Dr Phill (US talkshow host): talking about finger length & infidelity!

"Will Your Man Cheat …?"

"What if you could find out if your man is at a higher risk for infidelity before you married him? Dr. Phil and his panel of medical experts discuss the new science behind a cheater’s brain and what can be done if your loved one is at a higher risk."

At his website Dr. Phil presented a list of 4 physiological inidactors which provide a clue about the risk that a man will cheat; including:

- finger length (2D:4D digit ratio = length of ring finger compared to index finger);
- facial (a)symmetry;
- size of genitals;
- brain injuries.

Read more:
http://fingerlengthdigitratio.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/dr-phil-discusses-link-between-finger-length-infidelity/


PS. I think it is fair to say that none of the items in Dr Phil's list provide a reliable indicator for infidelity in individuals (NOTICE: the results of studies are always based group findings).

my opinion on ring finger is just that its meaning is somewhere around : feminine/artistic
so,now from that branch can pop out many other conclusions : your man is cheating on you,you like kids etc...
woman on show said,'oooh,so you are on feminine side!' ,but,actually,if you looked atleast at 10 people i am sure more than 6 will have it longer cos many people are so called feminine-its just a attitude of care,not being a fighting type of human or angry one
who yells etc.

Stefanman wrote:my opinion on ring finger is just that its meaning is somewhere around : feminine/artistic
so,now from that branch can pop out many other conclusions : your man is cheating on you,you like kids etc...
woman on show said,'oooh,so you are on feminine side!' ,but,actually,if you looked atleast at 10 people i am sure more than 6 will have it longer cos many people are so called feminine-its just a attitude of care,not being a fighting type of human or angry one
who yells etc.

Hello Stefanman,

I am not sure that I understood your comment correctly, but...

A long ring finger is considered as a typical 'male-like' characteristic ... simply because almost all studies around the world have indicated that in men their ring finger is usually longer than their index finger.

While on the contrary... many women sort of have the same charteristics, their index finger is much more often longer than the finger finger (though even in women it doesn't concern the majority).

Anyway... thank you for your response!

Well,I actually thought,and i am sure ive read somewhere,that long ring finger is sign of feminine.it made logic,cos
ring finger actually is for art/feminine...but best way is to check it on yourself,if you gonna do global public calculations
on things like length of ring finger ,i think its quite silly,to expect strong conclusions from that.maybe some sort of sub-overview.

I am sorry for sometimes writting in manner so its not so understandable.its ha
rd to explain some things on english and some of them are not so much clear in my head even on serbian.

Hello Stefanman,

Nice to see that you really enjoy to participate in the discussions!!


PS. It is very true that the ring finger is associated with art, but in the history of mankind art has been typically a 'male' activity ... to impress women!

The long ring finger is for sure a typical characteristic in the hand of men, and I think you will enjoy reading the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_finger

I also would like to recommend you to re-read your source; maybe you can present us here a quote???

(By the way, I hope you also realise that you should simply believe anything that is written in palmistry books... for in our earlier discussion at the PI forum we have notified quite a few times that the writings of some authors actually contradict eachother...!!! I hope you are already aware of this fact!?)

Hi Stefanman, as well as the arts, the ring finger has been associated with sport, risk-taking, our self expression. I think there are a lot of sporty, testosterone fuelled men with long ring fingers who might not like to be described as 'feminine'

... Thanks Lynn!!

Yes, what Lynn described is true... but I would like to add that her comment acutually relates to Prof. John Manning's digit ratio (which concerns the COMBINATION of ring finger AND index finger):

2D:4D finger ratio = length of index finger (2D) versus length of ring finger (4D)

Quote :

"The digit ratio is a living fossil. It is a record of what the foetus was exposed to at a critical time for the development of many other things."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/your-life-in-your-hands-498528.html


PS. Member who would like to read more about the 'digit ratio', can find many interesting articles at the DIGIT RATIO NEWS SECTION and my digit ratio blog at: http://fingerlengthdigitratio.wordpress.com/

I thought that a long index finger denotes assertiveness, leadership qualities, self-confidence and a pronounced ego sense... all "more "testosterone" type qualities than a short index finger, which apparently denotes lack of self-confidence, self-doubt, lack of ambition, etc. In short: alpha male = very long index.

