Re: homosexuality in the hands - test :)

**zaobhand** Thu May 24, 2012 2:56 pm

You are welcome Martijn,

One constructive request, before we can hopefully leave this issue behind us, is that you soften the choice of ink you use. Some of us are getting an adrenalin related spike of stress when we see your red ink replies. Thanks

**Martijn (admin)** Thu May 24, 2012 3:14 pm

zaobhand wrote:You are welcome Martijn,

One constructive request, before we can hopefully leave this issue behind us, is that you soften the choice of ink you use. Some of us are getting an adrenalin related spike of stress when we see your red ink replies. Thanks

Sorry, I perceive this more like an emotional request... because I think it has been about 4 months ago since I used my last red ink reply.

(Boaz, I assume that you are not talking here about my use of darkred ink - which should manifest on your screen as a variant of the color brown... I choose that color based on various forum features - including the forum's background picture)

**zaobhand** Thu May 24, 2012 3:16 pm

Martijn,

It may have been then your replies, not the choice of your ink, which still appears somewhat alarming to me.

Thanks

**anand_palm** Thu May 24, 2012 3:57 pm

Hello Martijn

To your analysis "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"

My intial guess looking at fingers was #1 had long index finger possibility could make it in that fashion, however # 3 was based on difference in dermatoglyphics, but both seemed equally likely, but here this a bookish assesment, not a assesment compleltly based on any orginality, the only orginality i had was difference in palmar prints ( i did not choose fingerprints) can make an impact. So i concluded 3 is also a possibility. I was stuck up in 1 because finger length and it turned out the answer is not true.

Now regarding patti she has to be given the winner she had own orginal assesment here, honestly i dont think anybody here thought about the way she analysed it, in fact i learnt a lot from her way of assesing the hand study

, more than what i read in books, it is pretty unique way of looking at thinghs. applause

I strongly give credit for her, which cannot be shown in the way we are assessing it. applause

Not only that her approach led to the right conlcusions. I dont think braunm effect and other effect of study is applicable when she has done the study.

Did anybody assess the concept of looking at the life line differences and make a call. or did any paper or books mention it. Nobody observed that, in fact i learnt from her, the way you start looking at subtle difference and do the analysis. Likewise there are other discussion where her assement has been great.

Due credit has to be given to person who does the analysis and the approaches which the person takes in making the call. So the impact of individual play a crucial role more than numbers.

What iam trying to say is every hand analysis should not be grouped together and judged because the thought process which goes through an palmist analysis is very much different in judging an hand.

Thanks
Anand

**Ramann** Thu May 24, 2012 4:58 pm

Hello All,

Patti had made the right choice..and I had in mind that may be she can crack the code.And she did...However I still think that the analysis of Patti was more to do with a mix of intuitive/analytic practice developed over a life time rather than a thorough statistical/logical analysis...The intuition may have been developed to the extent that Patti can make out which is which.Anyways I think too much of analysis spoils the sport...And I still believe that making a correct analysis is very personal effort-matter of practice-experience-analysis-than some logical induced deductions that we can generalize for every one.

Nobis

**Sue Miller** Thu May 24, 2012 5:58 pm

Bravo Nobis!

**kiwihands** Thu May 24, 2012 9:38 pm

Thank you for explaining Martijn. Your reaction does make a little bit more sense now. Also, it appears that I didn't remember correctly what you had written in your first post - I thought there you had already said something along the lines of Lynn making the only sensible choice by not participating. But looking back, I see that I distorted that memory.

However, just like everyone else here, I also think that it would be more beneficial for the general mood and discussions in this forum if the sledgehammer (or in this instance, dissecting scalpel) could possibly stay under the desk next time ... Wink

Everybody has a different approach, and as much as we learn from your way, it may be fruitful if other ways (e.g. Patti's) were allowed here, too, without being shot down for not having enough scientific analysis.

**zaobhand** Thu May 24, 2012 10:03 pm

Patti's approach is just as scientific, thought experiments & intuitive statistics ,colored by all aspects of embodied life, senses & associations, not always obvious to the empirical mind. Rigorous statistical analysis is welcome, important and complementary as long as it doesn't reduce us back to black & white.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu May 24, 2012 11:45 pm

kiwihands wrote:Thank you for explaining Martijn. Your reaction does make a little bit more sense now. Also, it appears that I didn't remember correctly what you had written in your first post - I thought there you had already said something along the lines of Lynn making the only sensible choice by not participating. But looking back, I see that I distorted that memory.

