Do you have normal finger length? [locked]

CONCLUSION FOR HAND 1 & HAND 2:

- Hand 1: mix of EARTH hand shape (67%) + FIRE hand shape (42%)
- Hand 2: EARTH hand shape (83%)

tap wrote:Martijn I will look at this new chart later. I am posting up what I did before corrected. Because everytime I measure my hand it is off by 1 sometimes 2 cms. I don't know why. This is the last time I am remeasuring them and this is what I arrived at:

Right hand
Finger length 7.8
Palm width 7.9
Palm length 10
Finger length to palm length ratio: 7.8 / 10.0 =78 = proportion 7.8
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 7.9 / 10.0 = 79 = proportion 7.9
Finger length to palm width ratio: 7.8 / 7.9 = .99 =proportion 9.9
right hand fire/air (7.7 - 7.9 – 9.75)
difference to elements profiles : Earth 2.30, Fire: 1.10, Air: 1.80, Water: 2.40

Left hand
Finger length 7.7
Palm width 7.5
Palm length 10
Finger length to palm length ratio: 7.7 / 10.0 =77 = proportion 7.7
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 7.5 / 10.0 = 75 = proportion 7.5
Finger length to palm width ratio: 7.7 / 7.5 = 1.02 =proportion 10.0
Left hand fire (7.7 – 7.5 – 10.0)
difference to elements profiles : Earth: 2.2, Fire: .7, Air: 2.2, Water: 2.0

I am not sure if it is correct or not. I really should not be working on this now( because my 17 year dog has been seizuring the last couple of days and we will probably need to put her to sleep )so I will look at everything later.

Martijn (admin) wrote:


Example for how to apply these guidelines:

I'll show how it works in practice via the measurements that I have posted earlier for my own hands:

MY RIGHT HAND:

Finger length (middle finger): 8.7 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 8.8 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 11.65 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 8.7 / 11.65 = 0.75 => proportion = 7.5
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 8.8 / 11.65 = 0.76 => proportion = 7.6
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 8.7 / 8.8 = 0.99 => proportion = 9.9


MY LEFT HAND:

Finger length (middle finger): 8.85 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 9.05 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 11.55 cm

Finger length to palm length ratio: 8.85 / 11.55 = 0.77 => proportion = 7.7
Palm breadth to palm length ratio: 9.05 / 11.55 = 0.78 => proportion = 7.8
Finger length to palm breadth ratio: 8.85 / 9.05 = 0.98 => proportion = 9.8

Filling up the proportions in the HAND SHAPE PROPORTION FORMULA for each hand gives:

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9)
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 )

Notice: compared to the medium hand shape ratios [8.0 | 8.0 | 10 (+ 10.0)] one sees for both hands the 'dynamic profile' which is typical for FIRE hand shape: lower | lower | lower. So, here is an important first indication that the element FIRE plays a part in both hands.

But it is always necessary to compare the numbers in the hand shape proportion for each hand with the typical elemental hand shape formulas:

* FIRE: The typical fire hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.3 | 7.5 | 10 (+ 9.7)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2 = 0.5
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for FIRE: 0.4 + 0.3 + 0.1 = 0.8

As described by the guidelines, a score of 1.0 or lower is usually indicative that the element is the most dominant element. So in both of my hands FIRE is probably the most dominant element.

And the 'summarized difference' scores for the other elements are indeed much higher (see below):

* EARTH: The typical earth hand shape proportion ratios are: 7.7 | 8.8 | 10 (+ 8.7)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 2.6
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for EARTH: 0 + 1.0 + 1.1 = 2.1

* WATER: The typical water hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.3 | 7.4 | 10 (+ 11.3)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.8 + 0.2 + 1.4 = 2.4
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for WATER: 0.6 + 0.4 + 1.5 = 2.6

* AIR: The typical air hand shape proportion ratios are: 8.7 | 8.4 | 10 (+ 10.3)

- Right hand: 7.5 | 7.6 | 10 (+ 9.9) => summarized difference for AIR: 1.2 + 0.8 + 0.4 = 2.4
- Left hand: 7.7 | 7.8 | 10 (+ 9.8 ) => summarized difference for AIR: 1.0 + 0.6 + 0.5 = 2.6

So, the summerized difference to the elemental profiles for my right hand are: FIRE: 0.5, EARTH: 2.6, WATER: 2.4, and AIR: 2,6:
Difference to elemental profiles for left hand: FIRE: 0.8, EARTH: 2.1, WATER: 2.6, and AIR: 2.6.


CONCLUSION FOR MY HANDS:

The scores for both of my hands clearly indicate that FIRE is the dominant element in my hands, and this is also confirmed by the 'dynamic profile' observed in each hand

Therefore my dominant hand shape type is:
- right hand: FIRE
- left hand: FIRE


PS. My earlier report for my hands was:

"My hands:
- right hand (fl/pb: 0.989, fl/pl: 0.747): close to fire hand shape
- left hand (fl/pb: 0.978, fl/pl: 0.766): fire hand shape"

Patti wrote:Martijn, have you come up with a particular location for measuring at the wrist.

