this thread, I think there are 3 important points. 1. Your creative and original idea. 2. Markers for gender preference. 3. Patti's creative and original solution. Wasn't it inspiring?

**anand_palm** Wed May 23, 2012 4:17 am

Hello Boaz

You are right patti orginal and creative idea got it right, which made the data go towards the correct prediction. Thumbs up!

. I think the palmist makes a great difference in all this, more than just statistics, that is where individuality makes a difference, great people right from gandhi, einstein, tagore, feynman, lincoln, thoreaux, have made a difference, so the individual plays a big role.

Great insight boaz Thumbs up!

Anand

**Martijn (admin)** Wed May 23, 2012 8:35 am

zaobhand wrote:Martijn, I don't quite follow the logic. Obviously we are talking about statistics. Rather than saying that "statistics cannot be applied to an individual", we should say that "a given correlation can be applied to an individual with a certain probability" or equivalently that "an individual with a certain feature would have a given probability for manifesting a given outcome".

Hi Boaz,

I was not trying to suggest that "statistics can not be applied to an individual".

My point in this case is: even when a group study reports significant statistics, the result may not be suitable to be applied to any arbitrary individual.

For example, regarding the 3 individuals that we are talking about here we can observe that the (male) person (#1) who has the highest 2D:4D digit ratio (in both hands his digit ratio is above 1.00) is not the one who described himself as homosexual.

NOTICE: By the way, though Lynn questioned the validity of Parender's comment:

"...longer index finger indicates possible presence of "gay gene" in a man"

Parender's comment is actually very correct. Because most digit ratio studies have indicated that homosexual men are often featured with a female-like (high) digit ratio - however, in homosexual women the reverse trend is often been observed: they are often featured with a male-like (low) digit ratio.

(So regarding the issue of sexual orientation the digit ratio studies have shown a 'mirror' effect regarding the typical sexe related digit ratio trends among men and women around the world)

However, this typical trend is not confirmed in the 3 individuals in Kiwihand's sample - which illustrates my point: even the digit ratio theory about homosexuality can not be applied to individuals.

Finally Boaz, even though you and Patti chose the correct pair of hands... I have not spotted a clear theory about why you and Patti choose that specific pair of hands. This is also illustrated by the disagreement between the two of you about which of the other 2 pairs of hands has the most gay-like characteristics (Patti mentioned the 2nd pair of hands as an alternative while you mentioned the first pair of hands).

And while Anand didn't make a choice between his 2 most likely options (#1 and #3), his process of assessment may have been more similar with your assessment - compared to Patti's assessment that was focussed on case #2 and #3.

PS. At first sight the 42% may look like a nice outcome in this test, but the statistical chance for a 'lucky strike' was rather high in this test (33%)... and therefore the 'fair' success rate was actually only 9%... !!!

And one could also wonder why none of the 3 pair of hands was excluded by the 6 participants (because all 3 pair of hands were chosen as an option by at least 2 of the 6 participants).

Only after a consideration of all these details I was able to conclude that the outcome of this test indicates that it is hardly possible to reliably assess sexual orientation from a pair of hands. This is especially indicated by the fact that there is simply is no common agreement among palm readers about HOW to make such an assessment - which was already pointed out by Lynn according her own experience + her knowledge about what is written about this topic in the palmistry literature (and beyond Patti's assessment attempts in Kiwihands test, Patti has also sort of confirmed that her experiences are not really that different from Lynn's experience).

**Kiran.Katawa** Wed May 23, 2012 9:10 am

Hi,
very importantly, I think we are missing this point:"GIVEN THAT, one of the 3 pairs of hands are of a gay. "

Had this been not told to us that one of the 3 pairs of hands is that of a gay, I don't think any of us would have pointed out this.
Even the reasons spotted by Patti are on life line alterations and deduced to the possibility based on the given condition.

**Martijn (admin)** Wed May 23, 2012 10:24 am

Kiran.Katawa wrote:Hi,
very importantly, I think we are missing this point:"GIVEN THAT, one of the 3 pairs of hands are of a gay. "

Had this been not told to us that one of the 3 pairs of hands is that of a gay, I don't think any of us would have pointed out this.
Even the reasons spotted by Patti are on life line alterations and deduced to the possibility based on the given condition.

Yes Kiran, I fully agree about the significance of your technical observation regarding the test-method.