However, just like everyone else here, I also think that it would be more beneficial for the general mood and discussions in this forum if the sledgehammer (or in this instance, dissecting scalpel) could possibly stay under the desk next time ... Everybody has a different approach, and as much as we learn from your way, it may be fruitful if other ways (e.g. Patti's) were allowed here, too, without being shot down for not having enough scientific analysis.

Hi Kiwihands, thank you for acknowledging that there was some kind of misunderstanding involved in your earlier communication.

However, after you used the word 'sledgehammer' for the seond time... can I ask you a question: are you suggesting that I do not allow others to choose their own approach of learning?

(And if so, can you please tell me: where exactly do you think that I have used a sledgehammer?)

Because afterall, in my first response I have responded to Patti's observation regarding the statistics - based on the answers of the 6 participants together. SHE began to put significant value on her approach of those statistics, e.g. concluding: "... together we got the right answer?"

However, while her observation may sound interesting at first sight - which I already mentioned - I have presented in response my analysis of the same data. Basically, I actually only described how from my point of view the data does not present much value at all... from a statistical point of view!

And additionally, in the perspective of my conclusion I mentioned at a later stage how my conclusion is in line with the valuable experience of multiple hand analysts in the world (e.g. represented by Lynn & Ed).

For me it is rather remarkable how this discussion developed after I have shared my thoughts and observations. Especially, since in the early stage of this discussion... Patti even presented support for Lynn's choice not to participate in this experiment:

Patti wrote:...

I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences. I've read many married people that I could have sworn were same sex oriented by their body language.

What I looked for was how they interact in the world around them knowing that their lifestyle choice (or not a choice) is not socially acceptable in many societies.

So, from my point of view... I think basically I have only described where I could not agree with Patti's observation regarding the statistics - because any statistical TEST would not confirm the significance of her conclusion (quoted above).

I have not prohibited Patti in anything at all... I have only discussed a few details based on the statistics. However, even while Patti started the discussion about the statistics herself... (and after Boaz, you & Anand started making comments related to the statistics as well)... then Patti did suddenly allow herself to jump into the conclusion/suggestion that I have given the impression that I am "only interested in data and hard facts".

Now, this is why I mentioned that I felt that my input was ".... was mostly welcomed with emotional responses".

And in the middle of this emotional discussion, I got confronted with the suggestion that my style is like "a barking annoyed dog" who is "chasing down people" which appearantly reminds some people of the "inquisition days" (all quoted from Boaz's words of course, after he denied that anybody had been reacting emotionally... rolling on the floor

)

Now, again... do you really think that I have acted like using a 'sledgehammer'?

Anyway Kiwihands, again, I appreciate your honest confession that you had made incorrect assumptions about my input (+ and in which order this discussion started developing).

Maybe others made likewise assumptions in the heat of this discussion... who knows, maybe this - (what I prefer to call) - bizar summary of how this discussion developed might become helpful somehow?

Because after you and I were able to settle some misunderstanding, I expect that there could be a few more hidden somewhere in this discussion about your test.

Thanks!

(

... even after I got confronted with quite a few other emotional 'confessions', I hope that at the end we should all be able to laugh a little bit about our selves plus this discusson proces, in order to recognize finally how 'psychology' often becomes involved in the process of hand reading - especially when we talk about matters of which we are not sure at all that they manifest via the hand in individuals, etc.)

**zaobhand** Fri May 25, 2012 12:45 am

Martijn, I apologize for quoting my friend. Seems like it hurt. The reason I did so was because it seemed like you were trapped within a certain pattern of behavior and I was hoping it could shake you out. I am still hopeful. Yours sincerely.

**kiwihands** Fri May 25, 2012 12:52 am

Hi Martijn,

you are right, I have been smiling at myself a bit in this discussion, squabbling over such intangible things. It's always difficult in online communications to figure out what the intended tone of the writer is, and I realise it's usually the psychology of the reader that has the greatest influence.

Regarding your own style of writing and my comment about the "sledge hammer" approach, I can't really put my finger on "where exactly" you have used it, sorry. A lot of your posts regarding other people's ideas just come across as (and here we go again: "come across as" of course involves the readers' interpretation, which could be quite different from your intent) somewhat insensitive and narrow. I'm not sure why. It could be us all taking it the wrong way.

