Re: Intro to 5 element chirology

Patti Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:00 pm

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

Yes it is, but in the 5 element system, when we talk about hand shape we are simply looking at the general shape of the palm (square or rectangular) and the length of the fingers relative to the length of the palm (short or long). All other characteristics such as bent fingers, knotted knuckles, spatulate palm, etc would be assessed separately, in conjunction with all other features. Like doing a jigsaw, building up a picture of all the different features.
The difficulty I have with D'Arpentigny's 7 shapes is that he is taking into account too many features in each category eg spatulate fingers, knotted knuckles etc and so in his system most hands seem to end up as 'mixed'. I prefer the elemental handshape classification that I learnt in Cheirological Society, but of course that is just my personal preference.

I tend to not apply any system, well maybe my system lol!

but I look at all portions of the hand and note if the fingers are long or short in relationship to the palm or if the palm looks wide or narrow and short or long, but I also find round very important as most hands tend to be angular at the index finger corner with the other three corners ranging from slightly angular to more likely roundish. Some hands are round with all four corners rounded out.

Some palms are longer on the radial or ulnar side and shorter on the other. The same with width which results in the spatulate hands. Measuring all hands at the metacarpals for width isn't a true measurement for how wide a hand might be. We could be looking at the craftsman you mentioned with the very wide base of the hand that tapers up to the fingers with long fingers. On paper they might come out as water, but not when you are looking at the hand itself or comparing it to a long narrow hand.

Martijn,
I still wonder why you have chosen to apply elements to actual hand measurments. If there is such disparity in how Johnny Fincham, Jennifer Hirsch and Fred Gettings viewed which measurements qualified for which type and gave that result a particular meaning by associating it with elements or a blend of elements, then you have basically shown that the meanings given were/are fairly general and everyone might be able to identify with some aspect described. Do you think that the elemental 'meanings' will apply better with exact measurements?

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:06 pm

Lynn wrote:
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?

No sorry it doesn't make sense.
Just looking at the vertical scale, (the palm width is irrelevant here)-
the definition earth hands are that they have short fingers. Therefore no earth hands could be above 80% (medium) finger length to palm length ratio.
Likewise water hands have long fingers, therefore no water hands would appear below the 80% because then they would have short fingers.

Lynn, then why do you think that Gettings presented an example of an earth hand that clearly exceeds this 80% criterium... ?

(At first sight I thought it was relevant that you and I agreed that Gettings had better chosen another example, but maybe his example now becomes helpful for me to help you thinking outside your box)

I think that it is quite obvious that Gettings doesn't use the 80% criterium for identifying earth hands (as it is not mentioned in his books), and the 'frame work' that I am presenting here points out that it is probably indeed not necessary at all to use the 80% criterium. But I guess it does require here some thinking outside the box in order to understand this....!

Basically, I think historically finding earth hands was originally described indirectly as a matter of the ratio between palm length and palm width... because initially it was a matter of finding a squarish-like palm shape. However, some people later began to define it in term of palm length only... but the criterium of 80% in isolation leaves the issue of palm width sort of open. And then it becomes a matter of perception in stead of applying a specific criterium.

Lynn, I hope you can accept that I continued making observations that sort of go outside your box. In a way, it might not make sense to hold on to the 80% criterium... while you know that the criterium itself considers only one dimension of the palm, while there are two dimensions that are actually relevant.

Does this make sense for you?

**Lynn** Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:13 pm

yes Patti, all those things would be taken into account in analysing the hands. Elemental handshape is just the first thing we look at to give a general idea whether palm or fingers dominate. It is of very little importance in most hands (which is reflected in the fact that Johnny didn't even put handshape into his 2nd book!) because most hands in western world have some fire in their handshape, cos that is the manner in which our societies function! An obvious earth, water or air handshape tells you more about a person than fire handshape does.

**Lynn** Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:26 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn, then why do you think that Gettings presented an example of an earth hand that clearly exceeds this 80% criterium... ?

Well we can't be sure that it does exceed 80% as the base of the palm is missing. Gettings says earth hand should have short fingers. Therefore by his own definition (and general known averages), if these fingers are more than 80% they can't be classed as short.

(At first sight I thought it was relevant that you and I agreed that Gettings had better chosen another example, but maybe his example now becomes helpful for me to help you thinking outside your box)

Why are you asking me to think outside my box. You posted this in the section on 5 element hand analysis. I am talking about elemental hand analysis as taught by the Cheirological Society. Why should I now start talking about some new system of elemental hand shape that it seems you are trying to invent?

Basically, I think historically finding earth hands was originally described indirectly as a matter of the ratio between palm length and palm width... because initially it was a matter of finding a squarish-like palm shape. However, some people later began to define it in term of palm length only... but the criterium of 80% in isolation leaves the issue of palm width sort of open. And then it becomes a matter of perception in stead of applying a specific criterium.