In most hands, there is a diagonal line being measured between the middle of the middle finger at the metacarpophalangeal crease and the top wrist line. Shouldn't one be measuring across the wrist to find this center point - as the measurement can change slightly as you slide the ruler to different locations.

Also, it may not be significant, but Bali pointed out in his book on creases that the top wrist crease is known to change seasonally. For those with a chained top crease, this could imply that the chain may close into a higher or lower single crease. Although probably not really important, but as it seems the slightest error in measurements here with Lynn's and Tap's measurements, changes the mix of results - I would think that changes in the palm features being used as a standard point would easily fluctuate a hand from one mix to another. Then, of course, those 'seasonal changes' might be reflected in that change of hand type.

Hi Patti,

Thank you for your considerations.

Regarding your question: one can simply look for the central point at the upper wrist crease.

By the way, yes... for those people who's finger coordinates are close the border regions a millimeter more of less for hand length could create a different result at first sight. But that is were the percentages will serve to show how strong the connection with a hand shape really is! However, if you look at the proportions related to palm length... you can see that the key-borders vary up to at least about 18%. So the effect of one mm more or less (which represents about 1%) is not very large at all in that perspective... and by the way since since in my method there are three ratio's involved, chances are pretty low that one will get confronted with border regions for multiple aspects in both hands! So, I estimate that implication or mm more of less is actually quite insignificant regarding the average result for both hands together.

...Not sure why you mentioned Lynn's and Tap's hand in specific - because it would require for you to make an analysis of their proportional formulas (which I have not yet presented, but these are in Lynn's case for both hands exactly the same, and for Tap's hand there is only a difference for only 1 aspect in the proportional formula - and there are only some percentage differences between significance of the elements in each hand).


Regarding seasonal influences, I think there is not much evidence for such an effect. By the way Rai's study is not featured in Bali's book, so maybe even the exact sources is unknown (I can't find any confirming info). Nevertheless, studies have shown that the results in wrist creases are relatively stable among populations... which could indicate that if there are any season influences, these are likely very small.

My estimate is that the issue concerned only a small statistical effect in Rai's study - which very likely has no implications at all regarding the assessment of palm length in an individual at all. So, I see no basis to recognize that as a problem at all.

But thanks for mentioning Bali's comment.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn wrote:

This sounds very complicated!

Just to compare with the way I do it....

RIGHT HAND:
Finger length (middle finger): 8.7 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 8.8 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 11.65 cm

Compare length & breadth = Rectangular palm
fingers=8.7/11.65 = 0.746%
= fire hand

LEFT HAND:
Finger length (middle finger): 8.85 cm
Palm breadth (at end of metacarpals): 9.05 cm
Palm length (from upper wrist crease): 11.55 cm

Compare length & breadth = Rectangular palm
fingers = 8.85/11.55 = 0.766%
= fire hand.

in this case, are all the other calculations really necessary?

Martijn (admin) wrote:
... And after adding the colors in the zones, I think it is much more obvious that this new (detailed) model for recognizing the elemental hand shapes does follow Lynn's principles as well!

And we can now also recognize immediately from the pictures that some of the hand examples that were presented by the authors in their books... may not have been the best choices (because E1, W1 and F3 are inside the 'mix' zones... though they are in the most likely 'mix' zone for the element involved - so in a way even those examples make sense for sure!).

(Looking forward to see her response after this weekend!!!)

Lynn wrote:by the way I would like to apologise for some of my earlier comments which perhaps were slightly defensive on behalf of the 5 element system! I thought you were trying to re-invent the system Martijn, but now I see that you were trying to understand it (and include other authors apart from C. Soc. ones) and put some solid evidence /measurements /stats behind the theory. Thanks for taking my comments into account Martijn and re-adjusting your thoughts & picture accordingly. (I still haven't taken it all in).

Lynn wrote:...

meanwhile... it is my turn to be thinking out loud.

I've been thinking about the fact that you measure palm breadth across the end of the metacarpals, and I measure across the centre of the hand.

I was thinking about how handshape also reflects the muscular development of the hand and wondered if measuring across the centre could show more about this, but I see that even when measuring across the metacarpals, the dominant hand seems to be slightly wider.

I am really not sure exactly where to measure across metacarpals. I know you have described it, but how can we be sure people are measuring exactly the right place?
I know that measuring across the centre of the palm doesn't fit with the anthropometric studies, but it could be more accurate in the sense that we know exactly where to measure. Once you've measured the length of the palm from base of middle finger to centre of wrist, you pinpoint the centre of that line half way down the palm, and draw a line across at 90 degrees to that line, then you have the measurement across centre of palm. (which are also the lines we used for drawing up the quadrants of the hand).