Regarding your question about whether I'm suggesting you "do not allow others to choose their own approach of learning", this is not what I meant. Everybody is free to choose (within the limits of our intellectual preferences and capabilities, which may not be as empirical as yours) but would look to more experienced people for guidance. As you are the owner of this forum, you are one of those guides.

I just got the feeling that you were somewhat dismissive of Patti's analysis because it cannot be supported by statistics, and that you discounted the learning benefit of this entire thread because of the same reason. (That was when you asked Patti to "describe the 'learning experience' here", making it quite clear that you couldn't see what there was to be learned. Again, this is me inferring ... I could be wrong.)

I don't know if this makes sense, but I imagine if newbies see you questioning the value of any kind of learning that's a bit less clear-cut, it may discourage them from even making an attempt, but put it in the too-hard-to-do box instead.

Just my opinion ...
wave

**anand_palm** Fri May 25, 2012 4:26 am

Hello Kiwihands

I agree with this statement
"Regarding your own style of writing and my comment about the "sledge hammer" approach, I can't really put my finger on "where exactly" you have used it, sorry. A lot of your posts regarding other people's ideas just come across as (and here we go again: "come across as" of course involves the readers' interpretation, which could be quite different from your intent) somewhat insensitive and narrow. I'm not sure why. It could be us all taking it the wrong way"

Matrijn
Please dont take it as wrong, but it is my sincere advise, honestly when we had a discussion on mercury length and other aspects, you had again justified using statistics on the concept of rarirty, i personally think the problem with statistics is when you start to apply too much of control limits like 5%, 1% then the very value of appreciating the uniqueness is lost.
Kiwihands has beautifully summarized it Thumbs up!

Kiwihands you have very good writing skills, keep it up. Thumbs up!

. Also statisitics has it own flaws, and we cannot extrpolate a populaltion (especially humans) based on sample sizes.

I do look at your website on hand research and it is really a great effort on your part to put in so much of value to research and other aspects of palmistry, Thumbs up!

but also there has to be in research a philoshopical treatise too. But still your value add on the research effort is great.

Thanks
Anand

**kiwihands** Fri May 25, 2012 5:36 am

for the compliment Anand! I'm an editor/ proofreader by trade ... flower

**Martijn (admin)** Fri May 25, 2012 8:17 am

kiwihands wrote:Hi Martijn,

you are right, I have been smiling at myself a bit in this discussion, squabbling over such intangible things. It's always difficult in online communications to figure out what the intended tone of the writer is, and I realise it's usually the psychology of the reader that has the greatest influence.

Regarding your own style of writing and my comment about the "sledge hammer" approach, I can't really put my finger on "where exactly" you have used it, sorry. A lot of your posts regarding other people's ideas just come across as (and here we go again: "come across as" of course involves the readers' interpretation, which could be quite different from your intent) somewhat insensitive and narrow. I'm not sure why. It could be us all taking it the wrong way.

Regarding your question about whether I'm suggesting you "do not allow others to choose their own approach of learning", this is not what I meant. Everybody is free to choose (within the limits of our intellectual preferences and capabilities, which may not be as empirical as yours) but would look to more experienced people for guidance. As you are the owner of this forum, you are one of those guides.

I just got the feeling that you were somewhat dismissive of Patti's analysis because it cannot be supported by statistics, and that you discounted the learning benefit of this entire thread because of the same reason. (That was when you asked Patti to "describe the 'learning experience' here", making it quite clear that you couldn't see what there was to be learned. Again, this is me inferring ... I could be wrong.)

I don't know if this makes sense, but I imagine if newbies see you questioning the value of any kind of learning that's a bit less clear-cut, it may discourage them from even making an attempt, but put it in the too-hard-to-do box instead.

Just my opinion ...

Hi Kiwihands, thanks again for your dedicated efforts.

By the way, since you described:

"I can't really put my finger on "where exactly" you have used it, sorry"

(Thank you, I have the impression that there is kind of an apology hidden inside these words)

But these words also make me wonder: have you already considered the possibility that your use of the word 'sledgehammer' basically resulted from the emotional responses from others to my input...???

Now, regarding my Patti's observation regarding the statistics:

Remember, I first even affirmed that her view/conclusion is interesting at first sight. But then I explained why at the end I could not put any value on her observation - because her observation would for sure not pass any statistical test at all. This is essential when making observations about statistics! Patti obviously had not thought about this possibility that her observation could very well be just the result of plain coincidence... but how 'insensitive' is making such an observation really?