Sorry Martijn, I'm not sure what you mean. Who later began to define it in terms of palm length only?

Lynn, I hope you can accept that I continued making observations that sort of go outside your box. In a way, it might not make sense to hold on to the 80% criterium... while you know that the criterium itself considers only one dimension of the palm, while there are two dimensions that are actually relevant.
Does this make sense for you?

No!

The width dimension comes into the palm shape, and into the classification of combination hands, so it is still taken into consideration.
Out of interest what % would you consider to be the mid point between short and long fingers?

PS (edit) actually Martijn I'm not sure why you're putting so much time and energy into this when you don't even use the 5 element system of hand analysis.

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:28 pm

Patti wrote:Perhaps those that use the elemental system see the use of 7 types as old school, but they are still quite functional as a system taking into account that hands are not shaped like boxes, and includes the ever popular mixed hand shape.

Yes Patti, that is correct. People and hand readers for sure have various opinions about the value of d'Arpentigny's 7 type system.

(I think there are many reasons why it gets rejected, we can discuss that in another topic)

Patti wrote:
Again the concept "shape" really isn't described by length and width or their ratios. Maybe that's why there is confusion in Johnny's text using the words type and shape.

I'd suggest that instead of altering the 5 Element 'shape' system (with 4 elements) already in place, you rename yours something to the effect of hand 'size' ratios.

No, that's not an option for me. This 'frame work' can only have value for people who are using the elemental system, so it would not make sense for me to start adopting a new vocabulary or new names.

Patti wrote:Perhaps you meant heart line rather than marriage line - as the heart line is usually under the metacarpal.

No, sorry Patti: I meant what I said:

Yes... the heart line is usually UNDER the metacarpal. But I described that hand breadth is measured at the end of the metacarpal, and therefore nearly always above the heart line - though that depends on the form of the hand.

Another guideline that I can give that one should try to find the narrowest palm breadth possible - (usually) starting from the beginning of the life line. But when the life line is positioned inside mars-negative (which would implicate that the life line then is positioned BELOW the metacarpals) then one should use a higher point.

Patti wrote:By the way, there are charts showing the span of movement between the metacarpals with the index and little finger having the widest range. The metacarpals are not fixed or locked in position.

The metacarpals are known as (short) bones in the hand palm that help the finger extrematies move and function, and they hardly move when fingers are strechted. For example: take a look a the position of the start of the life line and the point where the heart line origins on the side of the hand while you are moving your fingers... you will see that the distance between those two points hardly varies at all during the movements - because the metacarpals sort of stay where they are. And the same is true for the point that is usually best to measure palm breadt - again, usually this point is found near the marriage lines.

**Lynn** Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:08 pm

Martijn we posted around the same time, maybe you didn't notice my post above.

Patti Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:21 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
The metacarpals are known as (short) bones in the hand palm that help the finger extrematies move and function, and they hardly move when fingers are strechted. For example: take a look a the position of the start of the life line and the point where the heart line origins on the side of the hand while you are moving your fingers... you will see that the distance between those two points hardly varies at all during the movements - because the metacarpals sort of stay where they are. And the same is true for the point that is usually best to measure palm breadt - again, usually this point is found near the marriage lines.

The movement (abduction and adduction) is noted by baseball coaches guess it helps spreading out those palms to catch the balls. Wink

2. Hand Joint Kinesiological Actions

The movement of the Metacarpal bones defines the kinesiological actions of the hand. The Metacarpals move closer together and farther apart.

a. Metacarpal Abduction: When muscles contract that move Metacarpal bones farther apart.
b. Metacarpal Adduction: When muscles contract that move Metacarpal bones closer together.

http://www.drmikemarshall.com/ChapterEighteen.html

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:09 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
The metacarpals are known as (short) bones in the hand palm that help the finger extrematies move and function, and they hardly move when fingers are strechted. For example: take a look a the position of the start of the life line and the point where the heart line origins on the side of the hand while you are moving your fingers... you will see that the distance between those two points hardly varies at all during the movements - because the metacarpals sort of stay where they are. And the same is true for the point that is usually best to measure palm breadt - again, usually this point is found near the marriage lines.

The movement (abduction and adduction) is noted by baseball coaches guess it helps spreading out those palms to catch the balls.

2. Hand Joint Kinesiological Actions

The movement of the Metacarpal bones defines the kinesiological actions of the hand. The Metacarpals move closer together and farther apart.

a. Metacarpal Abduction: When muscles contract that move Metacarpal bones farther apart.
b. Metacarpal Adduction: When muscles contract that move Metacarpal bones closer together.

http://www.drmikemarshall.com/ChapterEighteen.html

Patti, those movements relate to specific functions related to the thumb only. And yes, it makes sense that the metacarpals start moving when thumb is moving inside- or outside the palm - just like when a fist is made the metacarpal below the pinky finger also comes a little inside.

