Slashdot Mirror
Boys with Longer Ring Fingers are Better at Math
slashthedot writes "While it is well known that boys have longer ring fingers as compared to index fingers, now some researchers say that the longer the ring finger ratio to index finger, the better boys are at math. In girls, the shorter the ring finger to index finger ratio, the better is their verbal skills. 'The link, according to the researchers, is that testosterone levels in the womb influence both finger length and brain development.'"
The beach boys gave boys all the math they'll ever need. And, it isn't related to the index finger or ring finger, but rather to the finger in between.
A little different that my usual pickup line, but what the heck!
I have a huge cock.
Nature saw fit to bless some of us more than others, enjoy your prime numbers nerds!
Somehow, I doubt Freud's work would be as widely known if he had come up with "ring finger envy."
In other news, men around the world replied to the findings with a cry of "Oh yeah? You should see my OTHER ratio." Women world around responded by placing their foreheads in their palms and sighing.
The ratio of men to women in mathematically intensive disciplines is purely the result of patriarchy, glass ceilings, canes as thick as thumbs, the porn industry, and enculturation via pink dresses and My Little Pony dolls.
Clearly, government must start an expensive program of Grrl Computer Camps to lower this ratio.
Let's just say that's not all we're better at.
adds up quickly to most people.
OK, so they found a correlation. But it was a correlation they weren't looking for, correct? If I check for the existence of 20 different correlations with a 95% confidence interval, wouldn't I be likely to find one even if none exist? Somebody else would have to confirm this finding for me to give it any credence.
thats crazy talk mister
Dissatisfied with your r1ng f1nger? We can help you...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In which way does this affect brain development? If more testosterone = better brain development, well, then sexism just raised by 50%.
However, my ring finger is 7mm longer than the index.
Do any of thes biological factors ever predict mental capacity or mental ability?
Curious if they have anything to say about the length of the human lower horn...
So let's save teaching time and separate them in their first years at school? ;-)
</sarcasm>
...have a disposition to become murderers. That was the teaching of Franz Joseph Gall, who located the murderous sense behind the ears. BTW, attempts to link exterior features to character or intelligence were also quite popular with the Nazis. I'm mentioning this so that people who take this as a mere curiosity know their company.
The only way to truly know these things is through phrenology.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
> In girls, the shorter the ring finger to index finger ratio, the better is their verbal skills.
Well, this obviously was written by a boy with an extremely long ring finger then.
Buy my patch and gain inchezzz on your ring fingers, excell in math and work for NASA.
Privacy is terrorism.
SAT Scores, aggression and penis size
in the form of 'girls with longer ring fingers are lesbians'. Now we can add "poor verbal skills" to the old "lesbian trapped in a man's body" joke.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
The only thing these studies ever seem to accomplish is to piss off certain groups of people.
Black people get angry because there is a supposedly a correlation between being black and athletic prowess or being black and affinity for violent crime.
Women get angry because there is supposedly a correlation between sex and mathematical skills.
White males get angry because there is supposedly a correlation between being a white male and having an affinity for pedophilia. The list goes on and on and on.
Do these studies have any purpose other than to get PHDs published and make people angry or are they actually useful? I'd love for someone to explain the usefulness of this study and others.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
In Soviet Russia index finger ring you!
But seriously. I'm not sure if this kind of research is ethically sound. Considering people could exploit this as a basic form of eugenics... how much more research like this should we be willing to tolerate? And what exactly was the goal of this study?
Ask yourself: Is research was done that proved scientifically that people with light skin were inherently smarter than people with dark skin, don't you think there'd be at least a little problem there? Ethically, I couldn't see a responsible researcher even doing that kind of study. I don't see any practicable use of the results. The end result is overall a negative thing.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Ever heard of Godwin's Law?
