Question For Lynn & Martijn

learner Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:24 am

Hi Lynn & Martijn,

I am confused about something. Looking for your opinion.

Johnny Fincham says in one place that 'Traditional palmists linked finger length to intelligence. This is erroneous.'

But then, in his description of Air hands, he says 'Long fingers mean they inhabit the world of thought' .

These 2 statements seem like a contradiction to me. Am I right or is there something I don't understand? Please give me your opinions.

Thanks,
Learner

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:30 am

learner wrote:Hi Lynn & Martijn,

I am confused about something. Looking for your opinion.

Johnny Fincham says in one place that 'Traditional palmists linked finger length to intelligence. This is erroneous.'

But then, in his description of Air hands, he says 'Long fingers mean they inhabit the world of thought' .

These 2 statements seem like a contradiction to me. Am I right or is there something I don't understand? Please give me your opinions.

Thanks,
Learner

Hi Learner,

Can you please add a reference to where you found those statements (which book? page?).
By the way, I appreciate your attempt to find out if there is a contradiction... though maybe not.

Thumbs up!

learner Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:28 am

Thanks for your reply Martijn,
I found these in Google book preview. I'll find out exactly what page & book and get back to you soon.

Learner

**Lynn** Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:05 pm

Spellbinding Power of Palmistry
P15 end of 3rd paragraph - finger length/intelligence
P 22 air hands

Thought and intelligence are not the same thing?
I'll have to *think* about your question learner Wink

learner Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:20 pm

Thanks for the response Lynn. You saved me the trouble of finding out exactly where I had read these statements.

Will wait for your reply. Now that you have given the reference, hopefully Martijn too will add his input.

Learner

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:51 am

Lynn wrote:Spellbinding Power of Palmistry
P15 end of 3rd paragraph - finger length/intelligence
P 22 air hands

Thought and intelligence are not the same thing?
I'll have to *think* about your question learner

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:04 am

learner wrote:Hi Lynn & Martijn,

I am confused about something. Looking for your opinion.

Johnny Fincham says in one place that 'Traditional palmists linked finger length to intelligence. This is erroneous.'

But then, in his description of Air hands, he says 'Long fingers mean they inhabit the world of thought' .

These 2 statements seem like a contradiction to me. Am I right or is there something I don't understand? Please give me your opinions.

Thanks,
Learner

Hi Learner,

Though I understand your association, I think there is no obvious contradiction in those statements.

Because 'inhabit the world of thoughts' (Fincham's description for long finger length in air hand) does not necessary refer to high intelligence... however because square palm shape (in air hand) is associated with 'form and pattern', it is actually the combination of long finger length + square palm shape (the typical feature of air hand shape) that became associated with intelligence.

Additionally, long fingers are also seen in the water hand, however there we see a long palm shape ... and this combination is more associated with 'inner proces, feeling & sensation'.

I hope these considerations of mine make sense for you, and I am looking forward to see Lynn's answer!

wave

learner Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:27 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
learner wrote:Hi Lynn & Martijn,

I am confused about something. Looking for your opinion.

Johnny Fincham says in one place that 'Traditional palmists linked finger length to intelligence. This is erroneous.'

But then, in his description of Air hands, he says 'Long fingers mean they inhabit the world of thought' .

These 2 statements seem like a contradiction to me. Am I right or is there something I don't understand? Please give me your opinions.

Thanks,
Learner

Hi Learner,

Though I understand your association, I think there is no obvious contradiction in those statements.

Because 'inhabit the world of thoughts' (Fincham's description for long finger length in air hand) does not necessary refer to high intelligence... however because square palm shape (in air hand) is associated with 'form and pattern', it is actually the combination of long finger length + square palm shape (the typical feature of air hand shape) that became associated with intelligence.

Additionally, long fingers are also seen in the water hand, however there we see a long palm shape ... and this combination is more associated with 'inner proces, feeling & sensation'.

I hope these considerations of mine make sense for you, and I am looking forward to see Lynn's answer!

Hi Martijn,

Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to Lynn's view too.