Boaz suggested that I am acting like the 'inquisition'... how sensitive is such a suggestion by the way...???

Afterall, let's not forget... this is a DISCUSSION forum!

But if people are not able to recognize when there is emotion and when there is not, it's becomes sometimes hard to continue a discussion - especially when there are some misunderstandings involved. Emotions easily get contagious, and then people sometimes tend to lock their doors permanently regarding the topic involved... and they simply walk away from the heat, without solving things, etc.

Kiwihands, you've described a possibility that others may not have faced yet:

"It could be us all taking it the wrong way."

(Thank you for describing that as a possibility, but I have reasons to think that few others will get to understand what you mean exactly. I guess it takes the qualities of an editor/proofreader to understand the art of re-reading things carefully. I am sure that Lynn would understand what you mean)

Thumb up

Patti Fri May 25, 2012 2:23 pm

Patti wrote:
Hi Anand, It really wasn't that easy even though I have read many people from all walks of life. I was second guessing myself right up till the answer was given. I wasn't looking for deviant behavior or irregular features. I was looking for normal features that were repressed.

Not totally sure why I've been singled out to be the unscientific one here - I never claimed to have knowledge about hand features representing homosexuality nor did I try to prove that my reasoning could be applied consistently in every case. I simply pointed out that through my process of analyzing that I thought it was #3. Number 3 was the correct answer.... so what is your problem Martijn!?

I would like to award a St. Andrews Cross to each and every brave soul that faced the blood red letters on my behalf yesterday, you have no idea how much it is appreciated! It should arrive on your palm shortly hug

**zaobhand** Fri May 25, 2012 2:58 pm

Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:
Hi Anand, It really wasn't that easy even though I have read many people from all walks of life. I was second guessing myself right up till the answer was given. I wasn't looking for deviant behavior or irregular features. I was looking for normal features that were repressed.

Not totally sure why I've been singled out to be the unscientific one here - I never claimed to have knowledge about hand features representing homosexuality nor did I try to prove that my reasoning could be applied consistently in every case. I simply pointed out that through my process of analyzing that I thought it was #3. Number 3 was the correct answer.... so what is your problem Martijn!?

I would like to award a St. Andrews Cross to each and every brave soul that faced the blood red letters on my behalf yesterday, you have no idea how much it is appreciated! It should arrive on your palm shortly

Bravo!!

**anand_palm** Fri May 25, 2012 3:19 pm

Hello Kiwihands

Thanks for the info, what a coincidence, Iam able to gauge your talent without looking at your hand happy move

Martijn

"Now, regarding my Patti's observation regarding the statistics:

Remember, I first even affirmed that her view/conclusion is interesting at first sight. But then I explained why at the end I could not put any value on her observation - because her observation would for sure not pass any statistical test at all. This is essential when making observations about statistics! Patti obviously had not thought about this possibility that her observation could very well be just the result of plain coincidence... but how 'insensitive' is making such an observation really"

Iam not satisfied with your answer here, what kind of control limit did you apply 5%, 10% or 1% for sure it cannot be 1% it has to be 15 % rule to say patti is not part of the statistics. Then how come you did not eliminate einstein when i asked you about his mercury finger length being unique, please dont say sample was bigger ect..

Patti congrats and great thanks Thumbs up!

Anand

Patti Fri May 25, 2012 3:34 pm

Patti wrote:In a strange sort of way of calculating this - together we got the right answer? Wasn't that a topic here a while back.

Look at it from the angle of the ones we all said "no" to.

1) 4 no
2) 4 no
3) 3 no (the least no's)

Strange calculations presented in a question format do not equal statistics.

Any misunderstandings or jumping to conclusions? Wink

**anand_palm** Fri May 25, 2012 3:47 pm

PAtti

All have almost equal probability of occurences. The chances of saying wrong answer is equalli likely. Nice observations Thumbs up!

It is also makes me think more deeply, first why do we need to add is very question and why do we need to think every thingh in terms of experiments, usually probability is applied only in terms of experiment.

Anand

**anand_palm** Fri May 25, 2012 4:16 pm

Patti

you have made me think more, is the very idea of grouping applicable, like for example you have observed it as question and grouped it as. But then why should we look at it as group is the very question which needs to be address, before proceeding into probability
or statistics. So the problem is why shoudl there be any addition concept, interesting. thinking

Anand

Patti Fri May 25, 2012 4:33 pm

anand_palm wrote:PAtti

All have almost equal probability of occurences. The chances of saying wrong answer is equalli likely. Nice observations

It is also makes me think more deeply, first why do we need to add is very question and why do we need to think every thingh in terms of experiments, usually probability is applied only in terms of experiment.

