Measuring problem

GizPreto wrote:Hello all, i am trying to measure my fingers in order to find the 2D to 4D ratio, but not really sure how to do it correctly. The problem is that i don`t know from where exactly on the palm to start the measurement. I have attached 2 pictures of my right hand. The index finger appears to be longer and as i know it is not typical for a male right? Is there something wrong with me? Does my hand look more feminine overall? I will much appreciate your thoughts and comments and some instructions on the correct measurement Thanks in advance!

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/f/825/felipe061.jpg/

Hello GizPreto,

First of all, thank you for your question!

You've managed to post (only) one picture, which gives the impression that your index finger is actually rather short - which is not unusual for a male. And the picture below indicates that your 2D:4D digit ratio is probably close to 0.92.

At this topic I have given a few more guidelines to make the measurement by yourself:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2203-measuring-problem

Have I managed to answer your question?

Martijn (admin) wrote:

GizPreto wrote:Hello all, i am trying to measure my fingers in order to find the 2D to 4D ratio, but not really sure how to do it correctly. The problem is that i don`t know from where exactly on the palm to start the measurement. I have attached 2 pictures of my right hand. The index finger appears to be longer and as i know it is not typical for a male right? Is there something wrong with me? Does my hand look more feminine overall? I will much appreciate your thoughts and comments and some instructions on the correct measurement Thanks in advance!

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/f/825/felipe061.jpg/

Hello GizPreto,

First of all, thank you for your question!

You've managed to post (only) one picture, which gives the impression that your index finger is actually rather short - which is not unusual for a male. And the picture below indicates that your 2D:4D digit ratio is probably close to 0.92.

At this topic I have given a few more guidelines to make the measurement by yourself:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2203-measuring-problem

Have I managed to answer your question?

GizPreto wrote:

yet.
you are sure and 0.92.? when I measured gave 0.95

in their calculations as my 2D and 4D? from my left and right?


right[img] [/img]

left

[img][/img]

sorry for the English.
thank you.

PS. Don't worry about your English, you've managed to express yourself efficiently!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

GizPreto wrote:

yet.
you are sure and 0.92.? when I measured gave 0.95

in their calculations as my 2D and 4D? from my left and right?


right[img] [/img]

left

[img][/img]

sorry for the English.
thank you.

Hi again,

For your 2nd picture of your right hand I find a ratio of 0.91.
And for your left hand the ratio is much higher: 0.97.

So the average for both hands is probably close to 0.94, which is only slightly below the average for a (south-american) male.

(If your 0.95 relates to the average of both hands then I think we found a likewise result; but I could add that your measurement might be more accurate if you made it directly from your hands)



PS. Don't worry about your English, you've managed to express yourself efficiently!

GizPreto wrote:
thank you, and which South American media? and the average of all races?

I measured in my right hand directly on gave 0.95

on the left directly tb gave 0.95 am wrong? and or images that diminish the 2d 4d?

GizPreto, if you found 0.95 on both hands via direct measurements... then I think that value is likely correct.

Unfortunately there are not many 2D:4D digit ratio studies available related to South-American males, but from my experience with various populations around the world your 0.95 value can very likely best be described as 'normal' for a (south-american) male.

Here are 2 studies from Brazil which suggest that the average digit ratio for males in Brazil is probably close to 0.96:
http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/jst/article/viewFile/367/359
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911005800

So this kind of confirms that your digit ratio is slightly below the average, but very close to the average and therefore it can probably best be described as just 'normal'.

I hope this makes sense now?