Intro to 5 element chirology

Okay, no need to talk about the lines.


PS. Lynn, what I only meant to say is that when Fincham talks about a specific type of hands, he always starts describing hand shape + the typical characteristics for the hand lines.

After noticing this, this remembered me of that you and I had tried to summarize the key-features to describe the hand types earlier in this discussion.

Do my earlier words make sense now? (I should have mentioned there 'hand type' instead of 'hand shape' - I have now corrected my mistake!)

Patti wrote:I think Johnny is referring to a type as an archetype. Not hand shape....hand type. Type would include the lines.

Lynn wrote:You questioned E3, W1 and F1

E3 Gettings illustration 106
Fingers are too long for earth hand. I would say it is an earth/air combination.


W1 Johnny page 19
You can't use the outline - there is a wide gap between the pen and the hand. But even if you used the outline, the palm is not square. The wrist crease is missing, as is the crease where the middle finger joins the palm. It has a rectangular palm and the fingers are only just above average - but they are not short, so it is a water hand.

F1 Johnny page 21
Yes it is a fire shape hand but I could see an argument for fire/earth combination as the finger is slightly shorter than width of palm.

Thanks Lynn,

Regarding E3 being a combination of earth/air combination... I agree! By the way, the 'frame work' suggests the same with a slight preference toward air.

Regarding W1, I agree with most of your comments. Though I think I have a more specified observation regarding the palm shape. Because the 'frame work' also suggests that the average palm shape shows a ratio of 0.78 for palm breadth versus palm length. I found a ratio of 0.77 for W1 - slightly below average... so I think this is actually quite a normal hand shape - which explains why the 'frame work' sort of points out to a combination of air and water. Does this make sense now? - Though I agree that it is hard to say how accurate my measurements really are, as the finger crease and the wrist crease are not visible.

Regarding F1, yes I sort of agree with your comments. Though from my experience I suspect that E1 actually has a significantly wider palm shape than W1... but one has to account here that at the thumb side the upper palm probably did not make an accurate print on the paper! Only when one ignores this effect... then it might 'appear' as long, but it is probably not - typically a male hand, I would say.


Hmmm.... these issues sort of point out that it is very hard to make measurements from hand prints. But except for the last example, the 'frame work' appears to work just fine and sort of delivers a much more detailed result - but proper measurements are required!

Just wondering Lynn, what is your thought regarding the 'frame work' for hand shape as described in my picture - after our discussion so far?

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:I think Johnny is referring to a type as an archetype. Not hand shape....hand type. Type would include the lines.

Yes Patti I agree. Hand SHAPE is one smallpart of the analysis of a hand and only refers to shape of palm & length of fingers. If someone had an archetypical hand TYPE, that would include not just the lines but the skin texture, fingerprints, flexibility etc.

Repeat:

"The 'pure' elemental hand shapes we shall explore........... from simple observations.
Pure types are where a set of characteristics in terms of palm shape, finger length and line quality combine to create an elemental archetype."

Sorry Lynn, I observe that Fincham here clearly connects the word 'pure' with hand shape. And again, in the 2nd sentence he is using the words 'palm shape'... and not 'hand shape'.

And on the same page he is talking about 'the overall shape and form of the hand' - as the first level of hand reading. And skin texture is the 2nd level.

So, it is quite obvious for me that 'line quality' is associated here with 'shape and form of the hand'.

Anyway, I have described my observations - not really important I guess.

Martijn (admin) wrote:PPS. Maybe it is a bit confusing that Fincham starts talking about the hand lines inside his chapter about 'The Elements of Hand Shape'.

On page 14 Fincham e.g. describes:

"The 'pure' elemental hand shapes we shall explore.. from simple observations.
Pure types are where a set of characteristics in terms of palm shape, finger length and line quality combine to create an elemental archetype."


Sorry Lynn... Fincham mentions here the words 'palm shape'... and not 'hand shape'...!!!!

This clearly suggests that Fincham does define 'hand shape' as a combination of 'palm shape', 'finger length', and 'line quality'.