Anand

Anand, the point is, offering statistics was not my intent. When I read through all the responses to the quiz at the end, I noticed there was a lot of doubt. I chose 3 but openly expressed my doubts about 2. I said outright I did not think it was 1. From there I looked at the other places where an option was deliberately left out. You wavered between 1 and 3, but didn't mention 2. Boaz mentioned 1, then 3, and then chose 3 without choosing 2 at all. This was my incentive, my motive. Not statistics. Who did we all not choose.

Yes, of course you are right - with only 3 possible choices there is a 1 in 3 chance of making the right choice. It's a multiple choice quiz. Three choices. One correct and two are incorrect. In quiz making, typically the two incorrect answers are designed to throw you off and the correct answer to be sitting there quietly. Logic is a good thing to have when participating in quizzes too.

**Kiran.Katawa** Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 pm

zaobhand wrote:
Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:
Hi Anand, It really wasn't that easy even though I have read many people from all walks of life. I was second guessing myself right up till the answer was given. I wasn't looking for deviant behavior or irregular features. I was looking for normal features that were repressed.

Not totally sure why I've been singled out to be the unscientific one here - I never claimed to have knowledge about hand features representing homosexuality nor did I try to prove that my reasoning could be applied consistently in every case. I simply pointed out that through my process of analyzing that I thought it was #3. Number 3 was the correct answer.... so what is your problem Martijn!?

I would like to award a St. Andrews Cross to each and every brave soul that faced the blood red letters on my behalf yesterday, you have no idea how much it is appreciated! It should arrive on your palm shortly

Bravo!!

+1 from my side Smile

**Kiran.Katawa** Fri May 25, 2012 6:48 pm

Hi,

I think there is no problem from Martijn's side!

2 of his points moved the entire discussion in different direction: One is about the statistics and the other thing was the statement: "Lynn made sensible choice".

After seeing the replies for the above comments of his, he acknowledged:
"Patti, I am sorry to see that my analysis became sort of annoying for you."

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

"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! "

Not to forget, in the first posting of his, he also wrote:

"Anand, Kiran, Kiwihands, Lynn, Parender, Raman & Boaz... thank you all for your efforts & input!" and With special thanks to Kiwihands for creating another interesting test + for adding your thoughts & observations regarding this tempting theme.

He is insisting on the point that sexual orientation can't be identified with hands; This we all knew from the beginning.
And contradicted the statistics projected by Patti and wanted to point out that the "Throwing the observations of multiple experts into one bucket usually delivers a result that is (slightly) higher than the expected sucess-rate according to chance statistics". That too based on "chance statistics" and not his own opinion.
I guess his intention was to point out, how the results might vary 'coz of chance statistics. That's it. And that's it - nothing else, no hidden meanings or point outs!. This point of his sounds fine, as long as we are on this point. I think this is a valid point to consider here based on chance statistics.

He acknowledges this also - "I think basically I have only described where I could not agree with Patti's observation regarding the statistics - because any statistical TEST would not confirm the significance of her conclusion"

Inspite of his apologies, isn't this conversation getting continued on the possible "hidden meanings" of his sentences?!

Let me make it clear also that, when in the beginning, I say - "I think there is no problem from Martijn's side!", I amn't trying mean that someone is right or wrong here. I am trying to acknowledge the fact that he has explicitly apologized for some of his sentences that has hurt the participants and he is standing for his statistics point of view.

**zaobhand** Fri May 25, 2012 6:54 pm

Kiran, I don't quite agree with you. Whoever has the eyes to see, can see. Anyway I'm gonna try to sign off this topic. Extract myself out of these muddy waters.

**Ramann** Fri May 25, 2012 7:46 pm

Not taking any sides.But just that inquisition is also not that bad to take the best in a discussion[/b].It avoids sycophancy and taking sides blindly before putting any original views

Only it should not be mud slinging or personal attacks on anyone's style of reading.Questions and thorough critical analysis I feel should always be welcome to know for the basis.Whether the reading is...Intuitive... Analytic-Statistics-Personal Experience-Read in Books.. or what...All of the above should be respected..Some readers are more intuitive than analytical and so has been the styles of many palmists and some amazingly correct if not politically correct.

Honest response and reply are all that are needed than proving.