VII - REPORT: Korean researchers discovered the 'Suwon crease', only observed in males!

Patti wrote:...
Because of the nature of the II + III you are already dealing with the concept of a simian crease.

Patti wrote:From quotes posted earlier from Plato's book there is no such thing as the long transversing crease being just a single crease, as in just a long heart line or a long head line transversing from side to side.

Are you 'thinking out loud' here?


Sorry Patti, I recognize complete chaos in your perceptions:

The essentials of a complete simian line is actually very simple:
a complete merging of the heart line & head line, which leaves the 'impression' that actually one of both lines is missing (since normally we see 2 lines).


Now, back to the 'Suwon crease':
This requires e.g. the presence of a normal head line... which implicates that regarding a 'Suwon crease', for sure: one can not speak about that line as a 'simian line' variant.


THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUWON CREASE AND THE SIMIAN LINE CAN BE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS (= POINT 1 + 2):

1 - The Suwon crease requires: an EXTRA LINE + no 'merging of lines' (only a connection)
2 - The simian line requires NO EXTRA LINE, but there is a 'merging of lines'!!

Patti, does this makes sense?


These words describe the fundamental differences between 'Suwon crease' and the 'simian line' - basically there are really no similarities at all!!!

Okay, I must admit that ... after describing these fundamental differences, the 'formulas' presented by the Korean researchers are highly confusing:
- Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accesorry II'
- Simian line = 'II+III'

But we noticed from the beginning that there were some complications involved in their presentation!! So, I think I have now described very explicitely the ROOTS of this confusion - and this also shows that it is really necessary to think beyond these 'formulas'... because obviously: these forumales have a highly confusing side-effect if one starts using them literally!!!


I EXPECT THAT ... ANYBODY WHO CAN NOT ACCEPT THESE BASICS (POINT 1 + 2), WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE MANY, MANY, MANY OTHER MISTAKES IN DISCRIMINATING THE LINES INVOLVED.

(Simply because you have have started using your own 'private assumptions'... which I continued to recognize as mistakes)


Finally, I have one more essential point:

Patti, I hope that you will soon recognize the relevance of the point that was initially brought up by Lynn (and afterwards I confirmed very explicitely that you for sure made a mistake regarding how you read the Plato-quote).


Anyway, thank you again for sharing your thoughts... because now I am very aware why the 'formulas' are not as simple as they may look like!

(Because additionally one really needs to be able to recognize the difference between: 'merging lines', 'connecting lines', and... 'splitting lines'!)

Patti wrote:

Well that's not fair! I go and respond to your post and find you've in the meantime edit your post!

( 'Not fair'...? By the way, I didn't 'change' any of my words: I only added the clarification behind the word 'edit'... but even without that clarification you should have noticed that I was not talking about the simian line... but you did make that mistake initially, correct? Untill I posted my clarification - then you immediately recognized what I was trying to describe )

Patti wrote:

At one time Sydney creases were clumped into the Simian category too. Many turn of the century writers take note of the single crease. They also take note when it's the heart line doing the transversing and the head line doing the transversing but they didn't know it was the Sydney line because those guys in Sydney may have not been born yet to name it.

Yes Patti, that is indeed a part of history.
But really... the Sydney line was discovered in 1969 more than 40 years ago!!
So, since then this problem was sort of solved already!!

Patti wrote:
I think it's in the category of Suwon because of Accessory II.

Simply that. II + III and Accessory II

Sorry... Nope!

In my long former post (before my last response), I have described how the formulars have an unwanted side-effect: because the Suwon crease & the simian line really have completely different fundamental characteristics, I repeat:

1 - The Suwon crease requires: an EXTRA MAJOR CREASE + no 'merging of major crease' (only a connection)
2 - The simian line requires: NO EXTRA MAJOR CREASE, but there is a 'merging of major creases'!!

]color=green]1 - The Suwon crease requires: an EXTRA LINE + no 'merging of lines' (only a connection)[/color]

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

At one time Sydney creases were clumped into the Simian category too. Many turn of the century writers take note of the single crease. They also take note when it's the heart line doing the transversing and the head line doing the transversing but they didn't know it was the Sydney line because those guys in Sydney may have not been born yet to name it.

Yes Patti, that is indeed a part of history.
But really... the Sydney line was discovered in 1969 more than 40 years ago!!
So, since then this problem was sort of solved already!!

Patti wrote:
I think it's in the category of Suwon because of Accessory II.

Simply that. II + III and Accessory II

Sorry... Nope!