I think this sort of illustrates that - despite you 'grew up' as a hand reader in a similar environment - each of your has developed private ideas about how to describe the details. Just like we have seen regarding the percentages being used for recognizing finger length versus palm length (85% versus 87.5% - which is in my view a huge difference)


Hmmm, while I corrected my earlier posts... I now realize that my words very precisely reflected Fincham's ideas.

Anyway, don't worry Lynn... no need for me to continue about the hand lines.

This clearly suggests that Fincham does define 'hand shape' as a combination of 'palm shape', 'finger length', and 'line quality'.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:PPS. Maybe it is a bit confusing that Fincham starts talking about the hand lines inside his chapter about 'The Elements of Hand Shape'.

On page 14 Fincham e.g. describes:

"The 'pure' elemental hand shapes we shall explore.. from simple observations.
Pure types are where a set of characteristics in terms of palm shape, finger length and line quality combine to create an elemental archetype."


Sorry Lynn... Fincham mentions here the words 'palm shape'... and not 'hand shape'...!!!!

This clearly suggests that Fincham does define 'hand shape' as a combination of 'palm shape', 'finger length', and 'line quality'.

I think this sort of illustrates that - despite you 'grew up' as a hand reader in a similar environment - each of your has developed private ideas about how to describe the details. Just like we have seen regarding the percentages being used for recognizing finger length versus palm length (85% versus 87.5% - which is in my view a huge difference)


Hmmm, while I corrected my earlier posts... I now realize that my words very precisely reflected Fincham's ideas.

Anyway, don't worry Lynn... no need for me to continue about the hand lines.

yes it is confusing. But if you read page 23 he explains that he is talking about pure archetypes. by the way Johnny realised that his chapter on hand shape was confusing, which is why he completely omitted hand shape from his second book "Apprentice to pro in 24 hours". He does contradict himself in your above quote, talking about 'pure' elemental hand shapes then Pure types which are not the same thing! but page 14-15 he also explains how handshape is a spectrum from broad to narrow, long to short etc.

This clearly suggests that Fincham does define 'hand shape' as a combination of 'palm shape', 'finger length', and 'line quality'.

Sorry Martijn I disagree that your words very precisely reflected Fincham's ideas.
I can assure you that Johnny does not classify hand shape according to lines etc. Read it again - he doesn't say 'pure hand shape' in this sentence, he says Pure types are where a set of characteristics in terms of palm shape, finger length and line quality combine to create an elemental archetype."
archetypes, not hand shape. (edit) i.e. the elemental archetype includes hand shape (palm shape & finger length) and also line quality.

I think you are correct that each reader (from any school) goes on to develop their own methods. It might be interesting to note that I see very few air shape hands, whereas Johnny himself has air shape hands and reads for lots of people who have air shape hands (so square palms and long fingers are 'normal' to him, but 'quite unusual' for me! vice versa for earth hands) Maybe that explains his extra 2.5% criteria for long fingers, and my lower criteria... his 'normal' or 'average' client has longer fingers compared to my 'normal' or 'average' client!

Martijn (admin) wrote:basically, my research points out that Fincham's criterium of 87.5% might (likely) be far too high - because that percentages probably relates to 'abnormally long fingers' (probably seen in only about 3% to 5% of people).

Just wondering Lynn, what is your thought regarding the 'frame work'
for hand shape as described in my picture - after our discussion so far?

Patti wrote:Here is how Gettings describes the differences in the four hand shapes and how to measure them. He also notes that the measurements in a hand print are not true to the actual hand when he mentions to add a little for the finger being shortened in the printing process.



- Fred Gettings "The Book of the Hand"

(I guess it doesn't help this discussion that Gettings refers to hand type and says "It will be found later that the four basic hand types are in fact characterized by other particularities,...")

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:basically, my research points out that Fincham's criterium of 87.5% might (likely) be far too high - because that percentages probably relates to 'abnormally long fingers' (probably seen in only about 3% to 5% of people).

I agree that Johnny's 87.5% seems high. (I don't know about the % of people)

Just wondering Lynn, what is your thought regarding the 'frame work'
for hand shape as described in my picture - after our discussion so far?