I think this relates to my observation that this test illustrates that in all 3 pairs of hands at least three out of the six palm readers shared ideas/observations which illustrate that (depending on the ideas being used about how to recognize homosexuality through the hand) each pair of hands could be recognized as a potential case of homosexuality.

#1 was considered by Boaz, Kiran & Anand as a potential option (only Kiran & Anand decided to chose #1 at the end as the most likely option)
#2 was considered by Patti, Raman & Parender as a potential option (only Raman & Parender decided to chose #2 at the end as the most likely option)
#3 was considered by Patti, Boaz & Anand as a potential option (all decided to chose #3 at the end as the most likely option)

NOTICE: Again, Anand considered both #1 and #3 as the most likely option.

PS. By the way, I have no problem at all with how Kiwihands' designed her test. And I dare to question whether the results would have been very different if Kiwihands had used a more at random selection method... because the ideas described in palmistry books do not provide much common sense, nor any evidence of how these ideas developed, nor any proof regarding the validity/reliability.

**Martijn (admin)** Wed May 23, 2012 10:32 am

After Lynn's sensible resistance to make even a single attempt, Ed Campell has reported likewise thoughts at Facebook regarding this issue, see:
https://www.facebook.com/martijn.vanmensvoort.7/posts/352962691436074

**zaobhand** Wed May 23, 2012 11:26 am

Martijn,

Hand reading is also an art. If you fail to see it, or perhaps, even worse, fail to recognize it, you will only get that far.

**zaobhand** Wed May 23, 2012 11:35 am

anand_palm wrote:Hello Boaz

You are right patti orginal and creative idea got it right, which made the data go towards the correct prediction. . I think the palmist makes a great difference in all this, more than just statistics, that is where individuality makes a difference, great people right from gandhi, einstein, tagore, feynman, lincoln, thoreaux, have made a difference, so the individual plays a big role.

Great insight boaz

Anand

Hello Anand,

Glad you are also able to see it and acknowledge it.

Thank you!

Patti Wed May 23, 2012 12:56 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
After Lynn's sensible resistance to make even a single attempt, Ed Campell has reported likewise thoughts at Facebook regarding this issue, see:
https://www.facebook.com/martijn.vanmensvoort.7/posts/352962691436074

I find it quite annoying to spend time and energy participating in a group activity, that for the most part was found both an enjoyable and a learning experience by all, to have someone who didn't participate come along and treat the whole thing as an outsider discussing the activities of specimens in a bottle!

If everyone stuck their head in the sand just because in the past research showed this or that and avoided making attempts to test out their own theories, but just blindly accepted someone else's "research" results, no one would get anywhere. We'd just accept what was. Perhaps it's safe and sensible to make the head in the sand answer - and more risky to be progressive and take a look at what we know from research and experience and see what happens when we put it to use.

It only takes a few moments to google dermatoglyphics and homosexuality to find many studies have been done with various results. Many confirming what was said above. Homosexual males are more feminine and lesbian woman are more masculine in the results. Maybe not so much of a mirror result in studies as a moving toward a mid range of human sexuality. Perhaps there will be found the bisexuals that Ed threw his hands up about.

I checked the FB page and it looks like the disagreement is in regards to digit ratios and a few individual uncombined hand features. Ed like some others don't see a need to bother with any research in this area.

It's fine to not know an answer, but to create an atmosphere that belittles others attempts at going beyond what is known as well as working with what is known to find answers is absurd.

Why bother posting at all!

**anand_palm** Wed May 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Hello all

Paradigm shifts happen when we think out of the box and this makes a greater change when the answer turns to be right, in case of this test patti made a siginifcant change to way books are written, honeslty i thought in terms of differences in dermatoglyhpics could make a difference, i really did not think the way patti analysed it and her analysis turned to be right. The point is for sure, indiviudal makes an impact. i think most of all of us went by books or written which was not true when facts were gathered, so theory goes wrong here. In that case the individual analyizing (where orginal thinking is applied) in it makes a big impact which is where grouping methods can fail as it fails to consider this particular aspect. History has always proven this where statistics can go wrong. From the time of alexander to modern times thinghs have been changed by individual.

Also patti way of mentioning number 3 was very unique, in essence her method was very orginal. I think this where her individual approach makes a difference and it came right.

