http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2361804,00.html

<quote>
CHILDREN whose ring fingers are much longer than their index fingers are more likely to be hyperactive and bullying, research has found.

The effect, derived from testosterone exposure in the womb, is particularly pronounced in boys. Children with long index fingers, by contrast, are more likely to be neurotic and sensitive.

The findings are the latest in a growing body of research associating the difference in finger lengths with character traits such as sporting prowess, homosexuality, aggression, promiscuity, autism and vulnerability to depression.

A typical male hand has a ring finger longer than the index finger, while on women’s hands the index finger is likely to be longer or of similar length.
</quote>

My index finger and ring finger are about the same length.

They were the same, but I got a finglonger.  Ladies love it.

Ring finger 1/4" longer.

That's why I wear gloves on job interviews and dates.

"Manning and his team measured the ratio between the index and ring fingers of 114 children in Britain and Austria."

I suspect they might find similar relationships between digit length ratios and personality in other geographic regions but that such relationships would vary greatly.

It seems like a no brainer if you believe that your personality is at all derived from genetics.

My index finger ends at the last joint of my ring finger.

Left hand: 1/8" longer
Right hand: even

I'm right-handed, so I guess that one takes precedence.

My ring fingers are much longer than my index fingers but as a child I was completely the opposite of the findings in this "study".

> "study"

Just because you don't have the same results as the main results of the study doesn't maket it a "study".

Ring finger slightly longer, about 1/4 inch.  Now if you'll excuse me I need to beat up a junior programmer for his lunch.

"Just because you don't have the same results as the main results of the study doesn't maket it a "study"."

I call it a "study" because the sample size was barely over a hundred and the participants all from the same neighborhood.

I mean, give me a break.

> I mean, give me a break.

Over a hundred is a pretty good sample size.

when I hold both upright, back of the hand towards you, they are of a similar length ...

"Over a hundred is a pretty good sample size."

Based on what?  Of the 6 billion (or whatever) people on earth, 114 Europeans are considered representative enough to draw conclusions.

OK.

Hmm, according to this study I'm also slightly more likely to be homosexual, since the ring and index fingers are of very similar lengths.  Ring finger on the right hand is 3mm longer (just measured it). 

So I suck his cock and then beat him up?

> Of the 6 billion (or whatever) people on earth

It would be intereting to draw random populations from other areas, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to think a testosterone based mechanism would be environmental or racially influenced.

But any "study" is equally BS by your measure and it is impossible for us to know anything.

"It would be intereting to draw random populations from other areas, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to think a testosterone based mechanism would be environmental or racially influenced. "

You're assuming that it's a testosterone based mechanism.  The FINGER length may be, but the personality portion could be any number of things including environment.  114, all from Europe, is not a compelling sample.

> but the personality portion could be any number of
> things including environment

Impossible to know anything for real. These personality traits are plausibly testestorone related which the finger length purports to measure. How personality is expressed is cultural certainly, but there should be an effect.

> Die in a fire.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know how I was dealing with.

There is.  Your ring finger gets longer.

My ring finger is damn near an inch longer than my index, on both hands.

But like muppet (wicket?), I was also the exact opposite of the behavior they're describing.  Passive-agressive maybe, but not bullying or hyperactive.

> bullying or hyperactive

Muppet isn't a bully? His bursts of nutty posts aren't hyperactive? Different muppet then.

Muppet exhibits exactly the behavior that is predicted by having a long ring finger.  He's agressive to the point of needing to beat him with a stick.

In school I was shy and got my ass kicked constantly.  I was the kid everybody knew because he was the one to kick the shit out of if you were bored.

Since the study is talking about CHILDREN...

And yet you still manage to exhibit the predicted behavior.

There are certainly external circumstances that can influence behavior muppet, like being smaller than everyone else.  It's hard to be too agressive when everyone can kick the shit out of you.

Midway through high school I was 6' 1" and 200 lbs.  I still was not aggressive.

But hey, continue to tell me all about myself, by all means.

Just pointing out the elephant in your living room dude.

They did a study on the relationship of an elephant's trunk/leg ratio to this personality?

I bet they only used English and Austrian elephants. Sigh.

Shoot, muppet is one of the most abusive poster's on here, and he STILL seems himself as not abusive or aggressive.  Self-reporting of self-image doesn't seem like a very reliable witness for what actually goes on.

Don't get me wrong, muppet is good, and entertaining.  But does have a serious tendency toward abuse.

Allan I know you have trouble with context because you're autistic or something, but read carefully:

When I was A CHILD, I was neither aggressive nor a bully.


That is the only assertion I've made regarding myself in this thread.

Sorry everyone.

This:

>> But like muppet (wicket?), I was also the exact opposite of the behavior...

should be:

>> But like muppet (wicket?) purports to have been as a child, though I have no prima facie knowledge, nor peer-reviewed evidentiary articles, testimony, or experience to confirm, or deny, that he was, is, or always will be in any shape or form "opposite" of the behavior described in the study; *I* was also the exact opposite of the behavior...

Sorry about that.

If this is true, then watch out- Arsenio Hall wants to rip off your head and shit down your throat.

That's a weird study. My middle finger is an inch longer than my index finger. When I was a kid I was hyperactive and antisocial, but not aggressive.

Does the study filter on ethnic background? Because if I remember correctly, everyone where I grew up had a much longer middle finger than index finger. 90% of the people had a scandinavian background.

In fact, until I read this post I just assumed everyone had a much longer middle finger. I guess I should pay more attention to people's hands.

The sample size is reasonable but it doesn't sound like it's random enough. Is there any practical utility because of studies like this other than to make astrologers and fortune tellers look good?... :)

> I guess I should pay more attention to people's hands.

You should pay more attention to the OP.

I don't think the sample is all that reasonable. There are almost as many finger to finger ratios as people in the sample.