My attention is drawn to the following in your response: 'Because 'inhabit the world of thoughts' does not necessary refer to high intelligence'. I agree with this statement because the mere process of thought does not imply intelligence or high IQ. But if this is Fincham's perspective, then he is implying that those with short fingers do not engage in thought. This is the point I have a problem with. If the process of thought does not necessarily imply the existence of intelligence, then it follows that even short fingered people live in a world of thought which you have described as 'inner process, , feeling & sensation'.

So, although I agree that 100% correlation between 'mental movt' & intelligence does not exist, I have a problem with the implications of Fincham's view. It would mean that short fingered people do not indulge in thought as much as others. (Incidentally, this would mean that shortfingered folks are close to the goal of some meditative practices.).

Thanks for giving me your opinion. To my mind there is a contradiction, either due to incorrect sentence construction or due to a misinterpretation on my part of Fincham's concept of 'world of thought', which is of course what I am trying to resolve through this thread.

Please feel free to tell me that I am completely wrong. It is possible that I am.

Thanks
Learner

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:47 am

learner wrote:
Hi Martijn,

Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to Lynn's view too.

My attention is drawn to the following in your response: 'Because 'inhabit the world of thoughts' does not necessary refer to high intelligence'. I agree with this statement because the mere process of thought does not imply intelligence or high IQ. But if this is Fincham's perspective, then he is implying that those with short fingers do not engage in thought. This is the point I have a problem with. If the process of thought does not necessarily imply the existence of intelligence, then it follows that even short fingered people live in a world of thought which you have described as 'inner process, , feeling & sensation'.

So, although I agree that 100% correlation between 'mental movt' & intelligence does not exist, I have a problem with the implications of Fincham's view. It would mean that short fingered people do not indulge in thought as much as others. (Incidentally, this would mean that shortfingered folks are close to the goal of some meditative practices.).

Thanks for giving me your opinion. To my mind there is a contradiction, either due to incorrect sentence construction or due to a misinterpretation on my part of Fincham's concept of 'world of thought', which is of course what I am trying to resolve through this thread.

Please feel free to tell me that I am completely wrong. It is possible that I am.

Thanks
Learner

Well Learner,

First I have to correct you about how you processed my response, because I didn't talk about short finger length in terms of 'inner process, , feeling & sensation' (I only described how 'inner procs, feeling & sensation' is associated in Fincham's work with water hands shape... which requires a COMBINATION of two dimensions: long finger length + long palm shape).

I think your problem here is that the contradiction that you perceive is a direct result of how you associate Fincham's statements about finger length and hand shape. Because to me it looks like you apprach this matter in a way like as if there is only sort of one dimension (your associations are focussed on 2 poles: thought vs. inner proces); however, I think the issue is actually more complex than what your association suggests... because there are actually 2 dimensions involved (starting with finger length AND palm shape).

And thus so far I prefer to conclude that there is no obvious contradiction (in terms of the vocabulary); but your associations do make it look like there is an underlying contradiction... however, I think Fincham's concepts are probably too diffuse for me to confirm your observation.

I hope this technical consideration of mine makes sense?

wave

PS. Looking forward to Lynn's response.

learner Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:03 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
learner wrote:
Hi Martijn,

Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to Lynn's view too.

My attention is drawn to the following in your response: 'Because 'inhabit the world of thoughts' does not necessary refer to high intelligence'. I agree with this statement because the mere process of thought does not imply intelligence or high IQ. But if this is Fincham's perspective, then he is implying that those with short fingers do not engage in thought. This is the point I have a problem with. If the process of thought does not necessarily imply the existence of intelligence, then it follows that even short fingered people live in a world of thought which you have described as 'inner process, , feeling & sensation'.

So, although I agree that 100% correlation between 'mental movt' & intelligence does not exist, I have a problem with the implications of Fincham's view. It would mean that short fingered people do not indulge in thought as much as others. (Incidentally, this would mean that shortfingered folks are close to the goal of some meditative practices.).

Thanks for giving me your opinion. To my mind there is a contradiction, either due to incorrect sentence construction or due to a misinterpretation on my part of Fincham's concept of 'world of thought', which is of course what I am trying to resolve through this thread.

Please feel free to tell me that I am completely wrong. It is possible that I am.