But is that really significant for the issue that we are talking about?

I don't think so. Because I think/observed when the palm is stretched, any sideward movement of the fingers (and thumb) has litte observable influence on the distance of the metacarpals to each other.

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:15 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn, then why do you think that Gettings presented an example of an earth hand that clearly exceeds this 80% criterium... ?

Well we can't be sure that it does exceed 80% as the base of the palm is missing. Gettings says earth hand should have short fingers. Therefore by his own definition (and general known averages), if these fingers are more than 80% they can't be classed as short.

Well, Getting's case itself may not be important here. I think what is relevant here that Gettings never worked in his books with the 80% criterium.

And be aware Lynn .... Jennifer doesn't use the 80% criterium either (she is talking about cm's), and actually... Johnny describes in his book that earth hands are required to have "no longer than three quarters of palm length" ( which implicates: < 75%).

So, everybody appears to be using different criteria: that is why I am trying to present here a model that sort of present a summary of the key elements in various criteria that have been presented!

Lynn wrote:
Martijn wrote:(At first sight I thought it was relevant that you and I agreed that Gettings had better chosen another example, but maybe his example now becomes helpful for me to help you thinking outside your box)

Why are you asking me to think outside my box. You posted this in the section on 5 element hand analysis. I am talking about elemental hand analysis as taught by the Cheirological Society. Why should I now start talking about some new system of elemental hand shape that it seems you are trying to invent?

See my comment above, again, none of the authors appears to be using the 80% criterium for recognizing earth hands.

You appear to assume here that you, Johnny and Jennifer are sort of using of the same criteria.

Sorry, for me it is obvious that each of the three of you is using different criteria. If you are saying that the 80% criterium was taught at the Cheirological Society... then it appears to me that Johnny and Jennifer have rejected that criterium already.

Lynn wrote:
Basically, I think historically finding earth hands was originally described indirectly as a matter of the ratio between palm length and palm width... because initially it was a matter of finding a squarish-like palm shape. However, some people later began to define it in term of palm length only... but the criterium of 80% in isolation leaves the issue of palm width sort of open. And then it becomes a matter of perception in stead of applying a specific criterium.

Sorry Martijn, I'm not sure what you mean. Who later began to define it in terms of palm length only?

I think you suggested that it was thaught at the Cheirological Society. It might have been Dukes? Or Jones? Anyway, Gettings never used any measurements... he only works with what he calls 'proportions'... and I think Gettings work (who presented his books in the 70's) preceeded the work of Dukes.

I hope this historical explanation is helpful for you to understand how things developed historically

Lynn wrote:
Lynn, I hope you can accept that I continued making observations that sort of go outside your box. In a way, it might not make sense to hold on to the 80% criterium... while you know that the criterium itself considers only one dimension of the palm, while there are two dimensions that are actually relevant.
Does this make sense for you?

No! The width dimension comes into the palm shape, and into the classification of combination hands, so it is still taken into consideration.

No Lynn, I think you are trying to seperate things here... but Jennifer's description on page 41 shows why all aspects together are defined to compose the topic of 'hand shape' in the elemental apprach. And this is also seen in Johnny's approach.

Lynn wrote:Out of interest what % would you consider to be the mid point between short and long fingers?

Now, that is what I call an essential question! (Concerning a fundamental issue in this discussion)

I would prefer to focus first on the averages that I found for males and females (as described in my pictures) - which is around 77%.

Now, because you described that you learned that 85% indicates long finger, 80% is normal, and 75% indicates short fingers.... I think it would make sense if I adopt the percentage difference of 10% between long- and short finger.

However, in my perspective the percentage of 80% is a few percent too high... because I have found studies which indicate that the average percentage in the UK is even below the 77% that I am using here as an international average.

By the way, this also explains why most people in the UK appear to have 'fire hand shape' according the elemental system - I think this is partly a result of the percentages chosen.

Then, after saying this, right now I would prefer to define the various classifications for finger length versus palm length as follows:

Above 87% = (abnormally) long finger length
between 82% and 87% = above normal finger length
between 72% and 82% = normal finger length [notice: 77% is the center of this category]
between 67% and 72% = below normal finger length
below 67% = (abnormally) short finger length.

(This implicates that I propose here to use a relative large 'normal' category of 10%, while in my first picture this category the 'normal' category was only about 4% - see the central yellow zone: between 75% and 79%)

Now, after this discussion so far... I would propose (based on palm length) to use the 82% as a minimum requirement for 'air hand shape' only, and the 72% as a maximum requirement for 'fire hand shape only'.

