Manning's unscientic speculation on finger length ratio Vs pre-natal testosterone level!

stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn, When you explain about the relation between the length of finger and sex hormones, you need to be aware of some scientific facts. They are ,
1. gonads are endocrine glands. Hence, Blood circulation is the only way through which every cell of the body receives the hormones via receptors. Why then, either estrogen increases the length of index finger or testosterone increases the length of ring finger. If you assume that sex hormone increases the size of the fingers during the time of pregnancy, it suppose to increase the size of every cell of the human body. why did these hormones have special affinity in particular fingers? where did you lost the relation or reasoning?

stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn,

you appears to be not giving any reasonings about the testosterone theory with finger length ratio for past two years. That was the reason why i was questioning about your reasoning power . What you say as a scientific relation is not accepted by any school of science. your single word reasoning like "testosterone" provide any sense to any intellectual mind. Without caring it you keep on repeating the same stories.

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 13:41) wrote:Hello martijn,

Your arguements shows your lacking knowledge in human physiology. Growth hormone which secreted by pitutary gland is the hormone responsible for human growth ie., cell, tissue etc., Apart from that, every endocrine induces the growth. However, unless you name the specialized receptors of finger which receives the sex hormones, manning theory would remain empty speculation. If all are following the same means, it does not mean that i should also follow them like sheep. They are just wish to support their own theory. Hence, They dont want reasonings . But, I can look for scientific evidences rather than your philosophical arguments.

why apple is round? Genetics can answer your questions by means of providing you the name of the gene. infact unless you see the philosophical background of it, you can get the answer from science. Philosophy answers only the unexplained and mysterious portion of science.

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 14:47) wrote:Hello lynn,

your link certainly supports my point that how manning's theory is hypothesis!
"However, the hypothesis that digit ratio depends on the androgen effect during development has never been tested".

... Stalin, your response indicates that you probably cherish the idea: that ANY HYPOTHESIS can not be described as 'scientific'.

But that is not realistic at all!!!
Because the process of designing theories and testing hypotheses... is actually how (academic) science develops!

And yes, I am aware that certain aspects of Manning's theory about the link between prenatal hormones and finger lenght ratios... could certainly be described as 'hypothesis only'!

But one can not simply conclude from that point that Manning's theory is 'unscientific speculation'. Because any person who makes such a huge step, very likely also has an incorrect idea of what academic science is all about.


(Though I realize that even people who had a succesful education at an academic institute could make likewise incorrect assumptions)

stalin.v (Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:47 pm) wrote:Hello lynn,

your link certainly supports my point that how manning's theory is hypothesis!
"However, the hypothesis that digit ratio depends on the androgen effect during development has never been tested".

Lynn (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 15:15) wrote:
(To stalin)
...
Now that some 'proof' has been shown to you, do you now retract your statement "What you say as a scientific relation is not accepted by any school of science. your single word reasoning like "testosterone" provide any sense to any intellectual mind."

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for sharing your perception on how Stalin responded to your reference + your description of how science works..

And I also support your question in return:
sounds like a 'fair' question for Stalin to answer!


(Lynn, though I already concluded that stalin's statement was quite unrealistic in the perspective that so many scientists around the world have made references to Manning's basic theory, etc. Your reference is certainly useful to illustrate that science has developed since Manning's first book was published! )

stalin.v (Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:07 pm) wrote: Growth hormone and other endocrine hormones are general indicators of growth nor any specificity is applied unless you specify any specialized receptor of the fingers.

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 16:07) wrote:Hello lynn and martijn,

If any member in this forum say that all hypothesis are science, i can gladly retain my words back. ...

... This sound like just one more 'unrealistic' requirement: why would you want to make such a proposal?

If this is just a joke to admit that both Lynn and I made a 'fair' point regarding the position of 'hypothesis' in science... please, why can't you tell us directly!!?


Stalin, Lynn nor I suggested that 'all hypothesis are science'. Of course: not all hypotheses can can be described as 'science'. But it is only a fact that the concept of 'testing hypotheses' is a major concept in the development of (academic) science.

Unfortunately your words indicate... that you do not recognize the important role of this essential element in academic science.

Check this wikipedia article about 'science':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Experimentation_and_hypothesizing

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 16:07) wrote:...

