Re: Intro to 5 element chirology

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:54 am

Patti wrote:by the way Martijn, axes better fits the plural of axe which is kind of like a hatchet and chops things up. I think you mean axis? But then again your axes might be cutting the elements at an axis.

Patti, I checked the word 'axes' via google before using them: in discussions about plotting the words 'one axis' and 'two axes' are being used - see for example:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2300629/plotting-axes-with-different-scales-for-one-data-set-in-r

Do you have any info available to illustrate your point?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:00 am

Lynn wrote:here are some others I plotted. How do these fit in? (sorry I didn't take note of where I got the hand prints from, some of them could be the same ones you used from the books)

1st is finger length vs palm width, 2nd is finger length vs palm length:

0.77, 0.7 - earth/fire
0.81, 0.7 - earth
0.82, 0.77 - earth
0.83, 0.75 - earth/fire
0.9, 0.71 - fire
0.93, 0.75 - fire
1.105, 0.855 (did I plot this in the right place / read the graph right? strange numbers!) - water

Ha...! Now that the hand shape axes are available, it becomes quite easy for me to find out whether there could be some kind of a 'miss-hit' in your list:

Lynn, I would say that the red one above ... is probably 'earth'. Could that possibly be a better option?

PS. Your other examples perfectly make sense in the perspective of the axes - I think this model works very well.

Patti Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:20 am

Well actually you are correct, apparently axes is plural for axis:

http://www.mathopenref.com/axis.html

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:46 am

I think there is one more discrepancy. scratch

Lynn said

That's interesting. I plotted some handprints yesterday, and there was a distinct line of handshapes going up the graph between 1 and 1.01 on the finger length vs palm
breadth. I was surprised at what I saw, almost a straight line going up the graph....

1st is finger length vs palm width, 2nd is finger length vs palm length:

1, 0.75 - fire/water combination
1.01, 0.75 fire/water combination
1, 0.8 - Fire/Air combination
1.01, 0.82 - water
1, 0.87 - air
1.01, 0.92 - air

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:31 am

tap wrote:I think there is one more discrepancy.

Lynn said

That's interesting. I plotted some handprints yesterday, and there was a distinct line of handshapes going up the graph between 1 and 1.01 on the finger length vs palm
breadth. I was surprised at what I saw, almost a straight line going up the graph....

1st is finger length vs palm width, 2nd is finger length vs palm length:

1, 0.75 - fire/water combination
1.01, 0.75 fire/water combination
1, 0.8 - Fire/Air combination
1.01, 0.82 - water
1, 0.87 - air
1.01, 0.92 - air

Hi Tap,

Sorry, I don't see much of a problem regarding those first 2 examples, because they are clearly both in between the fire axis and the water axis.

Quite a different situation compared to Lynn's '0.83, 0.75 - earth/fire' example... because those coordinates are very close to the earth axis + at a very large distance from the fire axis.

See the difference?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:32 am

Patti wrote:Well actually you are correct, apparently axes is plural for axis:

http://www.mathopenref.com/axis.html

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:15 pm

Thanks Martijn

Okay I am pretty sure I got it now. So the hand is only a "pure" type/shape if the measurements and ratios fall on the axis directly. All the area in between the colored arrows is a mix of hand type. Most will be mixed hand shapes sunny

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:24 pm

tap wrote:Thanks Martijn

Okay I am pretty sure I got it now. So the hand is only a "pure" type/shape if the measurements and ratios fall on the axis directly. All the area in between the colored arrows is a mix of hand type. Most will be mixed hand shapes

Yes Tap, exactly!

When the hands are inside the areas between the axes, then it requires a closer look regarding the distances towards the 2 axes involved.

(Notice: the discussion about hand shapes is still 'in process', so in time I might get at a point to decide that it might be necessary to chance the position of the axes at least a little bit)

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:58 pm

Martijn

(Notice: the discussion about hand shapes is still 'in process', so in time I might get at a point to decide that it might be necessary to chance the position of the axes at least a little bit)

I am really a novice at the 5 element hand reading, but the chart does look somewhat off due to the fact that the "average" male and female marks are below the "center" of the chart.

PS I guess air hand is just not as common.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:54 pm

tap wrote:Martijn

(Notice: the discussion about hand shapes is still 'in process', so in time I might get at a point to decide that it might be necessary to chance the position of the axes at least a little bit)

I am really a novice at the 5 element hand reading, but the chart does look somewhat off due to the fact that the "average" male and female marks are below the "center" of the chart.

PS I guess air hand is just not as common.

Yes Tap, your observation is correct... but that relates directly to how the elemental hand shapes are defined. So, this is not an issue regarding the position of the hand shape axes.

Actually, I can explain this by detail:

For, for example one of the early elemental experts (Dukes) used the following description:

"If the hand has fingers that are longer than the palm..." and "If fingers are shorter...".