And for 'earth hand shape' I would propose to work with a criterium based on palm breadth: at most 92%; and for 'water hand shape' I would propose to work with a criterium of at least 108%.

This would result in a picture featured with a much larger 'mixed hand shape' zone, which would fit with the widely known idea that people usually have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'.

Lynn, how does this sound to you?

PS. By the way, I am wondering... Lynn, yesterday you mentioned that you observed 'potential' for the things that I described. Do you still observe any 'potential'... or is it simply unacceptable for you that some of your criteria get rejected in this 'frame work'?

(I guess, if your answer is a 'no' here... I did not succeed to explain why I think that the use of any criterium should not be considered as essential when it was never adopted widely by other hand readers around the world)

Patti Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:41 pm

Lori Reid's "The Art of Handreading" has photographs of the four hand shapes. If you have that book it would be good to add those to your samples.

Arnold Holtzman describes comparing the width of the palm to the length. He measured across the base of the fingers it appears. He doesn't give specifics as to measurements but refers to an "appreciable" difference in comparison.

David Brandon Jones thinks a system with 4 or 7 categories are too few and developed a system of 12, presented in his book "Practical Palmistry" which actually looks at the "shape" of the hand and not just length and width.

Comparing various lengths and widths of the hands is not limited to the four or 5 Elemental systems. Only the 'meanings' applied based on the various categories, ranging from 4 to 12 or more, change. We're still looking at the combinations of short-long fingers and short, long, wide, and narrow palms. What you are doing is defining what the parameters appear to be for these. Yet, since "meanings" are intricately attached to these systems and the formulas they use, you are tugging "meanings" along with your measurements by associating them with elements. Doesn't that ring any of your Barnum bells at all?

**Lynn** Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:57 pm

Martijn sorry I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.
If you think that the use of any criterium should not be
considered as essential when it was never adopted widely by other hand
readers around the world then why are you applying your own criteria?

Johnny describes in his book that earth hands are
required to have "no longer than three quarters of palm length" ( which
implicates: < 75%).

Yes 75% is short fingers. I put the cut-off point at 80% (medium fingers) as under 80% is still shorter than medium (and could be an earth combination hand shape). But certainly anything above 80% cannot be classed as short.

So, everybody appears to be using different
criteria: that is why I am trying to present here a model that sort of
present a summary of the key elements in various criteria that have been
presented!

Who do you think will use this model? Very few people use 5 element hand analysis. So far I didn't find a good reason to change the system I learnt and have used for 15 years.

Lynn wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Basically,
I think historically finding earth hands was originally described
indirectly as a matter of the ratio between palm length and palm
width... because initially it was a matter of finding a squarish-like
palm shape. However, some people later began to define it in term of
palm length only... but the criterium of 80% in isolation leaves the
issue of palm width sort of open. And then it becomes a matter of
perception in stead of applying a specific criterium. </blockquote>Sorry Martijn, I'm not sure what you mean. Who later began to define it in terms of palm length only?
</blockquote>I
think you suggested that it was thaught at the Cheirological Society.
It might have been Dukes? Or Jones? Anyway, Gettings never used any
measurements... he only works with what he calls 'proportions'... and I
think Gettings work (who presented his books in the 70's) preceeded the
work of Dukes.

I hope this historical explanation is helpful for you to understand how things developed historically

Historically - yes Gettings books came first. I have never said that handshape depends on palm length only. Of course we have to take width into account in order to ascertain the palm shape.

Thanks for presenting your own classifications. But it doesn't fit with the system I use.
Given that a standard fire hand is 10 x 8 x 7.5 (ie 75% finger length to
palm length) you have now decided that fire should be no more than 72%. This would place a disproportionate number of people in air or water category.

Oh no, actually you are not even talking about any element system! You talk about 'normal' length, 'below normal', 'above normal'.
but it is normal for people with air or water hands to have long fingers, and normal for people with earth hands to have short fingers.

You mention the widely known idea that people usually have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'. but where is this idea widely known? In D'Arpentigny's system, yes. But in elemental system I never heard that most people have mixed handshape?

regarding the potential I mentioned, well now you have completely moved the goalposts, changed the boundaries from the system I was originally talking about on this thread. You are creating your own system, which is fine, but it isn't the 5-element system that I was taught.

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:07 am

Patti wrote:Lori Reid's "The Art of Handreading" has photographs of the four hand shapes. If you have that book it would be good to add those to your samples.

Arnold Holtzman describes comparing the width of the palm to the length. He measured across the base of the fingers it appears. He doesn't give specifics as to measurements but refers to an "appreciable" difference in comparison.