In my long former post (before my last response), I have described how the formulars have an unwanted side-effect: because the Suwon crease & the simian line really have completely different fundamental characteristics, I repeat:

1 - The Suwon crease requires: an EXTRA LINE + no 'merging of lines' (only a connection)
2 - The simian line requires: NO EXTRA LINE, but there is a 'merging of lines'!!

Patti wrote:

]color=green]1 - The Suwon crease requires: an EXTRA LINE + no 'merging of lines' (only a connection)[/color]

I think it is these words that cause the confusion between us.

I don't really think the Suwon crease is always an obvious "EXTRA LINE" that obviously originates on the radial edge near the life line and rises to meet the heart line.
...

Yes Patti, I agree that this is indeed the essential difference between our thoughts.


But somehow, you are ignoring the fact that the Suwon crease forumula very explicitely describes that there really needs to be an EXTRA MAJOR CREASE involed.

Obviously, you have made the 'assumption' that researchers might also have included examples when there is no EXTRA MAJOR CREASE involved.

But where did this 'assumption' take you...? Now you even have started describing a CLASSIC SIMIAN LINE VARIANT (= your last example) as a 'Suwon crease'!


Meanwhile, I have made no assumptions at all!!
(I only managed to describe more essential aspects which may play a role in recognizing the Suwon crease)


But I must admit... your 'confusion' has actually been very helpfull for me: because it helped me to understand why this discussion became a complete mess...

It took a while... but now I finally know that I arrived at a point where I can start thinking about how to write an article about the Suwon crease!!! And I won't forget to include a special word of 'thanks' for you!

You can remind me to this promise, but I won't forget to mention your name!!


Please... time for me to got to bed , time for you to wake up!!

Patti wrote:Just because you think you are right and I am wrong is no reason for you to respond rudely. It certainly doesn't give me any additional confidence in you being right.
...
As tempting as it might be, I really don't want to respond any further on this thread. I was torn at even giving it any more time as I am now, after your mean spirited remarks, not just tonight, but earlier in this discussion.

Patti wrote:...
I will agree that we are talking about simian variants. The Sydney and Suwon are simian variants....

Sorry again Patti, but this new comment again illustrates that the Korean formulas have an unwanted side-effect:

Because there is only a vocabulary similarity between how the Korean researchers have described the simian line (II+III), Sydney line (II+III plus accessory III), and the Suwon crease (II+III plus accessory II).

But this for sure does not implicate that the Sydney line and Suwon crease can also be described as a 'simian line' variants. Remember, in the past 40 years the Sydney line was described as one single line, and not as a 'combination line'. And in this perspective I am inclined to say that the confusing side-effect of the formulas especially applies to the formula of the Sydney line... because it suggests that EVERY Sydney line is a combination line.

But that is not true: for example the very first Sydney line described in the literature has only been described as one single line (below I present Purvis-Smith's Sydney line example from 1972 - which is obviously not a 'simian line'!):




But obviously, now you even claim that every Sydney line is a 'simian line' variant... but I could easily describe that as...

'THEORETICAL NONSENSE'


Because since the work of Purvis-Smith both the Sydney line and the simian line have each been described as a different major crease variant. And that is why each line variant was described by the Koreans through a different formula.


Patti, I could explain this through the example of apples and the pears... both have similarities... and both belong to the fruit species.

And yes, in their genetic formulas apples and pears have similarities... but it would become 'THEORETICAL NONSENSE' to claim:

'all pears are apples' or 'all apples are pears'.

Patti wrote: At one time Sydney creases were clumped into the Simian category too. Many turn of the century writers take note of the single crease. They also take note when it's the heart line doing the transversing and the head line doing the transversing but they didn't know it was the Sydney line because those guys in Sydney may have not been born yet to name it.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote: At one time Sydney creases were clumped into the Simian category too. Many turn of the century writers take note of the single crease. They also take note when it's the heart line doing the transversing and the head line doing the transversing but they didn't know it was the Sydney line because those guys in Sydney may have not been born yet to name it.

Patti I hope you don't drop out of this discussion.

I'm a bit confused by your above comment. Maybe because I'm not aware when Sydney lines (or long transverse head lines) were clumped into Simian category.
Although the long transverse headline had not been called a 'sydney' yet, it is still a headline with a separate heartline.
...

Hi Lynn,

Yes exactly: you've described the major difference between the Sydney line and the simian line. And for that reason ... a 'Sydney line' should NOT be discribed as a 'simian line variant'.