A short, useless study of 70 odd British children done for in support of what? Seems most useless and of course encourages those other pseudo science gems like "Phrenology" - remember that one? See, like this study, physical characteristics can be used to determine the character, personality traits, and criminality on the basis of the shape of the head. That way we can absurdly judge people based on bumps on the head, now we have finger length and of course there are always the determinations of character based on how close those eyes are together, that's always a good one to use. Then of course there's a person's size - you remember Randy Newman's "Short People Got No Reason To Live" song? Yup, you know, since they're short and everything, see it's science! After we get these worked into society nicely, you know we can move to those other physical characteristics used to judge people's worth - you know, like color and race. Yup, this study comes right out of the 'crap pulled out of their asses' department and is worthless.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
This seems sort of silly. They create an unconfirmed, ad-hoc explanation for this apparent correlation, involving hormones, even though there is, apparently, an unsupported claim. They find a correlation with finger length and grade-school tests, and then say that finger length might be a predictor of cognitive abilities. I think that that is irresponsible scholarship and stupid. There are many people who perform mediocrely on grade-school math tests and then go on to become mathematicians, once they're exposed to more advanced mathematics in a different environment. The paper doesn't seem to be available yet; so, I can't see how strong (or, more likely, weak) this correlation is. However, the notion of "cognitive prediction" is a disturbing one to me, in part, because I know that, had I not had good teachers, who were willing to help me and who inspired me, I would not be as cognitively developed. This type of scholarship is not only sloppy; it is potentially destructive.
Of course, one could always question the journal itself....
Correlation does NOT imply causation.
Correlation does NOT imply causation.
Correlation does NOT imply causation.
It's amazing to me that so much is called "science" which also depends solely on this logical flaw.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
It means you have cancer.
SMACK!
The reason for the existence of scientific journals is to let scientists learn details about studies done by others in their field and try to replicate them.
They aren't implying that either math ability or long ring fingers *cause* the other, simply that there is some apparent statistical correlation. The put forth a hypothesis on something they believe would be a common cause for both situations, but do not say they cause one another.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
So next time you head to your local beat be wary of bespectacled bespectacled guys because they might drop dead before the job is done.
Hugo Chavez is doing the right thing in shutting down Venezuela's prime channel for corporate-sponsored "news".
Not only have we heard of this just last week (haven't we? My memory's really bad these days ;_;), but also in 2004. Unfortunately, that study claims almost the opposite of this one: researchers, programmers and men teaching mathematics and physics tend to have longer index fingers. So, WTF?
The more fingers you have, the farther you can count.
In other news...mass quantities of Ring finger enlargement pills have been stolen overnight from the distribution center...police are looking for thieves with plus sized ring fingers...
...74 boys and girls aged 6 and 7....These differences are small but significant... That sample is not even close to large enough to take seriously. The test should have been done on adults, all of one gender and in a much larger pool with information on the genetic and racial history of the subjects. But even the starting premise that we're going to pin complex things like "depression, left-handedness, musical ability, and homosexuality" on slight differences in finger length ratio makes me hope that this psychologist doesn't have a lot of patients.Hax-fu?
My Index finger and Ring finger are the same size. My verbal score on my SAT was a 650 and my math score was a 620. According to this article, shouldn't my math have been the higher score?
622677120
Absolutely absurd. I took Calculus 3 as a junior in high school and my index and ring fingers are practically the same size.
What does ratio mean?
I know, but people who attempt to predict something as complex as intelligence from the shape of body parts are still going down a dangerous path. It is the world of demagogues who use pretend-science to baffle people. If you believe that the ratio of finger lengths correlates with intelligence, why wouldn't you believe that certain head shapes (which might be more often found in arab or black populations, for example) correlate with a disposition for crime? That slope is so slippery that you shouldn't even step on it for a fun ride.
You would dare send a RAPTOR to a circus?
What if the clowns don't like him and are mean to him, for having that extra-large finger on his toe you know?
...you got AIDS!
(wait 'til your victim places his hand over his face and give him a more or less slightly punch. Additionally, diss him either Nelson-style ("Haha!") or P.Griffin-style ("In your face!"))
1. I SUUUUUUCK at math (but am pretty good at LOGIC, and am an embedded hw/sw developer by trade).
2. I have a slightly (and I do emphasize "slightly"!) less than average Johnson (the average is a litte over 5 inches , actually).
3. My verbal and communications skills have always been above average.
So now what?
On my left hand, my ring finger is clearly longer, whereas on the right hand it's of approximately equal length. According to a very similar (if not the same) article I read a while ago, the ratio's correlation with verbal skill applies to both genders. Does this mean that I'm awesome at both? I study math that I'm not even supposed to study, and my skills in languages are at a level where teachers usually tell me how much of a "language specialist" I am in our class.