David Brandon Jones thinks a system with 4 or 7 categories are too few and developed a system of 12, presented in his book "Practical Palmistry" which actually looks at the "shape" of the hand and not just length and width.

Comparing various lengths and widths of the hands is not limited to the four or 5 Elemental systems. Only the 'meanings' applied based on the various categories, ranging from 4 to 12 or more, change. We're still looking at the combinations of short-long fingers and short, long, wide, and narrow palms. What you are doing is defining what the parameters appear to be for these. Yet, since "meanings" are intricately attached to these systems and the formulas they use, you are tugging "meanings" along with your measurements by associating them with elements. Doesn't that ring any of your Barnum bells at all?

Thank you for the suggestion Patti, however, I don't have that title of Lori Reid.

Are you talking about photos/handprints? Then it would for sure be helpful for me if you can present a copy of those here. Since Reid is a respectable author I would love to see where her examples show up in the perspective that we are discussing here.

By the way, in the other 2 titles that I have Reid does not present any specific measurements related guidelines. I assume that she does not work with any specific criteria in that title?

PS. Barnum bell's???

I have described that I observe that each author presents his/her own guidelines for recognizing the 4 elemental hand types? And I coincidently discovered a new framework that could potentially serve as a model which sort of integrates the essentials among the various (sometimes conflicting) guidelines. Sorry Patti, I don't see any connection with anything related to the Barnum-effect.

Patti Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:14 am

I will scan them for you.

Barnum.... thinking

well... I think Lynn explains it well, too.

What about all those people who've had readings that in some way were influenced by their short 80% or less fingers who now no longer have short fingers but may be water or air. You are asking Lynn to change the location she uses one interpretation to another which means that she will be telling those that she once described as more fiery, now as more watery, when she was probably correct in her experience of using 80% as a marker.

**Lynn** Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:24 am

Neal Criscuolo & Tony Crisp use 75%. ie "if the length of the middle finger is over three-quarters the length of the palm then the fingers are long. If the middle finger is less than three quarters the length of the palm, then the fingers can be called short".

Dylan Warren Davies doesn't give measurements.

Christopher Jones - "In Fire and Earth hands, the (earth) fingers are about three-quarters of the palm or less. In Air & Water hands, the fingers are about seven-eighths of the length of the palm or more." which are all the same criteria that Johnny uses, and the same criteria that I use for earth & fire, tho I've used 85% rather than 87.5% for long fingers.

**Lynn** Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:33 am

Patti wrote:I will scan them for you.

Barnum.... well... I think Lynn explains it well, too.

What about all those people who've had readings that in some way were influenced by their short 80% or less fingers who now no longer have short fingers but may be water or air. You are asking Lynn to change the location she uses one interpretation to another which means that she will be telling those that she once described as more fiery, now as more watery, when she was probably correct in her experience of using 80% as a marker.

(NB just to clarify - 80% is medium length so doesn't fit into any 'pure' hand shape, I use 75% for short)
Yes Patti that's what I meant, if Martijn wants to change the measurements for 'normal' 'above normal' etc that's up to him, but to ascribe elemental characteristics to them doesn't make sense unless you are using a system based on the elements! I've just explained how Christopher, Johnny and I use almost the same measurements (tho I have long fingers starting at 2% shorter than they do).
Not that I actually measure hands anyway when I am doing a reading, I just judge with my eyes (and maybe sort-of measure with a pen!) if the fingers are long or short in relation to palm length.

Patti Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:39 am

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 Lori_r10

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 Lori_r11

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 Lori_r12

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 Lori_r13

Lori Reid "The Art of Hand Reading"

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:47 am

Lynn wrote:Martijn sorry I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.
If you think that the use of any criterium should not be
considered as essential when it was never adopted widely by other hand
readers around the world then why are you applying your own criteria?

Lynn, my criteria so far (that are still 'in process') result from the combination of the following 3 matters:

1) International data from hand anthropometry studies
2) The (conflicting) guidelines presented by various authors
3) The examples that the author choose to illustrate their guidelines.

Basically, I think this is still an interesting process to continue with.

Lynn wrote:
Johnny describes in his book that earth hands are
required to have "no longer than three quarters of palm length" ( which
implicates: < 75%).
Yes 75% is short fingers. I put the cut-off point at 80% (medium fingers) as under 80% is still shorter than medium (and could be an earth combination hand shape). But certainly anything above 80% cannot be classed as short.

So, everybody appears to be using different
criteria: that is why I am trying to present here a model that sort of
present a summary of the key elements in various criteria that have been
presented!

Who do you think will use this model? Very few people use 5 element hand analysis. So far I didn't find a good reason to change the system I learnt and have used for 15 years.

Lynn, this is what I call 'fundamental research'. Whether anyone will bother to start using it in practice is quite irrelevant here - from my point of view.

