Re: homosexuality in the hands - test :)

**kiwihands** Fri May 25, 2012 9:37 pm

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
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.
[...]
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"

I think this is exactly where the first disconnect happened. The way I read it, Patti wasn't trying to establish any statistics, but merely pondered a "strange question". I took this to be just a thought, musing on everyone's answers with a twinkle in her eye. Did anyone other than Martijn think Patti was doing more than that?

Martijn has singled Patti out for perceived errors many times before now, and I sometimes wonder why that is. (Martijn, I don't expect an answer. Rhetorical question... Wink

)

Patti Fri May 25, 2012 9:39 pm

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
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

What statistics?!

I offered a score sheet, a tally. I offered nothing to be contradicted! That is the point Kiran. Martijn has no good reason to single my comment out the way he did and suddenly I'm seeing my name in just about every post. If he wanted to make objective remarks about the quiz and the participants as a whole he could have started a new reply.

cyclops

(hit send and saw that Kiwi has posted the same thought - posting anyway Thumbs up!

)

**Martijn (admin)** Fri May 25, 2012 11:47 pm

Patti wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
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

What statistics?!

I offered a score sheet, a tally. I offered nothing to be contradicted! That is the point Kiran. Martijn has no good reason to single my comment out the way he did and suddenly I'm seeing my name in just about every post. If he wanted to make objective remarks about the quiz and the participants as a whole he could have started a new reply.

(hit send and saw that Kiwi has posted the same thought - posting anyway )

Patti, can we agree that I started responding to your conclusion about the 'score sheet' that you presented?

By the way, the word 'statistics' can refer to ANY practice of collecting and analyzing numerical data in quantities. You gave your conclusion about the grouped data and I gave mine, and both can be described as 'statistics'.

Patti, I wanted to highlight that we should be cautious about putting value to the fact that in your 'score sheet' the lowest value is found at the right answer; because the science of statistics learn us that one should better not attribute any value to the difference between arbitrary numbers... unless these differences are 'significant'. I think you know this as well... but somehow you perceived it as an 'annoying' personal attack. Again, I made this point in the perspective of Lynn's point + Kiwihand's motive to introduce this quiz. This is how I wanted to add my contribution to the interpretation/discussion about the 'pooled' outcome of Kiwihands' test - which you started. Unfortunately, I had to disagree with your interpretation that the pooled data indicated some kind of success as seen in Galton's wisdom of the crowd experiments... because Galton's results were impressive, especially since chance statistics can not explain the result. But this can not be said about the data in your 'score sheet'... which could easily be replicated with six triple colored dices, etc. I hope these thoughts will make sense for you, and I hope you will now be able to understand at least a little bit that I am basically only trying to continue a discussion about the outcome of Kiwihands' test... and I am not running some kind of campaign against you - nor anyone else. Why would I want to do such a thing?

Please try to understand that I am basically arguing why the results of this test should better not be translated into the impression that the hand might show when people are gay or not... because your enthousiasm about finding the right answer + your enthousiasm about that the group statistics could be interpretated as if the group found the right answer as well, could have a dangerous side-effect: for, people could assume from that that you think that homosexuality can be read from the hand, etc. Can we agree about this possible potential side-effect? Of would you consider this as irrelevant as well?

(Spirituality can be found in many things, sometimes it's hidden in small things; I hope you'll find it somewhere in the words above... Very Happy

)

**Martijn (admin)** Fri May 25, 2012 11:53 pm

Kiran & Ramann, thank you for sharing your ideas about how to interpretate my words.

Thumb up

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 12:11 am

anand_palm wrote:Hello Kiwihands

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

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"

I am 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
Anand

Hello Anand,

Fair question! However, as you probably know, in statistics only the 10%, 5% and 1% level are usually being used to answer the question whether a result is significant or not. But the data in Kiwihands' test does not become significant at those levels (because the result represents one of the three MOST LIKELY outcomes... from the dozens of possible outcomes!).

(Sorry, I don't recognize the significance of our discussion about Einstein's pinky finger; there was no experiment involved in that discussion... but I remember that we discussed the issue)

wave

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 12:39 am

zaobhand wrote: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.

Hi Boaz, I think the last contributions from Kiran, Ramann ~~& Anand~~ show that quite a few people do not share some of your interpretations regarding my words/contribution in this topic.