I dont think statistics consider this as a significant part is where thinghs of analysis and grouping methods can be wrong.

Anand

**Martijn (admin)** Wed May 23, 2012 6:04 pm

Patti wrote:
I find it quite annoying to spend time and energy participating in a group activity, that for the most part was found both an enjoyable and a learning experience by all, to have someone who didn't participate come along and treat the whole thing as an outsider discussing the activities of specimens in a bottle!

...

Why bother posting at all!

Patti, I am sorry to see that my analysis became sort of annoying for you. But maybe you are willing to explain to me: how would you describe the 'learning experience' here that you mentioned?

(So far for me it is even quite hard for me to understand why exactly you chose #3, because I don't see a clear explanation in your summary of observations for each of the 3 pairs of hands. I have the impression that your intuition played a significant role in your choice, however... I think this does not exclude the possibility that it may have only been a lucky strike - especially since I think you have not really bothered about a more detailed analysis after Kiwihands revealed that your choice was the only correct choice.

Also, I have not spotted any attempt from any participant to present a summarizing list of hand features in general of which they think that these are essential to recognize sexual orientation from the hands. If there had been such a list, that would make it much more sensible for me to speak about a 'learning experience'.

Sorry, contrary to your personal excitement about the fact that you made the right choice... I think Kiwihands' test has basically raised mostly unanswered questions - and hardly any clear answers.

However, beyond my scepticism based on the (insignificant) statistics that I described/observed... I don't think it would be fair to describe my search for more specific answers as a way of sticking my 'head in the sand'. Or maybe those words of yours only meant dispute the validity of Lynn's & Ed's (p)reserved comments???)

Anyway, after sharing a few more thoughts & observations... I can only hope that at the end my words will tempt/inspire you to start looking for more detailed answers regarding this matter and to continue this discussion!

thinking

Patti Wed May 23, 2012 6:55 pm

It was simply a fun quiz with quiz criteria that was well thought out by Kiwi. It didn't require validation of our answers.

We learned that it's quite a touchy subject and that many of those among us have completely opposite views about the lifestyle and personality of a homosexual. I admired Kiran's inference that it is important in our work to learn about people unlike us, from all walks of life even if it was something we don't really want to be thinking about or feel comfortable with. We could see how easily a person's judgements of others can color their reading.

This is after all a palmistry forum where supposedly we are here to *discuss* with each other our knowledge and ideas about hands. You are not going to get much discussion going if you are only interested in data and hard facts.

I know I will think twice before I participate in another test of any sort on this forum. Like it's the only "sensible" thing to do.

What I didn't add was that I think # 2 has had bi-sexual relations and that is why I was torn about him as I don't think bi is actually the same as homosexual or lesbian.

**Ramann** Wed May 23, 2012 7:10 pm

because the ideas described in palmistry books do not provide much common sense, nor any evidence of how these ideas developed, nor any proof regarding the validity/reliability.[/color]

Yes...Just before the hands were posted the day before I was perusing though Altman book.A whole chapter in sexuality.The author has remarked that it is not possible.For some intuition may have developed to the extent that they can make out of gay hands in particular.No statistics involved here that can be generalized.Bettina Luxon mentioned for some signs that are not present in Hand #2.

My guess was only based on the analysis of Mr. Sethi.I never went to length and looked afterwards..Analysis would have been same what Mr Sethi had mentioned.

# 1 was never a consideration.

For # 3.A probable thought was based on the skin type.(Wild guess, no analysis)

Regards

Nobis

**zaobhand** Wed May 23, 2012 7:49 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:

(So far for me it is even quite hard for me to understand why exactly you chose #3, because I don't see a clear explanation in your summary of observations for each of the 3 pairs of hands. I have the impression that your intuition played a significant role in your choice, however... I think this does not exclude the possibility that it may have only been a lucky strike - especially since I think you have not really bothered about a more detailed analysis after Kiwihands revealed that your choice was the only correct choice.

Employers often, when they wish to extract more information from their employees, dismiss their ideas. It is a well known tactic. The employee, in an attempt to overcome their immense frustration, work twice as hard to explain and convince, creating more data and evidence. I wonder whether this is what's going on here?

**kiwihands** Wed May 23, 2012 10:28 pm

Hmmm... looks like I missed an important part of the discussion while I was sleeping.