I have a long 4D relative to a shorter 2D, and indeed my ambition is mild, I often lack assertiveness, and I am more "feminine" than almost all males I have met. I have had a test for testosterone levels (I suffer from a prostate condition) and my count was low-normal. Of course, things may have changed since my birth.

And by the way.... I am the last one to "cheat" on my girlfriend. I think that part is far-fetched.

Would someone please clarify this confusion!

Thank you!

Hi Charles,

First of all, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Second, as you didn't mention the necessary details .... did you ever try to actually CALCULATE your digit ratio? (For each hand seperately!)

Knowing your '2D:4D digit ratio' is really a requirement before one can evaluate any of the details that you shared...!

I hope you now understand if I notice here that the 'crucual element' in your report is missing so far!

Hi Martijn:

I appreciate your attention to detail. I immediately measured my D2:D4 ratios. It is 0.9310 on my right hand (I am a righty) and 1.000 on my left hand. I am still confused. I though a significant length of the index finger signifies egotism and dominant impulses (i.e. leadership qualities). The above discussion seems to contradict that completely.

-Charles

cshahar wrote:Hi Martijn:

I appreciate your attention to detail. I immediately measured my D2:D4 ratios. It is 0.9310 on my right hand (I am a righty) and 1.000 on my left hand. I am still confused. I though a significant length of the index finger signifies egotism and dominant impulses (i.e. leadership qualities). The above discussion seems to contradict that completely.

-Charles

Hi Charles,

First of all, thanks for sharing these 'digit ratio' details!


I'll try to provide you some sensible thoughts:


- FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

The average 'digit ratio' appears to be close to 0.97 (source: John Manning's second book: The Finger book, page 28). But one should be aware that the 'digit ratio' varies significantly among (ethnic) populations.

Anyway, your AVERAGE digit ratio can for sure be described as: (completely) normal - though one could say that you actually have a 'mixed' 2D:4D digit ratio: for in your right hand it is 'below average' (low) and in your left hand it is 'above average' (high).


- Second, one should better avoid associating a high "2D:4D digit ratio" with a long index finger. For the digit ratio ... is really a measure that relates to the COMBINATION the ring finger and index finger.

While traditionally the length of the index finger is usually treated as a (superficial)observational measure of the outset of the index finger compared to the outset of the middle finger and/or ring finger. The onset of the index finger is usually ignored completely... and inexperienced hand readers may even not be aware how the "leaning" of the fingers may even have it's effect in this "observational" type of measurement.


- Third, regarding the concept of 'egoism' ... yes I understand where this concept comes from (the long index finger has indeed been associated with 'egoism' in quite a few palmistry books).

But from a philosophical point of view, I think this is probably a typical "Barnum" theory. For.... what is 'egoism' exactly anyway???

(I think it is simply not realistic at all to assume that an ability for 'egoism' can be seen from the length of one finger only)

Yes, there are even a few questionnaires available for measuring the dimension 'egoism', and obviously likely it can be related (with a negative correlation) to one of the Big Five dimensions: AGREEABLENESS.




Charles, in this perspective the following study presents an interesting result (for females only):
Second to fourth digit ratio and the ‘big five’ personality factors

[This study found a negative correlation in females only between the 2DD digit ratio and AGREEABLENESS => Which could speculatively be 'translated' into a positive correlation between the 2D:4D digit ratio and 'egoism' ... ... so I actually see an indirect confirmation for the 'palmistry theory'!

But again, both regarding the psychological quality AND the hand characteristic ... it's complex matter!! And as far as I know I am not sure that the result has ever been confirmed in other likewise studies.]

But the following study even reports a reversed correlation (... for males only):
Second-to-fourth digit ratio related to Verbal and Numerical Intelligence and the Big Five ]

Quote from the study:

"... a typical masculine pattern (low 2D:4D, low verbal intelligence, high numerical intelligence, and low agreeableness."



Charles, I hope these answers will make sense for you.
But thank you anyway for your question!!

Thanks Martijn for your considered response. I appreciate the time and effort that went into it.