By the way, remember the topic about 'which country has the largest hands in the world?':
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t245-which-country-has-the-largest-hands-in-the-world

For the UK the average finger length versus hand length was reported (according the study mentioned there) to be close to 74.4%. This average in that study is even below the 75% guideline for 'short' fingers.

While you were taught that 80% is normal (medium) in your country, those statistics tell a different story.

By the way, I remember that Hidde told during our first meeting back in 1999/2000 that he found that about 60% of all people have fire hand shape. Not really surprising, now that we know that in the UK a large majority applies for the criteria your teacher used for short fingers.

Now, I think this fundamental stuff raises quite a few questions... don't you think?

(And I think you are the type of person that would have questioned your teacher if you had known that the 'sharp' less than 75% criterium to speak of 'short fingers'... does actually apply to the large majority of people in your country - at least that is what the study suggests to me)

I am here basically only trying to find some fundamental answers about how the study of finger length can be used for different purposes.

Again, the purpose (at this stage) is fundamental only. And maybe, if we continue this proces, this quest might reach beyond that purpose. And if not, that is just fine with me as well.

Capice? ( Wink

)

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:52 am

Thanks Patti, excellent pictures! Thumbs up!

(Now I can also include Lori's work in these matters as welll)

Thanks!

**Lynn** Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:03 am

For the UK the average finger length versus hand
length was reported (according the study mentioned there) to be close to
74.4%. This average in that study is even below the 75% guideline for
'short' fingers.

While you were taught that 80% is normal (medium) in your country, those statistics tell a different story.

By
the way, I remember that Hidde told during our first meeting back in
1999/2000 that he found that about 60% of all people have fire hand
shape. Not really surprising, now that we know that in the UK a large
majority applies for the criteria your teacher used for short fingers.

Now, I think this fundamental stuff raises quite a few questions... don't you think?

I wasn't taught that 80% is 'normal' in my country. 80% is medium length when ascertaining elemental hand shape according to the C.Soc system. It's not the same thing as statistics that show the 'average measurement for my country'.
Of course most people have fire hand shape, more people live in cities than rural, more people work in business than in academia etc etc.

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:46 am

Lynn wrote:
For the UK the average finger length versus hand
length was reported (according the study mentioned there) to be close to
74.4%. This average in that study is even below the 75% guideline for
'short' fingers.

While you were taught that 80% is normal (medium) in your country, those statistics tell a different story.

By
the way, I remember that Hidde told during our first meeting back in
1999/2000 that he found that about 60% of all people have fire hand
shape. Not really surprising, now that we know that in the UK a large
majority applies for the criteria your teacher used for short fingers.

Now, I think this fundamental stuff raises quite a few questions... don't you think?

I wasn't taught that 80% is 'normal' in my country. 80% is medium length when ascertaining elemental hand shape according to the C.Soc system. It's not the same thing as statistics that show the 'average measurement for my country'.
Of course most people have fire hand shape, more people live in cities than rural, more people work in business than in academia etc etc.

Average, normal, or medium... scratch

Sorry Lynn, I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here. I think those words represent basically sort of the same in this perspective... what is your point here exactly?

(Why do you think that 'medium' here should not be associated with a value that sort of represents the average?)

For me it is also quite hard to understand why you think it is just fine that Johnny somehow adopted the percentage of 87.5%... which is actually above the level that could be considered as a 'minor physical anomaly' - which applies by definition to a feature that is seen in less than 3% of the population.

And how about the idea that most people have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'? If 60% of people have a typical 'fire hand shape' (as suggested by Hidde)... that would implicate that 'most people' then becomes a minority.

By the way, also please be aware: where my pictures say 'long fingers' - those words are depicted in the box 'ABNORMAL finger length variations'.

PS. geek

... Lynn, I am just trying to understand why you do not get worried at all about the various methods/percentages being used various authors; but when I am using it as an argument to explain why the criteria used to far might not be essential at all... you answered by saying that you describe it as a 'mistake' that my alternative model does not include your criterium.

Now Lynn, how would you respond if I had adopted your criterium in the new model... and then Johnny and Jennifer would show up and say 'wow, great... however, I see a mistake!', and they would each present their own private arguments why I should replace your criterium for their criterium, etc.

Gna...gna

(Lynn, I don't believe that I have asked you so far to make any choices. Correct?)

**Lynn** Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:54 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:Average, normal, or medium...
Sorry Lynn, I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here. I think those words represent basically sort of the same in this perspective... what is your point here exactly? (Why do you think that 'medium' here should not be associated with a value that sort of represents the average?)