Most of what I would have said has already been brought up, but I would still like to clarify something for Martijn: this thread was never intended to prove or disprove any theory. With only 3 samples, it could hardly be called scientific. The aim was to find out how people analysed hands with regard to a specific question that I found current right now. Going by the massive variation between the different features propagated in some literature as signs for homosexuality, I had no illusions about showing that sexual orientation can be reliably assessed from the hands. Therefore I'm not bothered by the lack of a "clear theory" or "summarizing list of hand features" being presented by anyone.

Martijn, I don't get your point about whether it was "sensible" for anyone to participate. In saying that, and indirectly pronouncing Lynn the "winner" even though she did not hazard a guess, you are indeed belittling everyone else's efforts and I understand why Patti feels as she does. There goes the sledge hammer again. It was just a fun little test, but it still takes a lot of courage to participate and open oneself up to criticism, to the potential of being wrong, and having that 'wrongness' exposed for everyone to see. Perhaps that is what you meant by insensible.

Well, I'm glad so many readers were foolish enough to participate - all the answers were thought-provoking and allowed me to learn a little more about how palmistry works. Patti has already summarized everything we learned from this, as did I in my own conclusion. It's a little sad that this will have been the last opportunity for us to learn in this way now that you, as moderator and owner of this forum, have effectively discouraged any future participation in non-scientific discussions like these.

Oh well ...

**zaobhand** Thu May 24, 2012 1:19 am

Well said kiwihand!! Thumbs up!

**anand_palm** Thu May 24, 2012 2:17 am

Hello Martijn

Lot of times intuition can play a siginificant role in analysis, but what is wrong in being intuitive and explaining, i don tthink every thingh can be detailed by an intuitive process. for example i can select a particular answer based on what i felt for which i may not have any explanantionand it may turn out to be right.

To the extent of what i felt and knew is what i have explained and i think most of the participants have done in that way and it somehow turned to be partially right.

In the end Kiwihands has sumarized it well, Thumbs up!

Anand

**Martijn (admin)** Thu May 24, 2012 9:43 am

kiwihands wrote:Hmmm... looks like I missed an important part of the discussion while I was sleeping.

Most of what I would have said has already been brought up, but I would still like to clarify something for Martijn: this thread was never intended to prove or disprove any theory. With only 3 samples, it could hardly be called scientific. The aim was to find out how people analysed hands with regard to a specific question that I found current right now. Going by the massive variation between the different features propagated in some literature as signs for homosexuality, I had no illusions about showing that sexual orientation can be reliably assessed from the hands. Therefore I'm not bothered by the lack of a "clear theory" or "summarizing list of hand features" being presented by anyone.

Martijn, I don't get your point about whether it was "sensible" for anyone to participate. In saying that, and indirectly pronouncing Lynn the "winner" even though she did not hazard a guess, you are indeed belittling everyone else's efforts and I understand why Patti feels as she does. There goes the sledge hammer again. It was just a fun little test, but it still takes a lot of courage to participate and open oneself up to criticism, to the potential of being wrong, and having that 'wrongness' exposed for everyone to see. Perhaps that is what you meant by insensible.

Well, I'm glad so many readers were foolish enough to participate - all the answers were thought-provoking and allowed me to learn a little more about how palmistry works. Patti has already summarized everything we learned from this, as did I in my own conclusion. It's a little sad that this will have been the last opportunity for us to learn in this way now that you, as moderator and owner of this forum, have effectively discouraged any future participation in non-scientific discussions like these.

Oh well ...

Kiwihands I must appologize here, because I think my use of the word 'sensible' regarding Lynn's response may have created some confusion:

Martijn (admin) wrote:
After Lynn's sensible resistance to make even a single attempt, Ed Campell has reported likewise thoughts at Facebook regarding this issue, see:
https://www.facebook.com/martijn.vanmensvoort.7/posts/352962691436074

Because by highlightening the input given by Lynn & Ed... I was not trying to suggest at all that it was 'insensible' to participate in your test. Of course not, I have even thanked all participants explicitely!

And actually, I could have participated in this test myself, but coincidently I was right in the middle of moving to my new home during the days that you presented this test + the result.

So, my head was not 'in the sand' (Patti's words)... because during the first week in my new home I didn't have access to the internet, etc.