There's apparently a lot more to digit ratio than one might imagine. It's kinda creepy.
I found this interesting and went looking for the other research on this ratio stuff. The problem is all the articles I found simply state there is a correlation but they don't say specifically what the correlation is.
I mean if your ring finger is longer than your index finger does that mean more musical ability or less? More aggression or less? More athletic ability or less? etc...
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Long fingers make better foreplay too.
Finding a statistical corellation does NOT equate to a causal relationship.
You have to remember that a correlation doesn't mean that EVERY last person in the world will fit (Though I find its strange you can do logic, but not math). You're one of the outliers, basically, if you were to believe their findings.
So if I feed my expectant wife "testosterone" my kid will be smarter?
Hey honey, I've got some good news.....
I don't think Franz Joseph Gall or the Nazis bothered with statistics, but supposing one did that... problem?
The numbers are as the numbers are, even if you don't like them or can't properly explain them.
We could probably train a neural network to recognize intelligent people via exterior features.
My ring finger is exactly the same length as my index finger. My ratio is a flat 1.
I was always good at math. Head of the class. I was a member of the Kappa Mu Epsilon mathematics honor society at college before graduating with my CS degree. I very easily could have gone with a math degree instead, but it seemed like there was more money in Computer Science (one might say I "did the math").
Nature vs nurture?
*shrug*
You need an unbiased observer, essentially a robot. This could be a human following strict instructions for doing measurements, or it could be a computer program that performs a radar-like scan. Of course, the inclusion of internal structure (via CAT scan, MRI scan, or PET scan) would be better.
You need an unbiased diagnosis too. This could be done via rather normal statistics. Better would be a score coming out of a Bayesian or neural network. One could even modify those via genetic algorithm, etc.
There you go, legitimate phrenology.
All these reports seem to contradict real life:
A "lower" ratio (ie. the longer your ring finger is compared to your index finger) is associated with more "male" traits:
- More aggression
- Better math ability
- Better musical ability
- Better athletic ability
- Higher instance of autism
- Less homosexuality
- etc.
Anyone know the statistics of female to male musicians? My anecdotal evidence would suggest it's 50/50. Am I wrong?
Don't many people with autistic traits tend to be geeks and therefore lack athletic ability?
Also homosexuality seems a lot more common in autistic/Aspergers people.
This also suggests that athletes are likely to be good musicians (or musicians are likely to be good atheletes). WTF? That doesn't correlate with my real life experience.
I don't get it.
But what if some of it turns out to be true or at least highly predictive? There is no truth... ah nevermind - it might lead to something positive the nazis did and we can't have that.
Darned yanks.
Take 50 random people of each interesting race and skin color. (Chinese, Ashkenazi Jew, Irish, central African) Breed them such that each grandchild is fully mixed.
Chances are, skin color won't match up with intelligence. It could happen if a skin color gene actually had a second purpose, or if skin color was on the same chromosome as something brain-related, but it's rather unlikely.
We aren't all mixed-race though. Most of us get our skin color from the same part of the world as everything else.
And this should tell you all you need to know about the present state of education in the UK.
These people are university 'researchers'. Still, all those people with PhDs in wind-surfing have to work somewhere.
One Ring finger to Rule Them All! :D
Studies have also shown that women with longer ring fingers tend to be lesbians.
Sounds like the Authors have been fishing for coincidences
You can see some original work from these researchers at http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssmjb/finger/reportonstaf fdata.htm .
Unfortunately, the level of statistical literacy is disappointing. First, they observe that the mean digit ratios for men and women are 0.98 and 1.00 (respectively) without mentioning the standard deviations, an omission that makes the numbers almost meaningless. Then they "prove" the validity of their self-measurement system by boasting that its results are strongly correlated (r=0.819, p<0.001, "extremely significant indicating good inter-rater reliability"), as if a strong proof that two measurements are not uncorrelated were what we wanted, rather than a measure of the discrepancy between them. At that point, I stopped reading, despite the delicious political incorrectness of their work.
Well, "grammer nazi" stuff disposed of, I think the GP is wrong and you are right. In the sentence "the better is their verbal skills", the subject is "verbal skills", therefore the verb should be in the plural form.
I must suck at maths. ;^)
Arcady Genkin
A ring finger longer then the other fingers mean you cant make as solid a fist, and lose fights.