Anyway, your AVERAGE digit ratio can for sure be described as: (completely) normal - though one could say that you actually have a 'mixed' 2D:4D digit ratio: for in your right hand it is 'below average' (low) and in your left hand it is 'above average' (high).

Yes, and from what I understand the right and left hand have a different significance to one's personality, where the right hand (in a righty) is an indication of overt/manifest qualities, and the left an indication of unconsciousness/potential/undeveloped qualities. The differences in ratios seem to suggest a lot.

- Second, one should better avoid associating a high "2D:4D digit ratio" with a long index finger. For the digit ratio ... is really a measure that relates to the COMBINATION the ring finger and index finger.

I understand this completely, and thank you for making this point clear for me.

But from a philosophical point of view, I think this is probably a typical "Barnum" theory. For.... what is 'egoism' exactly anyway???

It is simply a construct we use for convenience sake. I meant it more as a complex of interrelated traits (independence, leadership, self-esteem, assertiveness, etc.). I don't see the art and science of palmistry as necessarily dealing in specifics, but rather more in global qualities and traits.

[This study found a negative correlation in females only between the 2DD digit ratio and AGREEABLENESS => Which could speculatively be 'translated' into a positive correlation between the 2D:4D digit ratio and 'egoism' ... ... so I actually see an indirect confirmation for the 'palmistry theory'!

Perhaps, but the statistical effects are weak and the findings as you point out are sometimes contradictory, and hence the ratios have little use as personality predictors. There is also a speculative relationship between egotism and agreeableness (which you also rightly point out). There may be intervening variables involved that actually account for both factors. It is all quite a stretch! I also don't know whether exposure to high testosterone levels at birth necessarily leads to adult "masculine" behavior patterns, or just a hairier fellow. ''

Getting out of the experimental mode and looking at things from an extremely anecdotal perspective (If I remember correctly... and my memory has sometimes been known to fail), the person on stage with Oprah who had the lowest d2d4 ratios was also the most effeminate. In fact, the audience got that point, because a chuckle resonated throughout the auditorium. Of course, the measurement was an eyeball only, and could have been way off.

As you say, it is all very complex.

-Charles

I think the third indication is very interesting, size of genitals, so just to confirm the reading do we ask the person to show their genitals Palmistry is becoming very modern indeed.and furhermore there is no detailed instruction in how to judge,or interprate the genitals.

jeanette wrote:I think the third indication is very interesting, size of genitals, so just to confirm the reading do we ask the person to show their genitals Palmistry is becoming very modern indeed.and furhermore there is no detailed instruction in how to judge,or interprate the genitals.

Jeanette, thank you for making this comment!  

Well, despite that the 'genitals' indeed were mentioned as the 3rd element in Dr. Phil's list of physiological inidactors (see my first post above)... I think it is obvious that option 3 and 4 go far beyond what we can use as a hand reader - just like us hand readers are not in the appropriate position to speak- or speculate about 'brain injuries' (= the 4th option in Dr Phil's list).

I hope it is obvious that this topic does not serve to promote the idea to inspect the genitals of clients during a hand reading. However, I think this topic does serve to become aware of the fact that the link between 'infidelity' and finger length ratios can only be understood properly when one is aware that this concerns just a small element in a much larger perspective of physical characteristics.

I hope this makes sense?

 

Very good. Thanks Martjin.

jeanette wrote:I think the third indication is very interesting, size of genitals, so just to confirm the reading do we ask the person to show their genitals Palmistry is becoming very modern indeed.and furhermore there is no detailed instruction in how to judge,or interprate the genitals.

Nice to see you posting Jeanette, hope you are keeping well. Your post made me laugh

Thanks Lynn. I made myself laugh. I think there could be quite a male response wanting a reading when hearing this would be included.One thing for sure is I could not cope with it.
I am okay except for my eyesight and I don't like posting now because my friends have said the texts that I send have terrible spelling and parts are missing. When I was at school I got a prize for spelling and this upsets me hearing this, but the other more important reason is what happened with Patti. and I don't think the forum is the same without her
Thanks again and hope you are ok and I don't forget when I came to this forum knowing nothing and all the help I got.