Again, my major point is basically only:

Despite the positive outcome in your test, one should not face out for the possibility that 'sexual orientation' may not be an issue that can be read from the hands - even while some scientific results may appear to suggest this (though those studies are always meant to study the nature of how sexual orientation develops - not for the purpose of hand reading... unfortunately people usually don't understand the essential difference).

This made me focus on the statistical aspect in your test, because... because with only 3 choices involved combined with 6 participants, the chances are pretty low that nobody would have chosen the individual that you selected.

For me it is actually a bit worrisome to see that in this perspective my careful suggestion (I have given a combination of arguments) that a 'successful choice' could very well be just a matter of plain luck/coincidence.... was mostly welcomed with emotional responses - e.g. including Patti's suggestion that my mind may be focussed too much on 'statistics and hard facts'.

Can such a suggestion be a part of a fair/balanced discussion?

scratch

(Anyway, I hope my earlier choice of words at least make a little bit more sense now)

**Parender** Thu May 24, 2012 12:55 pm

I googled to know why some people are gay. I found that at wiki that -

Sexual orientation is inborn. Slowly, the studies coming to the realization that sexual orientation cannot be changed. It is not curable. It's simply the way someone is born. Someone says at -
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:Why_are_some_people_gay that-

“YOU CAN COUNT ON ME
TO ALWAYS BE
BESIDE YOU EVERY DAY,
TO TELL YOU IT'S OKAY,
YOU WERE JUST BORN
THAT WAY,
AND, AS THEY SAY,
IT'S IN YOUR DNA,
YOU'RE GAY!”

They also say-
"One idea is that it may be genetic but others believe that sexuality is defined from the moment of conception." I think this can be due to childhood experiences.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_some_people_gay#ixzz1vn2mR6Fb

You can Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:Why_are_some_people_gay#ixzz1vmyxkaaP
I think when this is inborn trend then there must be some definite mark on the palms of the hands or on fingertips which could reveal being gay. We have to find those and perhaps Patti is right in this regard but the result must be repetitive for a conclusion. So many more examples will confirm this finding. If anyone can do here it will be great.

Parender Sethi

**zaobhand** Thu May 24, 2012 12:57 pm

Martijn, I think you really aren't getting it. People are not reacting emotionally. Rather, it is you chasing down people into conforming to your narrow point of view. It feels like the inquisition days are back. I have seen you cornering Patti many times in the past, since the old Handreading Cyber Cafe days. You have been nitpicking on me quite a few times as well. As long as I remain motivated to stay on this forum I will expose you and will not let this happen again. Here is what a newcomer, a friend of mine, who has been following the forum only recently, says about you: "I have read a few of his answers on different post that I've been browsing and what I can sense is he is like a barking annoyed dog, very political correct who lacks of any type of sensibility ... Well I may be wrong but for sure he does not sounds kind!!"

**zaobhand** Thu May 24, 2012 1:09 pm

Parender wrote:No.2 I think and he plays a role of a man in the relationship, because there I see GOV and only a few lines on the palms and almost no directional transverse is seen. Hand is broad, red and rough enough denote sensuality sex-mindedness and the person will be interested and will practice in unnatural vices to satisfy his unsatisfied sexual appetite. His boundless energy wants outlet. He is less sensitive about others as a line reducing the space between the two major lines. Red spots on the palm show irregular behavior. GOV increases the sensitiveness in a person who has a psychic and conic hand.

Parender, What do you mean by directional transverse?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu May 24, 2012 2:34 pm

zaobhand wrote:Martijn, I think you really aren't getting it. People are not reacting emotionally. Rather, it is you chasing down people into conforming to your narrow point of view. It feels like the inquisition days are back. I have seen you cornering Patti many times in the past, since the old Handreading Cyber Cafe days. You have been nitpicking on me quite a few times as well. As long as I remain motivated to stay on this forum I will expose you and will not let this happen again. Here is what a newcomer, a friend of mine, who has been following the forum only recently, says about you: "I have read a few of his answers on different post that I've been browsing and what I can sense is he is like a barking annoyed dog, very political correct who lacks of any type of sensibility ... Well I may be wrong but for sure he does not sounds kind!!"

Boaz, thank you for sharing your honest thoughts and personal feedback. No problem at all, you are free to share your perceptions about my style publically.

But I prefer not to respond here (in this topic) regarding those details.