Thanks
Learner

Well Learner,

First I have to correct you about how you processed my response, because I didn't talk about short finger length in terms of 'inner process, , feeling & sensation' (I only described how 'inner procs, feeling & sensation' is associated in Fincham's work with water hands shape... which requires a COMBINATION of two dimensions: long finger length + long palm shape).

I think your problem here is that the contradiction that you perceive is a direct result of how you associate Fincham's statements about finger length and hand shape. Because to me it looks like you apprach this matter in a way like as if there is only sort of one dimension (your associations are focussed on 2 poles: thought vs. inner proces); however, I think the issue is actually more complex than what your association suggests... because there are actually 2 dimensions involved (starting with finger length AND palm shape).

And thus so far I prefer to conclude that there is no obvious contradiction (in terms of the vocabulary); but your associations do make it look like there is an underlying contradiction... however, I think Fincham's concepts are probably too diffuse for me to confirm your observation.

I hope this technical consideration of mine makes sense?

PS. Looking forward to Lynn's response.

Hey Martijn,

Yes, I see your point. I agree that both dimensions together (palm & fingers) may resolve what looks like a contradiction to me.

That said, I think Fincham could have phrased that sentence better; anyway it's his book. My problem was the cause-effect link that he apparently makes in that sentence linking finger-length alone to 'world of thought'.

I'm glad you think that 'Fincham's concepts are probably too diffuse for me to confirm your observation'. My conclusion after reading older books like Cheiro, Benham & modern ones like Sasha Fenton, Lori Reid & other online sources is that a lot of stuff has to be verified. Many conclusions may have subjective bias & interpretation.

I have always enjoyed your critical dissection of prevalant ideas & your strict adherence to scientific rigor.

Thanks again. Hopefully Lynn will chime in.

Learner.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:17 pm

learner wrote:
Hey Martijn,

Yes, I see your point. I agree that both dimensions together (palm & fingers) may resolve what looks like a contradiction to me.

That said, I think Fincham could have phrased that sentence better; anyway it's his book. My problem was the cause-effect link that he apparently makes in that sentence linking finger-length alone to 'world of thought'.

I'm glad you think that 'Fincham's concepts are probably too diffuse for me to confirm your observation'. My conclusion after reading older books like Cheiro, Benham & modern ones like Sasha Fenton, Lori Reid & other online sources is that a lot of stuff has to be verified. Many conclusions may have subjective bias & interpretation.

I have always enjoyed your critical dissection of prevalant ideas & your strict adherence to scientific rigor.

Thanks again. Hopefully Lynn will chime in.

Learner.

Yes, I agree that the works of other authors present likewise problems (though it might take a critical mind to become aware of this - this problematic isue is basically a theme that directly relates to a fundamental problem that is also seen in the academic social sciences).

I also fully support your observation regarding the issue of 'verification' (+ subjective bias & interpretation); this is basically the main reason why I have coined the need for more specific themes in my 'multi-perspective palm reading' project... because I could argue that daily life vocabulary is basically not suitable for any type of research at all because people have a natural tendency to attribute private/subjective meaning to the vocabulary.

This also partly explains why communication experts have claimed that the weight of 'content' tends to be overvalued by most people, because communication is actually up to 90% about body language.

This perspective also explains why I decided many years ago to use the Big Five model, because it at aleast offers a well-defined perspective of personality-vocabulary (while in daily life most people only have rather loose associations for terms assocated with the Big Five model, such as: 'extraversion' and 'introversion' ... because people usually associate terms with one- or a few private events only).

Thanks!

**Lynn** Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:52 am

Here I am, chiming in Smile

I agree with Martijn's comments.

learner asked:

Johnny Fincham says in one place that 'Traditional palmists linked finger length to intelligence. This is erroneous.'

But then, in his description of Air hands, he says 'Long fingers mean they inhabit the world of thought' .

These 2 statements seem like a contradiction to me. Am I right or is there something I don't understand? Please give me your opinions.

It's not a contradiction. Thought is not the same as intelligence.

My problem was the cause-effect link that he apparently makes in that sentence linking finger-length alone to 'world of thought'.