Yes, I can see the potential in your framework. I'm starting to see it now. Especially after our discussion & some adjustments in assessing the handshapes, and thinking about where I would place them on the diagram (eg your comment about placing W3 lower).... helps me to see how this framework could work! It could also be useful in plotting combination hand shapes! and can also show the 'spectrum' of handshapes that Johnny talks about. I can see some great potential in this!
It is a stage further from the simpler 4 element + of
AlW
ElF

Thanks Lynn, sounds great!

Yes exactly: the 'frame work' can also be used to describe specific combinations of hand types!

I think these hand type combinations can be visualized near the diagonals between the corners of the central box which describes the normal variations (and these diagonals can of course also be extended outside the central box).

(Though, I have to think a little bit more about whether the diagonals really represent the best location for describing the combinations of hand types)




PS. The 'frame work' indicates that combinations of fire + water hand types and earth + air hand types are probably much more rare than the more likely combinations of air + water hand types and earth + fire hand types. Because fire + water and earth + air require a very unusual palm shape (with sort of contradicting extremities - such as for example: long palm length + short palm breadth, and short palm length + long palm breadth). Is this somehow confirmed by your experience?

PPS. The rectangle-shaped 'central box' is a bit of a theoretical construct. We could also think about the idea to create some kind an oblique elipse-shaped figure positioned 'central box' which should represent the most common hand shapes + the most common combinations.

her left hand is actually inside the start of the mixed zone for a water + air hand shape.

tap wrote:Thanks Martijn

I understand the chart better with the areas marking mixed shapes.

But I still am not sure about how the left hand was figured.

her left hand is actually inside the start of the mixed zone for a water + air hand shape.

I have the finger to palm length at .755 (7.7/10.2 = .755) so wouldn't that put me below the air section and into the fire section?

Wouldn't that make my left fire?

Edit: Isn't the middle /dividing marker for fire vs air .77?

Another difficulty I've got with the diagram is that we measure the palm across the centre, not across metacarpals, so likely our measurements are wider.

tap wrote:Thanks Martijn

Sorry for the confusion with the previous post.

Lynn

Another difficulty I've got with the diagram is that we measure the palm across the centre, not across metacarpals, so likely our measurements are wider.

That definitely makes a difference. Esp. with spatula shaped hands, like in my case.

Lynn wrote:Martijn, the picture isn't right. eg green zone for earth hands should not reach higher than 0.8 on finger length vs palm length ratio.
Another difficulty I've got with the diagram is that we measure the palm across the centre, not across metacarpals, so likely our measurements are wider.

You asked about fire + water hand types shapes and earth + air hand
types shapes
Whilst fire & water, and earth & air are antagonistic elements, I do see a lot of fire/water handshapes (rectangular palm, slightly narrower than standard fire hand but fingers shorter than water hand). I don't see earth & air combination hand shape often because people usually live either more in the physical or more in the mental realm. I've seen it e.g. on master craftsmen who use brawn and brains!

Lynn, regarding your first comment... remember that we started talking about the significance of palm width?

Well, this probably implicates that as soon as you start adopting the consideration of both palm width combined with palm length... the old 0.8-criterium regarding palm length is no longer a necessary requirement, because considering both palm width AND palm length gives a more precise result... and this new 'frame work' explains why it leads to other criteria!

Lynn, please be aware: the 'earth hands' that have a palm length (slightly) above 0.8 - which are found in the upper half of the green zone... always have a broad palm - see the picture.

Does this now make sense for you?

By the way, I do think that this is a key-issue regarding the question: how to define the difference between an earth hand shape and a mixed (partly earth) hand shape. It think your notification here provides me the argument to make the 'mixed hand shape' zones much larger than in the picture that I have just presented!

Because, while making the picture... I have not used any specific criteria at all. But your 85% criterium in the perspective of palm length provides me a very solid argument to make a new (better) picture, and the 87% will continue to serve to recognize abnormally long fingers.

+


By the way, this sort of implicates that the 'frame work' presents a new criterium for an 'earth hand': the finger length versus palm width ratio should probably be required to have a value below 0.9.

So, I can not confirm your report of a mistake in the picture... because I would like to ask you here again to think a little bit more outside the box: think beyond the criteria that you are familiar with. Does this request make sense for you?