So like everyone who loses fights you go and build a nuclear bomb to get revenge. But nuclear physics require maths... so you go and learn it. Then, 6 months later, you abandon your insane atomic project but find yourself significantly better at maths.
Also, longer ring fingers give better typing reach, so better typing, and perfect wsad placement, so you use computers more and learn more maths that way. Those CS hacks wont code the mathenatic parts themselves.
Talks about overall length indicating math capability in the opening paragraph, then talks about shorter ratios in the actual information. I guess the author is bad at both math and literacy. And yes, this is very bad old 'science'.
While it is well known that boys have longer ring fingers as compared to index fingers, now some researchers say that the longer the ring finger ratio to index finger, the better boys are at math. In girls, the shorter the ring finger to index finger ratio, the better is their verbal skills. 'The link, according to the researchers, is that testosterone levels in the womb influence both finger length and brain development.'
Nope. it doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's an incorrect answer.
Ask Lawrence Summers.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Just show us your fingers, then we can decide who's right! (PS: Correlation is not causation, maybe being good in math = more wanking = longer 2D fingers :D)
I call bullshit. my ring finger is longer than my index finger and i have a D- in geometry
Also, the United States military kills many Muslims every day. Americans drive around muslim countries shooting at Muslims from the windows of their cars or from the cockpits of high tech "killing machine" aircraft.
In that context it kinda seems like retaliation, doesn't it?
my finglonger?
What the hell? That is so amazingly sexist. What about girls who are good at math? Or boys who have good verbal skills? Why bring gender into the equation at all? Why not say "people with long fingers are better at math"? I hate studies like this.
Everyone has the same hormones. If some guys want to waste theirs growing longer fingers, that's their business.
Have gnu, will travel.
Americans drive around muslim countries shooting at Muslims from the windows of their cars
When you put it like that...where's the nearest recruitment office? To hell with GTA and Halo
My ring finger is longer than my index and I still suck at Maths. Interestingly my verbal skills are better. Wait a minute, all this while I've been thinking I am a straight male!
Boys extremely good in math tend to lack a ring on said finger.
some researchers say that the longer the ring finger ratio to index finger, the better boys are at math. In girls, the shorter the ring finger to index finger ratio, the better is their verbal skills.
To haven't read TFA, but can we maybe extrapolate to:
People with longer ring fingers have better math skills, and people with shorter ring fingers have better verbal skills?
At first glance gender is irrelevant.
Three Squirrels
long toe will produce better coders!!!?
Ring finger longer than index. I absolutely suck at math.
Finger length may be an indication of sexual orientation, a controversial study has shown.
Scientists from California found that lesbian women have a greater difference in length between their ring finger and index finger than straight women do. The same pattern was also found for homosexual men - but only when the researchers looked at those males that had several older brothers.
When in college I cut some of my right ring finder off with a power saw. Now my left side is considerably better at Math than my right side. Its a good thing it happened in grad school after I already had the old Math degree.
this "boy" (now a man) certainly wasn't one of them.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Ron Paul for President 2008 http://www.infowars.com/
interesting - i've been playing guitar for a couple of years now, and one thing i notice is that my ring finger on my left (fretting) hand, is now longer than my index finger, but on the right, the reverse is true.
So, does wailing on the guitar make half of your brain better at mathematics?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Length of boys x indicator that they are better at y
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The truth is the *more* fingers boys have, the better they are at math.
Mostly hormone based circuitry in the womb stage can determine ones sexual orientation.
Most gay men have smaller ring fingers than straight men and it could be related.
http://saveie6.com/
My index finger and ring finger are almost the same length, and I'm downright awful at math, almost to the point of discalcula. Numbers jump around the page, switch places, whisper amongst themselves, refuse to participate in calculations, and sometimes simply laugh at me.
My ring finger is noticably bigger than my index finger. And I addmitably suck at math. It takes me forever to learn something new in math, it doesn't interest me, I can't focus on it. However I am more intelligent than the average person. I have excellent scores in standarized tests (average in math though). I know of many things. I'm logical and sometimes creative. I am a good problem solver, etc.
Oh yeah. I have a larger than average penis too. -.-
A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that people who count their thumbs as fingers can enumerate up to 25% higher than those who don't.