Johnny actually says "The long fingers OF THE AIR TYPE means they naturally inhabit the world of thought" ie (as Martijn pointed out) Johnny is referring to the air handshape as a whole, rather than just the long fingers. He says "they (air hands) love ideas that are relative and systematic, that have form and pattern."

Water and air shape hands have long fingers. Long fingers show that the person lives more in the inner realm, they spend more time in the inner world & mental realm. In water hands this is the inner realm of emotions & feelings - of course thought is included in this, but water hands thought is more subjective, emotionally based, "how does this affect me". In air hands it is the mental realm of thought, ideas, analysis, evaluation, observation, details, contemplation - more objective than water hands mode of thinking.

I have a problem with the implications of Fincham's view. It would mean that short fingered people do not indulge in thought as much as others.

well I think you have drawn conclusions about some implications which Johnny never said, nor implied. But this bit is right - short fingers do not indulge in thought as much as long fingers do! (finger length is a general characteristic, you would also look at other things such as - does the short fingered person have a long headline - if so, is that headline straight or curved to luna, do they have knotted knuckles, and/or is their hand large for their height... all of which would add more to the thought processes).

'Because 'inhabit the world of thoughts' does not necessary refer to high intelligence'. I agree with this statement because the mere process of thought does not imply intelligence or high IQ. But if this is Fincham's perspective, then he is implying that those with short fingers do not engage in thought.

No, he is not implying that those with short fingers do not engage in thought. Of course they think, but they do not 'inhabit' that world, they don't occupy most of their time with thinking - they prefer to be DOING. Look at page 15, there he gives an indication of how people with short fingers think "mental constructs tend to become quick, less specialised, holistic, empirical, relative to that which is actual, tangible and realised"

In England we have a saying "You can't see the wood for the trees". That would apply to long fingers / air hand. They notice the details - the trees, whereas short fingers see the whole - the forest. Short fingers see the bigger picture, long fingers think about the minutiae.

Of course you would also look to the headlines of all hand types to see their manner of thinking. we discussed the difference between long fingers and long headline here - https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t2836-difference-b-w-long-headline-and-long-fingers

If the process of thought does not necessarily imply the existence of intelligence....

Johnny hasn't said this. He said finger length is not a sign of intelligence. All handshapes think! (but long fingers spend more time thinking).

Intelligence - I think we have to look at combinations of features. In the above discussion about long headline & long fingers, Rajashri pointed out that everyone's perception about "intelligence" is different. Indeed there are different forms of intelligence (eg emotional intelligence). With regard to air hands, their love of "ideas that are relative and systematic, that have form and pattern." could make them good at passing IQ tests. Same with a short headline.

Learner, have my thoughts made sense to you? has it clarified anything?

learner Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:37 am

Hi Lynn,

Thank you for your detailed opinion. It does clarify Ficham's perspective a lot more. Perhaps, my mistake was, as Martijn pointed out, to zoom in on 1 or 2 sentences in isolation.

To me, these statements of yours sum it up best:

'Johnny...said finger length is not a sign of intelligence. All handshapes think! (but long fingers spend more time thinking).'

I completely get this point.

'Water and air shape hands have long fingers. Long fingers show that the person lives more in the inner realm, they spend more time in the inner world & mental realm. In water hands this is the inner realm of emotions & feelings....In air hands it is the mental realm of thought, ideas, analysis, evaluation, observation, details, contemplation - more objective than water hands mode of thinking.'

This I think resolves the contradiction that existed in my mind. It is the content of the thought waves that differentiate water hands & air hands. Grasping these subtle yet significant differences is obviously what separates experienced palmists from beginners like me.

So...this matter is finally put to rest !!!!

Lynn & Martijn,

I appreciate your time & effort to help out a beginner !!!

Lynn,

I will be pestering you with questions on 5 element system as soon as I find enough time to structure my case studies & questions.

Thanks

Learner

**Lynn** Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:30 am

glad to see we were able to help Very Happy

ah I wondered what happened to your questions about 5 element system. Whenever you are ready. You previously asked "Would you prefer that I post them one at a time or several together?" I said "however you like". But on second thoughts, maybe post them one at a time so it doesn't become overwhelming. Smile

Sponsored content

Question For Lynn & Martijn

Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn

Re: Question For Lynn & Martijn