I'm saying that I wasn't taught that 80% is 'normal' in UK. The 80% was taught as the mid point between short and long fingers. It is not the same as the statistical average finger length for the country. Given that 60% (Hidde's figure) of people have fire shape hands, and earth hands also have short fingers, then the statistical average would be much lower than 80%.

For me it is also quite hard to understand why you think it is just fine that Johnny somehow adopted the percentage of 87.5%... which is actually above the level that could be considered as a 'minor physical anomaly' - which applies by definition to a feature that is seen in less than 3% of the population.

You'll have to ask Johnny about this, I don't know why he used 87.5%

And how about the idea that most people have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'? If 60% of people have a typical 'fire hand shape' (as suggested by Hidde)... that would implicate that 'most people' then becomes a minority.

I've never said that most people have a mixed hand shape! (In D'Arpentigny's system yes, but not in the elemental system). You were the one who mentioned 'widely known idea that people usually have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'.' and I disagreed with you.

PS. ... Lynn, I am just trying to understand why you do not get worried at all about the various methods/percentages being used various authors; but when I am using it as an argument to explain why the criteria used to far might not be essential at all... you answered by saying that you describe it as a 'mistake' that my alternative model does not include your criterium.

Now Lynn, how would you respond if I had adopted your criterium in the new model... and then Johnny and Jennifer would show up and say 'wow, great... however, I see a mistake!', and they would each present their own private arguments why I should replace your criterium for their criterium, etc.

By 'mistake' are you referring to where I said "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."? OK so I take 80% as 'medium'. The other readers haven't specified what they call 'medium', and some have a higher % for 'long' fingers than I do. But all of the authors have the same definition for handshape (square or rectangular palm, long or short fingers), so I am sure they would all agree that the coloured triangles in your diagram go beyond the zone for the element definitions. By definition earth has short fingers, therefore (whichever % you want to use as the delineation or middle area between 'long' and 'short') the green triangle (earth) should not go all the way to the top of the diagram, and the blue (water) by definition have long fingers so cannot be part of the lower zone.

(Lynn, I don't believe that I have asked you so far to make any choices. Correct?)

No you haven't asked me to make any choices.
hmmm, that Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 752367

looks a bit ominous Laughing

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:21 am

Lynn, would you mind to take a look at the following print? What would be your assessment at first sight? And what would be your assessment based on measurements?

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 Fragil10

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 4 Fragil10

Obviously, this hand has a very 'squarish' palm shape. So, I think that leaves only the options to qualify it as an 'earth hand shape', an 'air hand shape', or a mix of both.

Regarding the various criteria presented by you, Johnny and Jennifer... this could sort of put you into trouble here because the finger length to palm length ratio for this hand is close to 80%:

Earth hand shape?:

- This hand would qualify for Jennifer's criterium for recognizing short fingers, so I think she would call it an earth hand shape as well.
- And I think that the rather typical shape of this hand would have been assessed by Gettings as well as an earth hand shape as well, because for Gettings the slightly thick fingers would probably play a role in making that decision (because he uses this finger width characteristic to define an earth hand shape).

Mix of earth + air hand shape?:

- However, Johnny's 75% criterium regarding finger length to palm length would probably make him decide to call it a mix of an earth + air hand shape.

Air hand shape?:

- But Lori Reid would probably call it an AIR hand shape, as she is using a criterium which says that fingers are considered as 'long' when they are "as long as, or longer than, three quarters the length of the palm" (quoted from page 13 in Lori Reid's 'The Elements of Hand Reading'). So, for Reid any percentage above 75% could be enough to speak of an air hand in this case.

Now, one could wonder: since the various methods being by the authors appear to present conflicting results... who is is using the best criterium???

I already mentioned that despite you, Johnny and Jennifer have studied at the C.S., the three of you appear to have decided to develop your own private criteria. One could wonder whether these decisions might have resulted from some kind of issue connected with the approach to focus on finger length versus palm length only.

Because for me it is rather remarkable to see how even among the British hand readers basically the same approach for measuring finger length versus palm length, is being applied with significantly varying criteria for recognizing long fingers : varying from Lori Reid's 75% up to 87.5% for Fincham's criterium.

(Lynn, as you know your criterium of 85% is in between)

Now, I think this illustrates very cleary that the authors have presented conflicting guidelines - not only regarding the method being but also for the criteria being used ... all in the perspective of how to assess finger length in the elemental approach.

And I think my framework here could present a interesting opportunity to solve the problem permanently... e.g. by recognizing that the issue of assessing finger length properly should require a consideration of both palm length and palm width separately - in order to find a conclusion based on a consideration of both aspects together.

