2D:4D Finger Ratio

[Jonny]

Please fellows, let's keep it pg in here... mkay?

 

[Salomé]

How long is that?

 

[forzen]

Interesting study. Also, I can be added to the statistic of being better in math than linguistic for having my ring finger longer than my index finger. However, I can't find any ruler in my apartment to do the ratio.

 

[Fan.of.Devin]

I think I'm about .98, which is kind of puzzling.

• Higher prevalence of homosexuality - Nah, the male form disgusts me.
• Larger average penis size - Honestly I have no idea, probably just average.
• More fertile - Never had a sperm count.
• More physically aggressive / dominant - Definitely not.
• More athletic - DEFINITELY not.
• Better in mathematics - Eh... Dunno.
• More musically inclined - Well, I'd like to believe this one is true.
• Higher prevalence of autism - No family history of it, and no diagnosis of myself ever having anything on the spectrum.
• Higher prevalence of osteoarthritis - Hope not, but I guess I'll have to wait and see.
• Higher prevalence of prostate cancer - Ditto.

 

[Cimarron]

Fitting that my ratio tends away from the testosterone / aggressiveness side. 2nd finger slightly longer than the 4th finger.

 

[Bamboo]

Hm....my ratio is approx .95, 71:75 mm. I guess this makes me low 2D:4D women and more "masculine".

For the record, I am straight, identify solidly with being the female sex, & don't have too much issue with my gender role (I embrace a lot of typical female interests & preferences).


I realize my fingers are spread apart, but I still think the photo shows my index finger is shorter...

Wait, isn't that your left hand?

 

[Bamboo]

(Regarding SAT scores)

Outside of the States, that doesn't really mean anything...

Oh I'm aware, but most posters on the forum are from the US and out of high school so it seems like a good basic point of reference.

Fitting in with the whole typology theme, I took a pro-administered 16PF (NOT mbti related, despite the "16") that had an abstract reasoning portion. I recall it being word problems. I ranked high on that. Linguistics, up?

Slightly misfit with my .95 ratio, where higher scores demonstrate better linguistic ability.

But for the most part, it seems like the theory fits me alright.

 

[forzen]

Ok i found a ruler online and used it to measure my ratio by taking a paper, marking it, then measuring the marking with the ruler online. I found that my 2D:4D ratio is .91 for my right hand and .93 for my left hand.

 

[Betty Blue]

I'm not entirely sure why people are not posting pics of their palms since that is where we are supposed to take the measurements from, no?

And in that vein...

Can't see so much from this side but they are the same length

 

[Totenkindly]

Can't see so much from this side but they are the same length

Actually, your ring finger looks longer from this angle.

We're not talking a huge difference, remember -- either a 1-to-1 ratio or a 96% ratio... that's not much, even if measurable.

I just saw Pettycure's.... wow, that IS pretty heavily "guy slanted."

Interesting study. Also, I can be added to the statistic of being better in math than linguistic for having my ring finger longer than my index finger. However, I can't find any ruler in my apartment to do the ratio.

Wow. That's a HUGE difference -- maybe up to 10% difference between the two?

 

[Betty Blue]

Actually, your ring finger looks longer from this angle.

We're not talking a huge difference, remember -- either a 1-to-1 ratio or a 96% ratio... that's not much, even if measurable.

yes, but it's just the angle. I measured as per instruction and the pic of the palm is a truer representation...

...

 

[Bamboo]

I just used a ruler. I suppose the scanner method may be more accurate.

 

[FDG]

By the way, I see that most studies mention how this ratio tends to change a lot between populations (not even ethnicity) - they say that between-populations effects are larger than within-populations effects, thus it's hard to really make a comparison when we're dealing with subjects coming from a mixed place like the US...

Dunno, I seem to have a high digit ratio, but I am quite athletic & math has always been among my strongest subjects in school.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

0.96 ratio.

That makes me manlier. O_O!!!

 

[INA]

0.92 <--- that makes me (almost*) manliest.

But my SAT verbal was 99th percentile and my waist-hip ratio is 0.73 <-- girliest, too?


*damn you, Jonnyboy.

 

[Totenkindly]

Once again, an equal opportunity thread becomes a masculine-oriented pissing match....

 

[INA]

this was about equal opportunity?

 

[rav3n]

Very feminine

What do the researchers mean by feminine? My ratio is 1.014 which doesn't correlate to my definition of femininity.

• The colour pink doesn't send me into girlish ecstacy.
• Baby talk makes me want to go deaf instead of hearing it being used by two adults gushing at each other. When heard, bodily harm or painful gagging come to mind.
• Some of my most important interests belong traditionally in the male sector.

 

[Totenkindly]

Were those in the descriptive list of differences?
(I don't remember seeing them. Maybe I missed them.)

 

[rav3n]

MORE FORTHCOMING....

WOMEN (Should have a ratio of about 1)

LOW 2D:4D RATIO

• More masculine
• Higher prevalence of homosexuality
• Higher prevalence of lefthandedness
• Greater physical prowess
• Higher prevalence of autism

HIGH 2D:4D RATIO

• Very feminine
• Higher prevalence of breast cancer
• Higher fertility
• Better linguistic ability

This is where the "very feminine" came from. The list referenced in my post, was my opinion about how I don't fall in the feminine category, reliant on definition of femininity.