(Maybe my last response to Patti could become fruitful for you to read)

Anyway, I welcome and accept your apology. Don't worry, I was not hurt (nor worried) about your friends perceptions. Others have found this forum to be an authentic & honest place where any (fair) opinion, argument or idea can be shared.

And of course, a significant part of this forum is focussed on truth finding - via discussions, free sharing of info and research. But the process of truth finding is not always easy... nor beautiful. But I appreciate your request - though I also think that the issue of sensitivity concerns typically a matter of perception (people tend to have individual criteria regarding the requirements, etc.).

Thank you for your efforts Boaz!

Thanks!

**anand_palm** Sat May 26, 2012 3:22 am

Hello Martijn

Iam not sure what made you conclude about boaz interpretation that iam not part of the what boaz has interpreted, but i do agree with kiwihands conclusions and also what boaz mentioned "Rather, it is you chasing down people into conforming to your narrow point of view". You should have given credit to patti at first sight, but you did not, honestly statistics is not a justification to give credit or not give.

first of all i dont agree with groupping thinghs and making statistical conclusion on everythingh we do.

Control limits which you apply and say the this is an outlier or einstein finger length is not rare is based on the concept of applying limits to a sample and discrediting it. Like the concept of 10%,5% ect.. First of all hypothesis testing is there when you want to see everythingh is from same population or not, you did not apply any hypothesis testing here also once justified youtend to apply limits to categorize outliers, but yet the very question of choosing limits itself in necessary is stiil a debatable issue.

https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t850-rarity-of-finger-length?highlight=mercury+finger+length
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t849-rarirty-of-finger-and-palmar-prints

Please have a look at you own explanation of using statistic to validate your own justification. Also human population might need a different approaching than just mere grouping mechanism. The paer which you had sent in that link did not consider pattern intensity to justify. The concept of mentioning somethingh as rare in temrs of population from the choice of control limits. The very jsutification of why you choosen cannot be concluded by your own approaches.

If you look at the forum discussion according to your version 1% is rare, but why do you use that as the criteria there to justify whereas here you have used 12% rule to say patti is not part of the samples. It is very contradictory and this is where i feel there is convenience in your approaches.

Iam still not convinced here why did not apply the sampe rule of patti case to say that she is part of the system. This, this forum discussion and based on previous discussions and my own judgement makes me stand by on boaz, kiwihands conclusions.

Thanks
Anand

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 3:52 am

Hello Anand,

This discussion has been taking too much of my time, but since you seem like a considerate and thoughtful person I couldn't help but reply and let you know that I think you are wasting your time. It is not a question of logic, it is matter of power and control. Anything you say will be twisted back against you. I appreciate the fact that you are not one to be intimidated.

**anand_palm** Sat May 26, 2012 4:02 am

Hello Boaz

I go with what you say here. Thanks for your insight Thumbs up!

Anand

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 4:42 am

kiwihands wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
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.
[...]
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"

I think this is exactly where the first disconnect happened. The way I read it, Patti wasn't trying to establish any statistics, but merely pondered a "strange question". I took this to be just a thought, musing on everyone's answers with a twinkle in her eye. Did anyone other than Martijn think Patti was doing more than that?

Martijn has singled Patti out for perceived errors many times before now, and I sometimes wonder why that is. (Martijn, I don't expect an answer. Rhetorical question... )

Exactly. Yes, I too didn't perceive that Patti was projecting any statistics. He took it seriously. But, he also said - "Patti, I am sorry to see that my analysis became sort of annoying for you".
I don't know about the past and so don't like to comment much on that beyond the discussion over here.

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 4:48 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Please try to understand that I am basically arguing why the results of this test should better not be translated into the impression that the hand might show when people are gay or not... because your enthousiasm about finding the right answer + your enthousiasm about that the group statistics could be interpretated as if the group found the right answer as well, could have a dangerous side-effect: for, people could assume from that that you think that homosexuality can be read from the hand, etc. Can we agree about this possible potential side-effect? Of would you consider this as irrelevant as well?