In the methods presented by the authors so far this has never been highlighted, though I see no conflicting elements in Gettings approach when I compare it with the framework that I have presented here so far. (Though, Gettings nevery really went into the the details related to the phenomenon of mixed hand shapes)

PS. Lynn, again, this is still 'in process'... I am not proposing to make any permanent choice or give up criteria. But as I am working on this new perspective, it would be just fine to say that certain elements in this framework are in 'conflict' with a specific criterium that you are using. But I ask you also to consider that I think that your 80% criterium was never mentioned in any of the books that we discussed so far... so I hope this observation will sort of make you aware that it might not be necessary at all to hold on to any specific criterium presented by anyone.

**Martijn (admin)** Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:04 pm

Lynn wrote:
And how about the idea that most people have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'? If 60% of people have a typical 'fire hand shape' (as suggested by Hidde)... that would implicate that 'most people' then becomes a minority.

I've never said that most people have a mixed hand shape! (In D'Arpentigny's system yes, but not in the elemental system). You were the one who mentioned 'widely known idea that people usually have some kind of 'mixed hand shape'.' and I disagreed with you.

Okay Lynn, I understand your point here.

However, have you considered how Ed Campbell described that the 'mixed hand' in d'Arpentigny's system should probably not be understood as a 7th hand shape next to the other 6 hand shapes. I guess Ed would probably agree with me if I say that the 7th hand type was probably d'Arpentigny's way to say that most people tend to have a combination of the other 6 hand shapes that he described.

And therefore I think the same issue does play a part in the elmental system as well. For example, how about this passage in Fincham's chapter about hand shape (page 23, paragraph 'The shape of things to come'):

"Unfortunately, many of the hands you see will not be easy to define, with somewhat middling levels of fingers and palm, giving an undifferentiated hand."

Sorry Lynn, I read Johnny's comment as a confirmation that in many people the elemental approach for hand shape sort of becomes indecisive when the criteria are applied rigidly.

And how about the fact that Johnny says that in an earth hand "the middle finger is no longer than three quarters of the length of the palm", and for air hands he describes "the middle digit is around seven-eights the length of the palm or more".

I translate this into:
- earth hands are required to have finger length at most 75% of palm length
- air hand are required to have finger length at least 87.5% of palm length.

Then that raises the question: how about a hands with finger lengths between 75% and 87%???

His chapter 'The Shape of Things to come' describes the answer!

Though he does not use the word of 'mixed' hand shapes explicitly... I think it is obvious that he is sort of describing there that many people's hand shape can not be described accurately in terms of the 4 elemental hand shapes. He says: "no-one is an absolute pure type" and he is talking about that "a dominant facet of each type is in all of us", and "this would be a very short book if everyone's hand fitted neatly into one of these four categories". All said in the perspective of discussing hand shape - 'the shape to come'!

So, while d'Arpentigny decided to introduce a 7th mix-type... Johnny solved the practical problem by adding a 5th paragraph in his chapter about hand shapes.

The parallel in these choices is so obvious for me... I hope now for you as well!???

Very Happy

PS. Despite that Johnny may not be happy about his hand shape chapter... I recognize how his descriptions for hand shape in various nations (page 26) are of great value in the format that I discovered. And I already know that the 'format' will sort of proof the significance and validity of Johnny's descriptions. And I would say: it's missing element in his other book.

Patti Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:06 pm

Dukes in reference to the Fire hand shape says "This is, in the West, by far the most common handshape."

Dukes also uses 75% in the sense that he says that a water hand is 75% of the width of an earth hand.

Your hand sample above is a good one for a rounded palm. The palm is quite wide, but that will not appear in your measurements as in your system you will be measuring the width at a more narrow location. Dukes places such hands in a category of their own and also notices that the 'corners' are rounded and the earth energy is somewhat lost.

Apparently there is a lot of gray area in any indications of what it means to have longer or shorter fingers than the palm... at least according to the results so far of this comparison in measurements. I wonder since it is unlikely that Jennifer, Johnny, Lynn or even Lori are using a ruler to confirm their 75 to 87%. I would be willing to bet if they were involved in a test of sorting hands using their typical method (eyeballing) that all of them would put the hands into the same categories - with only the borderline cases getting mixed.

But... very few palmists in practice actually spend much time on hand shape. It's like the category of texture... you observe it and take it into consideration with the whole hand. I have never advised any of my students to actually take measurements and really hadn't paid attention to the measurements of other authors until this thread. I use my fingers like a compass and size up the fingers and then compare that to the width and length of the palm - and I only do that when 'eyeballing' them the measurements look the same.

Patti Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:11 pm

Peter West in "The Complete Illustrated Guide to Palmistry" took another approach. He describes the various systems of hand shape and lets you decide, if the hand doesn't fit in one system - try another. I agree with his comment that the 4 elements approach is nicely condensed but too narrow and doesn't allow for variations within the hand. Which is my argument as well.

Sponsored content