2D:4D Finger Ratio

[Oberon]

Heh. The question of whether trends in intelligence track with trends in populations with genetic commonalities is a valid arena for scientific inquiry, but politically untouchable... the potental for abuse of such research is positively mind-boggling.

In fact, it's undiscussable in polite company.

 

[Shimmy]

Heh. The question of whether trends in intelligence track with trends in populations with genetic commonalities is a valid arena for scientific inquiry, but politically untouchable... the potental for abuse of such research is positively mind-boggling.

In fact, it's undiscussable in polite company.

That's why I want it researched. I hat it when bigots get in the way of progression.

No. Eugenics isn't science, it's social policy.

Like the above mentioned racial intelligence, there's a scientific and a sociopolitical side to it. Eugenics is the social side, but saying I support genetics research to improve the human race doesn't sound as provoking.

 

[Salomé]

That's why I want it researched. I hat it when bigots get in the way of progression.

A supporter of eugenics who hates bigots?
It never fails to amaze me how people are able justify their beliefs...

Like the above mentioned racial intelligence, there's a scientific and a sociopolitical side to it. Eugenics is the social side, but saying I support genetics research to improve the human race doesn't sound as provoking.

Were you trying to provoke then? Why don't you just say what you mean? And that still isn't science - you have an agenda: "improving the human race". That's political.
Genetics is the science. And I don't think you'll find its study controversial.

In fact, it's undiscussable in polite company.

That's why you should discuss it here.

 

[Totenkindly]

This thread might be becoming kinda hurtful to people, I understand that this is a controversial topic for some people, but I'd really like to keep the peace here if at all possible, sorry to sound like a pain

It's not controversial as long as people contribute actual data, rather than masquerading personal preferences as data. (And even personal preferences are fine to discuss, if declared openly as such.)

If the supposition of the OP is disproven by contributed data, so be it.
If the supposition of the OP is proven by contributed data, so be it.

As Morgan said, "Basic research should preoccupy itself with what is and why it is, not what should be or how people might react to what is." Ding ding ding!

I'm not sure why the topic has to be controversial at all, if we remember that.
We're just discussing documented studies done in regards to quantified androgen impact on developing fetuses.

EDIT: Eugenics? Things gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Shimmy]

A supporter of eugenics who hates bigots?
It never fails to amaze me how people are able justify their beliefs...

Were you trying to provoke then? Why don't you just say what you mean? And that still isn't science - you have an agenda: "improving the human race". That's political.
Genetics is the science. And I don't think you'll find its study controversial.

I'm not at all in favour of eugenics in the form of limiting peoples choices with regards to who they are allowed to procreate with. I am however in favour of the possibility of establishing what hereditary traits a child is likely to get and be able to use this information in choosing to have kids, or what partner to get the kids with.

To quote James D Watson the discoverer of the structure of DNA:

People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great

Please note that I don't actually go around telling people which traits are desirable and which are not. This is what eugenics is usually abused for, and I agree it's a socio-political agenda rather than science.

EDIT: Eugenics? Things gets curiouser and curiouser.

I like a bit of controversy and I thought this thread wasn't having enough of it yet.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not at all in favour of eugenics in the form of limiting peoples choices with regards to who they are allowed to procreate with. I am however in favour of the possibility of establishing what hereditary traits a child is likely to get and be able to use this information in choosing to have kids, or what partner to get the kids with.

So you're saying it's a way to empower individuals to make decisions that suit them, rather than ways to control a population according to the agenda of whoever is in power at the time.

People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.

"But if everyone is pretty... no one is." (paraphrased from The Incredibles)

Please note that I don't actually go around telling people which traits are desirable and which are not. This is what eugenics is usually abused for, and I agree it's a socio-political agenda rather than science.

Typically. Aside from "pure health" reasons, science is about what is and how it works, while deciding what is "preferable" or "ideal" is a values judgment.

EDIT: I gotta run but we might split this thread later, it's just a matter of finding the right "split point" for the thread.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Transhumanism > Eugenics.

 

[Shimmy]

So you're saying it's a way to empower individuals to make decisions that suit them, rather than ways to control a population according to the agenda of whoever is in power at the time.