This is not the case at all Martijn. We are all on common agreement on the test that - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 8:57 am

anand_palm wrote:Hello Martijn

Iam not sure what made you conclude about boaz interpretation that iam not part of the what boaz has interpreted, but i do agree with kiwihands conclusions and also what boaz mentioned "Rather, it is you chasing down people into conforming to your narrow point of view". You should have given credit to patti at first sight, but you did not, honestly statistics is not a justification to give credit or not give.

first of all i dont agree with groupping thinghs and making statistical conclusion on everythingh we do.

...

Sorry Anand, then I must apologize here... I probably misunderstood the implication where you explicitely agreed with Kiwihands' comment/conclusion where she mentiones:

kiwihands wrote:... I'm not sure why. It could be us all taking it the wrong way.

I think Kiwihands' described here how my explanation could indicate that "all" people who questioned the validity of my input might have taken it "the wrong way".

And I also assumed that since you started discussing the level of significance of my observation, I thought you had recognized the validity of one of my major points: the 'grouped' outcome of this test concerns actually one of the 3 most likely outcomes according chance statistics.

Again, I apologize for mentioning your name... after Kiran & Ramann had clearly described why they think that I made quite a few valid point.

PS. Sorry, I don't understand your suggestion that I have mentioned any "12% rule" (I did not recommend in this topic any other rule - I only pointed out that there are only three levels of significance that are typically used in science, but none of those would create any significant effect regarding the group-result in Kiwihands' test).

Anand, I think I am struggling here basically only with the issue that Patti, Boaz & Kiwihands have posted quite a few emotional responses where they created a sequence of fueling eachothers perceptions. While I observe (and explained) that I have only been trying to discuss some fundamental issues that I have validated with quite a few details & observations.

For example, where I described Lynn as 'my winner', some appearantly assumed that I had sort of disqualified all participants in Kiwihands' test, however I have explained that I have not done that at all - and they should have recognized that immediately... AFTER I THANKED ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS TEST EXPLICITELY IN MY FIRST POST (where I did not mention Lynn at all). It was the full context of this test that made my decide that in a way Lynn motive for not participating in this test is essential (later her choice was sort of confirmed by one of the most experienced & knowledgable hand readers in the world: Ed Campbell - see the facebook discussion: https://www.facebook.com/martijn.vanmensvoort.7/posts/352962691436074?notif_t=share_comment)

Fortunately, Kiwihands was able to affirm the validity of at least some of my clarifications. And I thought you had recognized the validity of her discovery - after you e.g. agreed with an important passage in her comments.

I hope this makes sense now? (I have now deleted your name from my earlier comment where I mentioned Kiran & Ramann)

PS. Have you noticed Boaz's latest comment? "Anything you say will be twisted back against you."

(I think my fruitful debate with Kiwihands illustrates the truth)

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Please try to understand that I am basically arguing why the results of this test should better not be translated into the impression that the hand might show when people are gay or not... because your enthousiasm about finding the right answer + your enthousiasm about that the group statistics could be interpretated as if the group found the right answer as well, could have a dangerous side-effect: for, people could assume from that that you think that homosexuality can be read from the hand, etc. Can we agree about this possible potential side-effect? Of would you consider this as irrelevant as well?
This is not the case at all Martijn. We are all on common agreement on the test that - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

Hello Kiran,

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all: what is 'not the case'? And what do you think is the 'common agreement' that we all have have in mind?

You are welcome to explain. scratch

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 9:53 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Please try to understand that I am basically arguing why the results of this test should better not be translated into the impression that the hand might show when people are gay or not... because your enthousiasm about finding the right answer + your enthousiasm about that the group statistics could be interpretated as if the group found the right answer as well, could have a dangerous side-effect: [/b]for, people could assume from that that you think that homosexuality can be read from the hand, etc.[/b] Can we agree about this possible potential side-effect? Of would you consider this as irrelevant as well?
This is not the case at all Martijn. We are all on common agreement on the test that - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

Hello Kiran,

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all: what is 'not the case'? And what do you think is the 'common agreement' that we all have have in mind?

You are welcome to explain.

Hi Martijn, the portion I have put in bold is what I said - "not the case". None of us and in my opinion the other readers will understand it like this.
I have written what was common agreement(I mean - given info) - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 10:05 am

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
kiwihands wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
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.
[...]
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"

I think this is exactly where the first disconnect happened. The way I read it, Patti wasn't trying to establish any statistics, but merely pondered a "strange question". I took this to be just a thought, musing on everyone's answers with a twinkle in her eye. Did anyone other than Martijn think Patti was doing more than that?