However... from Patti's feedback I recognize that because the 'II+III' element is found in the Korean forumula for not only the simian line, but also the Sydney line AND the Suwon crease... I now recognize that the formulas themselves (edit after Lynn's comment:) CREATE some additional confusion.

EDIT: But I am also aware that this problem will only manifest when people start interpretating the meaning of certain aspects in these forumulas. And therefore I still think that the Korean researchers did a phantastic job... and basically there is no need to change anything in their article. However, when people start these forumulas in 'out of context' considerations then unwanted side-effects can shows up. That is probably the only thing that I really learned from our discussion at this forum - next to that this discussion has been very helpful for me to become aware of the details that are really required to recognize a Suwon crease..

(That that is why earlier today I have described the unwanted side-effects of these forumulas)

And therefore one can not understand the hand-fundamentals behind of these formulas without the accessory comments + illustrations in the article. The forumales are not detailed enough for that purpose.

I think this again clearly illustrates that Patti's conclusions (see for example the quote below)... is the result of seeing things 'out of context'! (But I can accept that I might not be able to convince every participant in this discussion)

Patti wrote:...
I will agree that we are talking about simian variants. The Sydney and Suwon are simian variants....

Lynn, now I would love to hear from you:
how does my observation regarding the side-effect of the Korean formulas sound to you?

Lynn wrote:hi Jeanette,
"Crease" is the word that scientists use to talk about the palmar lines, such as the "Simian Crease" instead of simian line, "Distal Transverse palmar crease" is the heartline, 'proximal transverse crease' is the headline etc. So basically it's a line! (but they are trying to categorise it as a particular formation of line).

Patti wrote:...

If we ignore the rules they lay out to follow on how to recognize and categorize all creases, including the Suwon crease, then that's acting as if the report is flawed.

And I don't think the report is flawed at all. They were quite on top of what they were doing. Even to the point of recognizing their formula for T-DoT works best on square palms and would have to be adjusted for 'tribes' with longer palms.

Perhaps you need more justification yourself to point out the Korean's were mistaken and you are keener at knowing what they meant to say than what they actually said.



If they do not mean II + III and Accessory II is the Suwon Crease, Then I'll be happy to call it the Cincinnati Crease and go on from there. Am I *all heart* or what!!!

...

Martijn (admin) wrote: this new comment again illustrates that the Korean formulas have an unwanted side-effect:

Because there is only a vocabulary similarity between how the Korean researchers have described the simian line (II+III), Sydney line (II+III plus accessory III), and the Suwon crease (II+III plus accessory II).

But this for sure does not implicate that the Sydney line and Suwon crease can also be described as a 'simian line' variants.

Martijn (admin) wrote:.....However... from Patti's feedback I recognize that because the 'II+III' element is found in the Korean forumula for not only the simian line, but also the Sydney line AND the Suwon crease... I now recognize that the formulas themselves CREATE some additional confusion.
............ And therefore one can not understand the hand-fundamentals behind of these formulas without the accessory comments + illustrations in the article. The forumales are not detailed enough for that purpose.

Lynn, now I would love to hear from you:
how does my observation regarding the side-effect of the Korean formulas sound to you?

Lynn wrote:Yes I agree with you Martijn. (by the way I think you made a typo - you wrote CREASE, did you mean CREATE?).
And this is what Patti's saying I think - that the formula could describe many variants on the Suwon line that are different to the illustration in the article. The article gives us a few more clues in accessory comments & illustrations. But still, I think it needs expanding on by the authors, because obviously it has created confusion. A bit ironic really, as their aim was to improve the analysis of palmar lines and make it clearer!

jeanette wrote:Hi all,
I thought when Martijin showed the prints and gave the information that the Suwon crease, as it says, is a crease, not a line or a branch, but an actual crease. So this would make it, indeed, a noteworth discovery Am I right?
Jeanette.

Hi Jeannette,

I think Lynn & I provided you some answers.
But did we answer the question that you had in mind regarding the 'vocabulary'?

(Please, you're very welcome to continue if you have further questions about the Suwon crease!)

asif amin wrote:Hello Lynn and Martijin,

Can we recongnize this palm have a suwon crease or just heart line splitting towards head line?

Hi Asif,

No, this is a rather normal 'splitting heart line'.

NOTICE: None of the branches continues to the thumb-side of the palm, but more important: I see no 'extra head line' either - which implicates that both of the major characteristics of a Suwon crease are... missing! So I think it is definitely not a Suwon crease.

Thanks for asking!!