By the way, I can add regarding your criterium: Fred Gettings' earth hand example did not meet your 0.8 criterium (though we agreed that his choice for that example may not have been the best choice... but I am sure that Fred would object to your argument regarding the 0.8, as Fred is using slightly different criteria, etc.).


PS. Regarding the issue of how to measure palm width, we have talked about that in the past a few times. I think it is important to be aware that in the field of 'anthropometrics' hand width is always measured at the end of the metacarpals - probably because it relates directly to the bone structure, which represent the widest part of the upper palm!
This approach is also (nearly) always used in scientific studies... and in quite a lot of books about hand reading as well, including the works of Holtzman, Birla & Sprong - my first teacher in the field of hand reading.

(By the way, I am aware that your approach is used in many books about hand reading - though I can add that various authors have presented different guidelines for how to apply this approach regarding the question whether a palm is narrow, wide or normal)

And yes, the metacarpal approach usually results in lower numbers than your approach for measuring palm width, which implicates that the metacarpal approach is really a requirement for using the 'frame work' that I present: see the hand-illustration in my pictures!

Patti wrote:

tap wrote:Thanks Martijn

Sorry for the confusion with the previous post.

Lynn

Another difficulty I've got with the diagram is that we measure the palm across the centre, not across metacarpals, so likely our measurements are wider.

That definitely makes a difference. Esp. with spatula shaped hands, like in my case.

This is a good point! I had noticed earlier that if I hold my hand like the little sketch with fingers spaced my hand is wider across the metacarpals than when the fingers are held together. I took my measurements with the fingers held just slightly apart.

It would seem that focusing on the metacarpals would give us a measurement of skeletal aspects but not really the shape of the hand. And you are right Tap to point out the spatulate shape. There is a big difference in the spatulate hand that is wide at the fingers vs the spatulate hand that is wide at the wrist. However, I don't think the elemental system works with this shape or conic (rounded) as it's more about length vs width. (probably why in the elemental system you end up with so many "mixed" hand shapes. Hand length vs. width at limited points really cannot express hand 'shape'.

Yes Patti,

Good point. Regarding the picture, the right pointer should have been pointing to where the life line starts, because I found that is about the location where the metacarpals end. On the pinky side there is more variation, but usually the metacarpals ends at a location close to where the marriage lines manifest.

If you adopt this approach, you will find that it hardly matters how the fingers are hold... because the metacarpals hardly change from position when you move the fingers!


PS. Regarding Tap's point: the issue of whether a palm a squarish, spatulate or whatever... is irrelevant here, because that goes beyond the perspective that we are talking about. For, that issue much more relates to the size of the mount of venus + the size mount of moon, and by the way this also plays no role at all in the approach when the width of the palm is measured just above the implant of the thumb!

So, this is kind of more a fundamental issue of the ELEMENTAL APPROACH. And therefore it become completely irrelevant in this 'frame work'. Because in the elemental approach there is no consideration for whether a palm is 'squarish' or 'spatulate'... those words are part of the d'Arpentigny vocabulary for the 7 hand types - which are generally today considered as belonging to the 'old palmistry' school.

Sorry Tap, your point goes (... )

Lynn wrote:...
Whilst fire & water, and earth & air are antagonistic elements, I do see a lot of fire/water handshapes (rectangular palm, slightly narrower than standard fire hand but fingers shorter than water hand). I don't see earth & air combination hand shape often because people usually live either more in the physical or more in the mental realm. I've seen it e.g. on master craftsmen who use brawn and brains!

Well, this probably implicates that as soon as you
start adopting the consideration of both palm width combined with palm
length... the old 0.8-criterium regarding palm length is no longer a
necessary requirement, because considering both palm width AND palm
length gives a more precise result... and this new 'frame work' explains
why it leads to other criteria!

Lynn, please be aware: the
'earth hands' that have a palm length (slightly) above 0.8 - which are
found in the upper half of the green zone... always have a broad palm -
see the picture.

Does this now make sense for you?

Patti wrote:Here is it pretty obvious that hand "shape" is more than the length and width of the skeletal structure.