Martijn has singled Patti out for perceived errors many times before now, and I sometimes wonder why that is. (Martijn, I don't expect an answer. Rhetorical question... )

Exactly. Yes, I too didn't perceive that Patti was projecting any statistics. He took it seriously. But, he also said - "Patti, I am sorry to see that my analysis became sort of annoying for you".
I don't know about the past and so don't like to comment much on that beyond the discussion over here.

Kiran, I recognize that this is indeed how things may appear to be.

However, I wonder:

IF Patti made her observation just as a 'fun' comment... she could have informed me about the nature of her comment. Simple as that.

She could have informed me that she very well understood the validity of my disagreement from a statistical point of view. So easy!

But that was not her response at all!

So, quite a few people here may have made this (fair) assumption. But does this fit with the fact that Patti got annoyed and took my feedback as a personal attack?

I could even start a debate here about who is 'narrow minded' or not? Because, people who use high standards (with the purpose of truth finding) can always be depicted as an case of 'narrow mindedness'. However, how fair and sensible is it really to make such judgements...?????

(I think this illustrates some of the irrationalities that I perceive about how Kiwihands' topic has developed since I shared my critical observatons; though one should not forget that many topics at this forum run off topic when people disagree about things or ideas... and in far most of those topics I have not been a participant at all. But I never walk away when I get involved in tough discussion. And I certainly tolerate people to outspeak their heart... but if I observe 'unfair' comments, I will consider the possibility to make that noticed as well)

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 10:14 am

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Please try to understand that I am basically arguing why the results of this test should better not be translated into the impression that the hand might show when people are gay or not... because your enthousiasm about finding the right answer + your enthousiasm about that the group statistics could be interpretated as if the group found the right answer as well, could have a dangerous side-effect: [/b]for, people could assume from that that you think that homosexuality can be read from the hand, etc.[/b] Can we agree about this possible potential side-effect? Of would you consider this as irrelevant as well?
This is not the case at all Martijn. We are all on common agreement on the test that - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

Hello Kiran,

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all: what is 'not the case'? And what do you think is the 'common agreement' that we all have have in mind?

You are welcome to explain.
Hi Martijn, the portion I have put in bold is what I said - "not the case". None of us and in my opinion the other readers will understand it like this.
I have written what was common agreement(I mean - given info) - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

Thank you, now I understand you earlier comment.

But I dare to question whether there is true agreement. Because I noticed how some have made admiring comments about how Patti found her choice. And Patti described it quite a few times.

Now, if we all agree that the hands do not show sexual orientation... how rational is it to continue a discussion about Patti's approach regarding the 'homosexual mind'?

(I think we all have our individual perceptions about what could be described as a typical homosexual state of mind. But finding one via 3 pairs of hands does not provide solid ground to enter a discussion about how to find other cases... especially not when we agree that there are no reliable hand indicators at all!)

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 10:23 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Please try to understand that I am basically arguing why the results of this test should better not be translated into the impression that the hand might show when people are gay or not... because your enthousiasm about finding the right answer + your enthousiasm about that the group statistics could be interpretated as if the group found the right answer as well, could have a dangerous side-effect: [/b]for, people could assume from that that you think that homosexuality can be read from the hand, etc.[/b] Can we agree about this possible potential side-effect? Of would you consider this as irrelevant as well?
This is not the case at all Martijn. We are all on common agreement on the test that - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

Hello Kiran,

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all: what is 'not the case'? And what do you think is the 'common agreement' that we all have have in mind?

You are welcome to explain.
Hi Martijn, the portion I have put in bold is what I said - "not the case". None of us and in my opinion the other readers will understand it like this.
I have written what was common agreement(I mean - given info) - "Given the fact that one of the 3 pairs of hands is of gay's".

Thank you, now I understand you earlier comment.

But I dare to question whether there is true agreement. Because I noticed how some have made admiring comments about how Patti found her choice. And Patti described it quite a few times.

Now, if we all agree that the hands do not show sexual orientation... how rational is it to continue a discussion about Patti's approach regarding the 'homosexual mind'?

(I think we all have our individual perceptions about what could be described as a typical homosexual state of mind. But finding one via 3 pairs of hands does not provide solid ground to enter a discussion about how to find other cases... especially not when we agree that there are no reliable hand indicators at all!)