However, The main action of testosterone is to develop the sexual organs. Hence, I can never take this hypothesis as true. Infact, Through the placenta of the mother, embryo receives all endocrine hormones . Why testosterone is been specified by manning. He just tries to relate the variation of finger ratio that identified in male and females with hormones. It doesnt make any sense to anyone. What you have explained as androgen receptor are commonly seen in sex organs and muscles. Nevertheless, During the embryogenesis itself, the various finger ratio develops rather than the specific influences. Rather, Growth hormone and other endocrine hormones are general indicators of growth nor any specificity is applied unless you specify any specialized receptor of the fingers.

stalin.v (Thu 16 Dec 2010 - 17:06) wrote:Hello martijn and lynn,

First of all, It is nice to know that you and lynn are being aware atleast that manning's theories are based on hypothesis. The deal alread got over. Talking about abstract science is useless until it is proved.

Regarding your discussion on the word "hypothesis", surely we will discuss them in off-topic forum if you're interested. Because, It appears to obstruct the main scientific discussion.

stalin.v wrote:Hello martijn,

What remains either to respect or argue on this hypothesis! manning can convince peoples who basically dont aware much about medical sciences. but not all.

Hi Stalin,

By the way, despite that I think that your words 'abstract theory' is much more acceptable than the vocabulary in your title... I do think that Manning's major theory is much more valuable than any true 'abstract theory' could ever become!

I have multiple arguments to explain this point:

1 - Nearly all of hundreds of 2D:4D studies that have been performed so far, are basically nearly ALL a direct spin-off from Manning's major theory!!!


2 - Beyond the 2D:4D finger length, Manning described an additional a second practical measure for getting an impression about the sensitivity of an individual to androgen in the dermis of the fingers: you can count the hairs on the individual phalanges of the finger!

Manning wrote on page 30 of his book 'Digit Ratio':

"... There is some circumstantial evidence that points to a high sensitivity to androgen in the dermis of the 4th digit. Look at the back of your fingers. The middle segments (phalanx 2 of P2) may have some hair on them. The presence of hair in this position is slightly more likely if you are male and much more likely on your 4th digit compared to your 3rd and 5th digit. Furthermore, the 3rd of middle finger tends to be hairier than the 5th of little finger. Why this pattern?"

(NOTICE: On page 30 you can read how Manning answer's that question, and on page XIII he describes that hair growth on the fingers depends on ... testosterone.)


3 - His guidelines for measuring the 2D:4D finger ratio ... is obviously VERY PRACTICAL, and can in certain circumstances lead to astonishing results - see the 2 videos below!!

Manning predicts the outcome of a 100m sprint race: a 'double blind experiment'!


Manning predicts the outcome of a 5000m sprint race: a 'double blind experiment'!


Manning explains the results of a visuo-spatial test performed by a group of people:


Manning explains the results of an empathy test performed by a group of people:



Stalin, I could easily use these 3 arguments + these 4 video examples to illustrated that your "hypothesis" ( ) about Manning's theory that it is only an 'abstract theory'... can easily be REJECTED completely!!

And instead, I would prefer to say that it is quite an 'astonishing theory'.... with multiple practical purposes (though the results will only be reliable under certain conditions!).


CONCLUSION: One can not deny that Manning's theory has already resulted in quite a few practical applications!


PS. Another example from a completely different perspective is the recent study that purposed the 2D:4D digit ratio as a potential screening instrument for identifying males who are at higher risk for prostate cancer, see the discussion (e.g. Lynn's reports in december 2010):
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t14-prostate-cancer-is-now-predicted-through-ring-fingers-length

stalin.v wrote:... You could not even understand how the 2 possibility 2d:4d ratio can give 100 different studies (as you said in your earlier post). ...

Stalin, I have no idea to which words of mine your are referring - but regarding what you are suggesting here: I expect that you didn't read my words properly because your statement sounds like just another 'ridiculous' statement... now focussed on my efforts (while I have only tried to provide you some factual response to your provocative statements).


By the way, regarding YOUR idea about 'only 2 possibilities' - this illustrates again that you still have no realistic perception about Manning's method. Let me explain...

Manning's method really requires for every individual to make a very precise measurement resulting in two 2D:4D ratios for each hand (and both results will have to be putten in the perspective of: male vs. female, country, skin color, etc).

The illustration below provides an impression of the 2D:4D difference between a sample of males vs. females.


Regarding the many different human qualities (and diseases) that have been associated with the 2D:4D finger ratio, one can understand that in the perspective of the fact that a simian line can provide a 'clue' for dozens of completely different medical problems... but of course one needs to be able to identify more 'clues' before one can make any reliable speculation.


Basically, this is what 'modern hand reading' is all about:
identifying relevant COMBINATIONS of hand characteristics in an individual!

But one should always be aware:
one single 'clue'... means nothing!