This implicates that in the elemental approach (far) most people typically are classified as belonging in the 'short fingers' category - because less than 1% of people have fingers that are longer than the palm.

(However, I should add here that later the descriptions for long fingers were improved with more realistic guidelines)

More important: based on this criterium one can expect 'fire hand shape' (short fingers + large long palm) and 'earth hand shape' (short fingers + squarish palm) to be most cost common.

However, since squarish palms are not very common... this explains why the 'fire hand shape' is generally most common (especially in Europe & the US - I already have planned to present a chart describing the average finger ratios for various countries).

Also, please be aware that the finger coordinates for average males and females is also very close to the 'neutral zone' - where the 4 hand shape axes start!

Tap, I hope this explains enough why the average for males and females are found located close to the fire hand shape axis?

wave

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:24 pm

Thanks, got it. While I was charting the hand shapes I noticed not one of them was "Air"...so I was just thinking about that (and that does correlate with your chart). Just surprised I did not have one "Air" shaped hand.

Makes sense that the finger/palm length was moved from 100% + to 80% for the air hand.

Thanks for explaing further. Thumbs up!

Patti Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:34 pm

When you refer to the length of the palm in previous systems, you are assuming that they measured to the wrist. Personally I've never measured to the wrist. I measure to the high point at the heel of the palm to look for normal. It seems the best I can remember this is what I was taught in 1981 in the non-credit class I took at UC. It's in my earliest notes. The other standard was to measure the whole hand to the face... but that wasn't helpful if a person's hairline was missing. Very Happy

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:00 pm

I can't remember where (I think Johnny Fincham), but I am pretty sure I read that air hand is found more in the Nordic region (I am doing too many things at once ..looked at his book briefly, but didnty see that).

This should be interesting.

However, since squarish palms are not very common... this explains why the 'fire hand shape' is generally most common (especially in Europe & the US - I already have planned to present a chart describing the average finger ratios for various countries)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:27 pm

Patti wrote:When you refer to the length of the palm in previous systems, you are assuming that they measured to the wrist. Personally I've never measured to the wrist. I measure to the high point at the heel of the palm to look for normal. It seems the best I can remember this is what I was taught in 1981 in the non-credit class I took at UC. It's in my earliest notes. The other standard was to measure the whole hand to the face... but that wasn't helpful if a person's hairline was missing.

Patti, the wrist crease represent the 'heel' of the hand! There are sources that describe this explictely, for example:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA316017

"PALM LENGTH - Subject's right hand is extended, palm up. With the bar of the sliding caliper resting on the palm, measure from the proximal edge of the navicular bone at the wrist (wrist crease) to the skin crease formed where the middle finger folds upon the palm."

NOTICE: The word 'navicular bone' was later replaced by the word 'scaphoid bone' - which is known to represent the heel of the hand (see: http://orthopedics.ygoy.com/2009/12/27/types-of-hand-fractures/).

PS. I can add...

Palm length is usually measured from the crease between the 3th finger and the palm, to the upper wrist crease. (Only in x-ray or radiographic assessment the 'scapoid bone' (which represents the heel of the hand) is used for anthropometric purposes)

So, the method via the wrist crease is used in:
- scientific approaches (at NASA they also use it - see page 39: http://www.humanics-es.com/FireFighterAnthropometry.pdf );
- in industrial perspectives;
- paediatric examinations;
- and in most hand reading approaches.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:30 pm

tap wrote: I can't remember where (I think Johnny Fincham), but I am pretty sure I read that air hand is found more in the Nordic region (I am doing too many things at once ..looked at his book briefly, but didnty see that).

This should be interesting.
However, since squarish palms are not very common... this explains why the 'fire hand shape' is generally most common (especially in Europe & the US - I already have planned to present a chart describing the average finger ratios for various countries)

Correct. See: page 26 in Fincham's book (The Spellbinding Power of Palmistry).

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:37 pm

Sorry if I made some mistakes, it was late.
I think my earth/fire hand that Martijn mentioned could be classed as earth shape. But my mistake was a good test, because the chart showed this!

Tap one of the fire/water cases is borderline. The other one seems fire/water to me.

I agree with not including my cases on the chart, I just posted them to see how they fit in, and because of that vertical line I found when I plotted them on the graph.
Thanks for replying re how Lori's stats helped Martijn.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:46 pm

Lynn wrote:Sorry if I made some mistakes, it was late.
I think my earth/fire hand that Martijn mentioned could be classed as earth shape. But my mistake was a good test, because the chart showed this!

Tap one of the fire/water cases is borderline. The other one seems fire/water to me.

I agree with not including my cases on the chart, I just posted them to see how they fit in, and because of that vertical line I found when I plotted them on the graph.
Thanks for replying re how Lori's stats helped Martijn.