Why not? Patti's observation and approach is really incredible. Many of us are learners here and we never thought in that way.

I repeat again that - "We knew one of the hand-pairs was that of a gay's. These can't be applied in general as gay's hand features".

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 10:43 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
kiwihands wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
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.
[...]
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"

I think this is exactly where the first disconnect happened. The way I read it, Patti wasn't trying to establish any statistics, but merely pondered a "strange question". I took this to be just a thought, musing on everyone's answers with a twinkle in her eye. Did anyone other than Martijn think Patti was doing more than that?

Martijn has singled Patti out for perceived errors many times before now, and I sometimes wonder why that is. (Martijn, I don't expect an answer. Rhetorical question... )

Exactly. Yes, I too didn't perceive that Patti was projecting any statistics. He took it seriously. But, he also said - "Patti, I am sorry to see that my analysis became sort of annoying for you".
I don't know about the past and so don't like to comment much on that beyond the discussion over here.

Kiran, I recognize that this is indeed how things may appear to be.

However, I wonder:

IF Patti made her observation just as a 'fun' comment... she could have informed me about the nature of her comment. Simple as that.

She could have informed me that she very well understood the validity of my disagreement from a statistical point of view. So easy!

But that was not her response at all!

So, quite a few people here may have made this (fair) assumption. But does this fit with the fact that Patti got annoyed and took my feedback as a personal attack?

I could even start a debate here about who is 'narrow minded' or not? Because, people who use high standards (with the purpose of truth finding) can always be depicted as an case of 'narrow mindedness'. However, how fair and sensible is it really to make such judgements...?????

(I think this illustrates some of the irrationalities that I perceive about how Kiwihands' topic has developed since I shared my critical observatons; though one should not forget that many topics at this forum run off topic when people disagree about things or ideas... and in far most of those topics I have not been a participant at all. But I never walk away when I get involved in tough discussion. And I certainly tolerate people to outspeak their heart... but if I observe 'unfair' comments, I will consider the possibility to make that noticed as well)

I can't say anything on why was the response so.

It can be the other way round as - why did you treat the numbers part(statistics) seriously?

Apart from seeing the statistics part, you could have also seen the logic and a nice description from Patti. I can't understand - "So far for me it is even quite hard for me to understand why exactly you chose #3". Again the condition applies - "Given one of the 3 pairs...".

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 11:27 am

Patti wrote:
zaobhand wrote:I've been in the academia. One should take most studies with a big grain of salt. Sometimes the Results section is informative, but then the interpretations go wild in search of grant money. See here for example: https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=53345

So true! I think now the studies have to disclose who funded them and what is their agenda, don't they?

I guess... here's where the 'narrow mindedness' about my input began:

Patti & Boaz communicate (without any hesitation) utterly suspicious perceptions about science & scientist in general (with suggestions that science is all about hidden agendas and money).

It's always easy to criticise any part of society - especially when one has never been involved in that part of society at all (not sure about Boaz's background, but I know that Patti has no scientific background at all). But let's not forget that our opportunity to communicate here with eachother around the world... is a gift that can be attributed to the work of scientists.

And in the perspective of these utterly suspicious perceptions... maybe I should not be surprised that my attempt (which was not limited to the statistical perspective at all) got qualified as 'annoying', 'insensible', 'narrow minded'.... and even much worse qualifications have been used as well (I mention Boaz's passage where he introduced the word 'inquisition').

Meanwhile it is quite amusing for me see that earlier in this discussion Patti & Boaz have shared a very positive perception about homosexuality - basically suggesting that (male) homosexuals are usually 'more sensitive' than heterosexuals.

However, one could wonder: is this really a valid perception?

Fact is: in some regions of the world most people think quite differently about homosexuality. For example, Parender described his much less positive perceptions about homosexuality (e.g. pointed out to the bible) ... and he suggested that it can often be featured with typical features such as coarse, rough and tough skin.

And... I observe that Parender's perception could easily be described as sort of the reverse of what Patti & Boaz described.

The truth is therefore probably somewhere in between; because afterall... the character of the average homosexual probably hardly differs from the average heterosexual. And all efforts to qualify those differences should better be taken with 'a big grain of salt'.