"But if everyone is pretty... no one is." (paraphrased from The Incredibles)



Typically. Aside from "pure health" reasons, science is about what is and how it works, while deciding what is "preferable" or "ideal" is a values judgment.

EDIT: I gotta run but we might split this thread later, it's just a matter of finding the right "split point" for the thread.

It can and has been used as a means to control a population according to the agenda of whoever is in power at the time. I see the risk of it happening, but I still prefer for humanity to have this knowledge. I addition to admitting the possible abuse of genetic knowledge I'd like to say that holding back scientific discoveries from the general public, or in the worst cases even spreading a technophobia amongst the people, has also been used to control populations in the past and I think nobody can decide objectively whether the knowledge is more dangerous when it's made public or held privately.

I haven't said anything about a standard for 'pretty'. Not all girls have to look the same for them to all be 'pretty'. And then there's still the element of personal taste, which ensures that not all girls will always be thought of as pretty by all guys.

I hope you don't think that I think that making people prettier is a primary goal of genetic research. For me making sure that people are free of genetic diseases is a far nobler goal, but when we're at it, I see no harm in learning ways to fine-tune those little things as well.

Transhumanism > Eugenics.

Yes, transhumanism is a better term to explain my point of view.

 

[Jonny]

2D:4D Ratio

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

MEN (Should have a ratio of about .96)

LOW 2D:4D RATIO

• Higher prevalence of homosexuality
• Larger average penis size
• More fertile
• More physically aggressive / dominant
• More athletic
• Better in mathematics
• More musically inclined
• Higher prevalence of autism
• Higher prevalence of osteoarthritis
• Higher prevalence of prostate cancer

HIGH 2D:4D RATIO

• Better linguistic ability
• Lower fertility
• More prevalence of early heart attack

 

[Jonny]

My ratio is .90

 

[FDG]

'round 97, I suppose that's the average for males, more or less.

 

[Sinmara]

Whee I've got man fingers!

 

[Such Irony]

My ratio is 1.0

 

[Totenkindly]

Merged new thread in Health & Fitness with this one that had existed in Sexuality (and since the content seemed "clean," moved it from Sexuality to Science).

 

[Salomé]

My ratio is .90

Hey! You've got "curly" fingers like me!

 

[Totenkindly]

That's funny... the majority of my fingers are straight, but my index finger on both hands noticeably curls/twists a bit too.

I haven't seen fingers as twisty as JB's before. I wonder what that means.

 

[INA]

Whee I've got man fingers!

+1, though I'm skeptical about the supposed correlations, e.g., masculinity and poorer linguistic ability. How are they measuring these?

 

[Totenkindly]

+1, though I'm skeptical about the supposed correlations, e.g., masculinity and linguistic ability. How are they measuring these?

Due to various research done on men/women and their typical test scores in math/spatial tests vs linguistics tests that have been ongoing for decades. I can't vouch for the validity of it, just that the research is plentiful and you can probably find a lot of it via Google.

Since men and women start from the same biological template, and the method of differentiation is sex-specific hormones (most notably, androgens for males), this means that differences in such scores cross-culture potentially reveals some sort of cognitive differentiation built on hormonal development in physical structure; and thus noting the physical impact of androgens on a developing fetus (such as in finger length) should create some sort of correlation between the physical impact of androgen levels and the cognitive impact.

 

[INA]

Due to various research done on men/women and their typical test scores in math/spatial tests vs linguistics tests that have been ongoing for decades.

If it's anything like the linguistic test I did that had a finger ratio component to it then I'm really skeptical. That one measured it by how many words you could come up with in a certain time. Noting about the structure or logic of language.

 

[Totenkindly]

If it's anything like the linguistic test I did that had a finger ratio component to it then I'm really skeptical. That one measured it by how many words you could come up with in a certain time. Noting about the structure or logic of language.

No, I'm talking at the very least about SAT scores, but there have been more specialized tests done in those areas.

You are completely correct that the "linguistic test" on the BBC gender exam was pretty thin. It was probably the lamest test in the whole bunch; at least the spatial test did test the mental ability to spin 3d objects around accurately.