Hi Lynn,

Yes, very nice to hear that the chart was right about the mistake! Very Happy

By the way, I was thinking... would you be interested to take a closer look at your favourite examples in your hand collection for each hand type?

(NOTICE: I am not asking you to select based on measurements, instead I would love to see you making some measurements for hand examples that you considered in the past a representing typical examples for each hand shape type)

Then we can use your measurements as a validation test for the hand shape axes based on the examples in the 4 books. And then we can also compare these materials with your CS guidelines for a typical 'fire hand shape'!

How does this proposal sound to you?

wave

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:08 pm

I've just realised a problem, on the finger length thread where Martijn assessed my hands as fire/water.
Martijn measures across the metacarpals, I measure across the centre of the palm, so all the data I gave you last night will be wrong according to Martijn's way of measuring (yet it fits into the axes!!).
Ive checked the earth/fire hand that Martijn thought I had wrongly assessed, and it isn't an earth hand, it is fire/earth combination. Because of muscular development it is wider across the centre of the palm. If I'd measured according to Martijn's criteria it would be a fire hand (with short fingers only 70%)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:25 pm

Lynn wrote:I've just realised a problem, on the finger length thread where Martijn assessed my hands as fire/water.
Martijn measures across the metacarpals, I measure across the centre of the palm, so all the data I gave you last night will be wrong according to Martijn's way of measuring (yet it fits into the axes!!).
Ive checked the earth/fire hand that Martijn thought I had wrongly assessed, and it isn't an earth hand, it is fire/earth combination. Because of muscular development it is wider across the centre of the palm. If I'd measured according to Martijn's criteria it would be a fire hand (with short fingers only 70%)

Yes, that makes your earlier measurements so far irrelevant (except for your own hand measurements - which you reported to have been made at the metacarpals).

However, no problem, Lynn... you are welcome to present new measurements.

PS. Please be aware that working here with 'ink prints' could become problematic if you do not consider the 'clues' that signal the true borders of the palm at the metacarpals.

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:35 pm

posting new measurements isn't the solution as far as I am concerned. The problem is bigger than that. It means our two systems are not compatible because they present different conclusions as to hand shape. In your system I am fire/water handshape which is a different assessment from my fire (with a little air added from finger length). Fire/water does not fit the way I express myself out into the world!

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:50 pm

Lynn wrote:posting new measurements isn't the solution as far as I am concerned. The problem is bigger than that. It means our two systems are not compatible because they present different conclusions as to hand shape. In your system I am fire/water handshape which is a different assessment from my fire (with a little air added from finger length). Fire/water does not fit the way I express myself out into the world!

... Sounds like you are now suddenly jumping into conclusions based on your ideas about your behavior???

(This doesn't make sense Lynn... especially after nearly all you measurements earlier today perfectly fitted with the model present by the axes! That was a strong indication that there is high compatibitly between your own approach and the approach of the axes. However, I can not see how you made the measurements... so I can not explain why your incorrect measurements did works became compatible. Maybe you can stop for a moment making measurments from handprints... and instead focus on hand photos?)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:10 pm

Lynn, in this new picture I have now made an attempt to estimate the STARTING POINT of the 4 axes - based on the distances between F, E, A and W buttons!

The principle requirement that I have added here is that the axe of an element can not manifest in a zone which is at a smaller distance to 'average button' of one of the other elements.

I think this choice makes sense....and I think your problem (regarding the water element) has now also disappeared completely. But does this make sense for you as well?

Looking forward to hear your thought about this small (but important) modification!

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 6 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes-axes-2

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 6 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes-axes-2

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:53 pm

Guess what Lynn?

The new modification regarding the starting points of the axes has forced me to change my earlier assessment for you hand shape - and I think you will much more like the result, see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1975p15-about-finger-length-do-you-have-normal-finger-length#20988

PS. And I have found a few other arguments why this modification was an important step to make, because now we can for example also see in the picture why the combination 'earth/water hand shape' is impossible to find in one hand! (And it's for sure the only impossible combination)

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:18 pm

Martijn I also have an unanswered question. Did you check again the measurements on the handprint you posted?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:08 pm

Lynn wrote:Martijn I also have an unanswered question. Did you check again the measurements on the handprint you posted?

Yes Lynn, I have:

Yesterday, I tried to find out how you came to the 0.75 ratio (75%) of finger length versus palm length, and I found that you must have assumed that the palm length for that hand is MORE than 1/2 cm longer than is actually seen in the print.

I assumed it to be not much longer than is seen in the print, which explains why I described that the fl/pl ratio is close to 0.80 (80%).

(But this was not really important regarding the point that I wanted to make for that hand regarding the various guidelines that the authors have presented, etc. Therefore I didn't make an issue about the difference that we found for the ratio - afterall, we can only speculate about the true location of the wrist crease, etc.)

Does this answer your question?

Sponsored content