By the way, I think this new observation adds to the validity of my earlier points made. Now I can only hope that people are able to recognize how I try to build my own opinions carefully... and I am not trying to manage this forum with 'power and control' at all (as was suggested by Boaz in his latest post).

PS. I would like to add here: quite disappointing to see when people make an apology in order to continue communicating likewise input that caused them to make the apology.
Banana waving

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 11:53 am

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
I can't say anything on why was the response so.

It can be the other way round as - why did you treat the numbers part(statistics) seriously?

Apart from seeing the statistics part, you could have also seen the logic and a nice description from Patti. I can't understand - "So far for me it is even quite hard for me to understand why exactly you chose #3". Again the condition applies - "Given one of the 3 pairs...".

Sorry Kiran, while Patti picked #3 ... she clearly was clearly in doubt about #2 and #3. Patti, did not suggest explicitely that she used a clear ideal about the psychology of homosexuals. And Patti even wrote for #2: "Last night I was all for this one being the one."

By the way, one could even argue... because of the poor quality of #2, maybe it was even unlikely that this should be the one. Because Kiwihands had shared that she had sort of 'selected' the hands. Maybe this made Patti jump from #2 to #3.

For me, I think it was just an intuitive guess, with not much logic involved. That was my idea from the start after studying Patti's readings for those hands carefully.

The truth behind the results of this test might be hidden in the small details.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 12:01 pm

Kiran.Katawa wrote:

Why not? Patti's observation and approach is really incredible. Many of us are learners here and we never thought in that way.

I repeat again that - "We knew one of the hand-pairs was that of a gay's. These can't be applied in general as gay's hand features".

Kiran, you appear to exclude the possiblity that Patti's choice was just (lucky) coincidence... please be aware of the fact that Patti revealed that the night before she made her final choise, she still assumed that #2 should be the one.

Sorry, Kiran... don't you think that this revelation by Patti could actually confirm my hypothesis that it was probably just a lucky guess?

Because, Patti did not use a straightforward approach at all... again, she was even about to chose for #2. But the next day she changed her mind. Unfortunately, she did not explain why exactly she chanced her mind (I think that this is a strong signal that her choice was at the end likely just a lucky guess)

Kiran, don't you want to know why Patti changed her mind next day?

(I would love to know... but I know that some questions are hard to answer lol!

)

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 1:11 pm

Martijn,

Your bloody fonts remind me of one of my least popular teachers. I think you will be better off with a softer font, since such a color certainly can inflame and cloud your mind. After all this is a democratic forum. You yourself say it is not about power & control. Anyone else getting spikes of stress seeing this font color?

Thanks for your attention.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 1:47 pm

Hi Boaz, I am veryy sorry to hear that my use of darkred color somehow reminds you of a traumatizing experience. I understand your request now better.

Would it make a significant difference for you if I continue with this brown color? (This sentence is now featured with brown color, but on my screen it looks almost the same as darkred color)

PS. If not, please send me a screenshot of your screen, as an alternative I might then be able to advice you to solve your problem - notice: I am not aware that other member is suffering from a likewise experience.

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 1:50 pm

Frankly Martijn, I don't see any reason why you should be using a font that is different than anyone else here on the forum. And, the new color that you proposed still appears to belong to the Martian spectrum. Thanks

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 2:17 pm

zaobhand wrote:Frankly Martijn, I don't see any reason why you should be using a font that is different than anyone else here on the forum. And, the new color that you proposed still appears to belong to the Martian spectrum. Thanks

Martian spectrum????

Sounds to me like my first name 'Martijn' could sooner or later even become part of the problem as well... ? ( Wink

)

Seriously Boaz, your request has a rather provocative (mandatory) effect on me. Because at this forum everyone is completely free to use the font colors that they want to use... so your words above sound like a request with a compulsory nature.

(I don't like this style of making a request at all... especially in the perspective of the fact that you began to suggest that my motives are in 'power and control'. Again, I have chosen the 'brownish' color font to use in my posts because it is a clear color that suits with the hand-photo that I have started using as the forum's background. If I remember correctly, I think you are the first one who got bothered about the font color in my posts)

I hope this makes sense.

PS. Boaz, please send me a screenshot, because only that would allow me to see whether the settings on your computer might be involved in your problem.