~Hal
On my right hand, the ring finger is slightly longer than the index finger, whereas on my left hand, the opposite is the case. It's not enough to be noticeable by anyone other than me, but I am curious about what that would imply. If the ratios cancel out, for example, that might explain my weak verbal skills (I'm female, so I don't think the math thing applies), or my right hand alone might imply that I have been exposed to a higher level of testosterone than the average girl, which might explain my tomboyishness and interest in all things geeky.
How much does global warming relate to pirates?
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
It doesn't turn out to be true. That's the point. These results have so far always turned out to be unscientific, because the researcher totally lacked scientific method, made significant mistakes or flat out falsified the data. That should make you question their motivation. Some readers have already pointed out that other studies have "found" opposite results.
Let's say you're trying to find out the average length of the world's ring fingers. You don't go out and measure 6 billion ring fingers; you measure a small sample of them and, through the magic of statistics, come up with a number that's close to the real world average.
A confidence interval is a range of values - say from 2 to 3 inches. A 95% confidence interval means that, given your measurements of a small group of people in the world, that there's a 95% chance the average for the rest of the world falls within your 2-3 inches range.
If you have a 95% confidence interval, there's a 5% chance that the real world average falls outside your interval.
So, if you're trying to find a correlation between math skills and... anything... measure 20 anythings. If your alpha-level is 5%, and you perform 20 tests, odds are you'll find at least one correlation, just by random chance.
That's why it's bad statistics to measure 20 anythings on a wild goose chase for correlations - do enough tests, and you're guaranteed to find one whether it exists or not.
DATABASE WOW WOW
I'm not kidding either. Look: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm
Straight women and gay men have index fingers that are about the same length or a little longer than their ring fingers. Lesbians and straight men have longer ring fingers. Like TFA says, it has to do with prenatal testosterone levels.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
My ratio is 1:1. This makes sense, as I am a person who has a good balance of left-brain and right-brain skills. I am pretty happy with that balance.
Dont give away the secret on statistical analysis.. 'its all relative'.
If the secret gets out, it would put all of us 'numbers guys' out of business!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...instead of studying, they are too busy hitting their girlfriend's g-spot.
The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
i laughed
DONT dissapoint HER. Your math teacher LONGS so much for good students. Instant ring finger enlargement now!
To be honest, I'd read some study that showed men with longer ring finges are more likely to have explosive tempers and beat their wives:
e ngth.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/050203_finger_l
wouldn't believe it!
...tend to be better at sex.
Penis'? Penisae? Whatever. If you know the correct plural form for 'penis' then I suspect a character fault.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Penes.
I am a geek!
Not "...the better are their verbal skills?"
After reading TFA, I looked at both my hands and compared my finger lengths.. on my right hand, my ring finger is longer. Excellent, I thought. Then I looked at my left hand - and my ring finger is -shorter-. What the hell does this mean?
Every single person who read your post is now older. You calling that a coincidence?
... I guess this proves that reading my posts, not the passage of time, causes aging. I hereby retract my claim that correlation does NOT imply causation and will probably stop posting in order to allow everyone to live forever. Or maybe being proven wrong will make me revive my mean streak and I'll make shitloads of posts to kill everyone off. I haven't made up my mind yet.
My bad
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Correlation does NOT exclude causation. Correlation does NOT exclude causation. Correlation does NOT exclude causation. ..it just means that more testing is needed.
So *any* correlation merits testing?
What about the correlation between being a black male and propensity to commit crime? Wouldn't it be "racist" to test that?
I keep forgetting this whole "correlation" thing has nothing to do with science. I suppose I keep getting hoodwinked by the advanced "science" degrees and government grants.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
A. They are simply saying that they may be finding evidence that testosterone levels in the womb effect brain development in certain areas of the brain, and that they also seem to effect the development of the ring finger.
B. Correlation != Causation. Having a longer ring finger doesn't make you smarter, nor does being smarter make you have a longer ring finger. Or at least not necessarily. My ring finger isn't all that long but I manage in math just fine.
C. Not solid proof yet. Studies seem to show but its not absolutely certain yet.
D. How is it possible to tell whether the skills tested in mathematics were due to inborn ability or learned knowledge?
E. This has nothing to do with women being stupider/inferior to men. As they said, if this even turns out to be truth (after enough study), women appear to develop better skills elsewhere (language, communication).
F. Enough penis jokes