Martijn (admin) wrote:Regarding measuring palm breadth, I think you are underestimating the fact that at the times of the C.S. (+ in the field of hand reading in general), students were (are) not really stimulated to make any precise measurements for the dimensions of the hand at all.

For example: via PM you described earlier today that you received some feedback from (former) students that they usually only assess by 'appearance' - and not via measurement. I realize that you were basically talking about palm length, however, I think this does illustrate that in the C.S. approach measurement became never really a requirement.

wonder: have you ever compared your measurements for a couple of hands with the measurements made by other for the same hands?

(I am asking because I have some experience with experiments regarding palm breadth measurements in the past, and I found that the approaches described in hand reading books are nearly always not very specific. And I have the impression that your method is actually kind of more problematic because I think with your method one can not measure the palm breadth if the thumb is closed... and I also have the perception that by measuring above the thumb the result will for many hands depend on the angle of the thumb, whether it is stretched, and for many hands the muscular activity & skins activity depends on the thumb angle, etc. Also, I think your comment that your approach includes 'muscle development' indirectly confirms my observations.

Finally, this also makes me a bit wonder why Fincham claims that hand shape is "genetic, karmic and fixed" (page 14) - because I think it is obvious that hand shape not only varies with age (especially in children the assessment of hand shape requires other guidelines than in adults)... according your view it also depends on muscle development, which appears to me as a contradiction regarding Fincham's association with genetics).

By the way Lynn, I am fully aware that the measuring palm breadth at the metacarpals is a bit problematic as well. However, when done properly it's a relative stable measure - because it does not depend on gesture,.nor muscle activity.

And because this approach has widely been adopted (not only by various authors in the field of hand reading, also by - to mention a few: NASA, scientific researchers, and most other fields where anthropometic hand measurements are involved).

So, I propose that we should not focus on the question: 'which approach is the best?', because I am confident that this question is actually very hard to answer precisely.

It remains to be seen whether the results of your approach (and your guidelines) is really different from the approach that I am using here + the guidelines resulting from this.

I hope this makes sense.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:Regarding measuring palm breadth, I think you are underestimating the fact that at the times of the C.S. (+ in the field of hand reading in general), students were (are) not really stimulated to make any precise measurements for the dimensions of the hand at all.

For example: via PM you described earlier today that you received some feedback from (former) students that they usually only assess by 'appearance' - and not via measurement. I realize that you were basically talking about palm length, however, I think this does illustrate that in the C.S. approach measurement became never really a requirement.

(sorry it made me )
Martijn, you have no idea how much we used to measure aspects of the hands! (mention 'quadrants' to any CS member and they will groan at the tedious measurements we used to do!). I don't know why you've assumed that we didn't take measurements. I've still got the hand measurements (length, width, finger) of all the people who attended the seminar on handshape that I went to around 1996.

re the people I spoke to this weekend. I wasn't talking about palm length, I was talking about hand shape. Remember it is up to 20 or more years since they studied hand analysis. Those who don't use hand analysis regularly will probably have forgotten what measurements they were taught. Those who continue to use it will have seen enough hands to be able to judge by appearance if the palm is square or rectangular and has long or short fingers.

Thanks for explaining that Lynn.

But sorry, I have to correct you here: I have seen Hidde doing the 'quadrant analysis' - including the necessary measurements involved. But if I remember correctly, I think I have only seen him doing those measurements from paper.

(Via the pencil drawn contour that you learned to draw around the hand, according the teachings at the C.S.)

So, I wonder: what measurements are you exactly referring to? From the hand? Or from paper?

(I would not consider measurements from paper as reliable at all regarding palm breadth, simply because the drawn outline nearly always does not present a reliable reference for the true dimensions of the hand - because usually this method makes the hand look much larger than it really is. And I wonder: IF you are talking about palm breadth measurements directly from the hand... how come there is no criterium at all for discriminating a square palm from a rectangle shaped palm???)




PS. Lynn, if we agree that making palm breadth measurements is not an 'exact' science, then I think your argument against measurement at the metacarpals might become quite irrelevant - especially since the results of my study (based on measurement at the metacarpals) do confirm the general principles that you learned at the C.S...!

right hand (fl/pb = 0.987; fl/pl = 7.8 ). EARTH = 33%, FIRE = 83%, AIR = 0%, WATER = 0%; the percentage for earth is irrelevant because for FIRE you have 2 matches in your shape profile + your shape profile is very typical for a fire hand)

tap wrote:Martijn
I am sorry, but I am really not understanding your new chart for many reasons. The unshaded/colored areas are not making any sense. They represent that only the finger lengths are considered with combination and not the palm widths ???...

Hi Tap,

No that's not correct:

The horizontal scale does include palm breadth, specific: the horizontal scale = ratio of finger length versus palm breadth.

(I don't know where your question comes from, you sound really confused now... because I never changed the scale at all!)