Intro to 5 element chirology

Martijn (admin) wrote:Yes, this handprint concerns a male who has fragile x syndrome.


EDIT:
PS. Lynn, I have checked my measurement on paper and on my
computerscreen - resulting in scores above the maximum score that you
just described. That leaves me only wondering if you have used the full
fingerprint seen for the 3th finger... but I assume that you have used
it. Hmmm... I guess then it must have been your printer that slightly
changed the format of the hand print.

Patti wrote:Scans might currently be a good source for measurements as the hands are usually pressed flat against a level surface.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:Scans might currently be a good source for measurements as the hands are usually pressed flat against a level surface.

well if Martijn's correct that my printer is distorting pictures, then even scans arent' gonna work!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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?)

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:Yes, this handprint concerns a male who has fragile x syndrome.


EDIT:
PS. Lynn, I have checked my measurement on paper and on my
computerscreen - resulting in scores above the maximum score that you
just described. That leaves me only wondering if you have used the full
fingerprint seen for the 3th finger... but I assume that you have used
it. Hmmm... I guess then it must have been your printer that slightly
changed the format of the hand print.

I didn't use the bit where the fingers have moved and there is a blob on top of the fingerprint.

OMG!! Martijn I have just noticed at the top of the print-out it says "fragil10.jpg Image 744x1065pixels Scaled (53%).

"Fragil10" may have given me a clue that the person has a learning disability!
Honestly I am not consciously aware of reading that before, I got the idea about learning disability from various hand features, but now I feel like a fool. I award myself a banana

Now this is even more worrying, if I can't read hand shapes from a screen because screen resolution distorts them, and I can't read them from my printer because you reckon my printer has distorted it, then I have to question every reading I have ever done via computer !!

Case closed & solved:

Because I have used the - what you call - 'blob'!

(Let me explain: not using it would make the nail phalange of the 3th finger shorter than the nail phalange of 2nd finger - which is quite unlikely; and it would make the nail phalange of the 3rd finger hardly any longer than the nail phalange of the 4th finger... also quite unlikely because the nail phalange of the 3rd finger is usually clearly significantly longer than the nail phalange of the 2nd and 3rd finger)


PS. Lynn, now I can WITHDRAW my suggestion that in the printing proces something might have gone wrong. That takes away at least one more worry.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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?)

sorry I am replying to posts in random order. It has been difficult to keep up with it all this evening. I know since then you have changed your diagram Martijn.

Of course behaviour comes into it! (and that isn't me being subjective fire/water, especially since you re-classifed me as being fire/air ) You are classifying hands according to the elements, which is a symbolic way of looking at the hands that also includes interpretations based on the elements!

Seeing as how I measure across width of centre of palm, and you measure across metacarpals, I have no idea why my data fitted into your graph
(some of the measurements were from photos).

Don't worry Lynn... you're doing fine answering & responding.

Since the model now confirms the classification for your hands (based on your own guidelines) I have not much to add regarding the issue of behavior in the perspective of this discussion.


Regarding the other hands that you measured yesterday:

I think in general the width at the metacarpals is smaller compared to the width at the point near the thumb. However, I can imagine that in many cases it hardly becomes an issue since the difference concerns usually only a few mm's... my estimate would be on average about 3 or 4 mm.

But the effect of your mistake influenced ONLY the finger length to palm breadth ratio... so, at the end the effect of your mistake might turn out to be not very large.

Therefore I am looking forward to see you posting new measurements for palm breadth at the metacarpals. And then we can see in how many of those hands we find inconsistencies between your approach and the format, etc. etc.

Lynn wrote: How about you forget about what you know about stats (Let me explain: not using it would make the nail
phalange of the 3th finger shorter than the nail phalange of 2nd finger -
which is quite unlikely; and it would make the nail phalange of the 3rd
finger hardly any longer than the nail phalange of the 4th finger...
also quite unlikely because the nail phalange of the 3rd finger is
usually clearly significantly longer than the nail phalange of the 2nd
and 3rd finger)
and just look at the print! You can see the outline of the actual fingerprint. Logic tells you they have moved their finger and created a blob!

anyway at least you've given me the relief that my printer is not distorting pics.

these discussions would be so much easier if we were in the same room!

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

It looks like in the printing process the hand was lifted from the print, wrist first until the tips of the fingers touched the top leaving a slight mark/blob above each finger.