Let's examine:
Now, according to the articles I read, the average male has a 2D:4D ratio of 0.96. As I measured it, mine is approximately 0.88. This puts me significantly lower than most humans, but on about the same level as apes. At least I know I'm not as bad off as the monkeys. Apparently, this is caused by experiencing higher levels of testosterone in utero during the 1st trimester.
So what does it mean now that I know I am a mutant? Essentially, the studies so far have pointed to us low-ratio types being more likely to be left-handed, better at sports and music, more aggressive/assertive, higher testosterone levels, and having “higher lifetime reproductive success”. So I thought about whether these traits apply to me:
- I am left-handed, but only for those things I taught myself to do (writing, throwing balls). Things where I took lessons I’m usually right handed (golf, tennis). But I do have a distinct bias towards the left.
- As for music and sports I was much more involved in both when I was younger. My piano teacher thought I had talent, and a song I composed in 7th grade won 3rd place in a state contest once. But since I essentially haven’t practiced any music in well over a decade I think any musical talent I have is nascent at best. To test this I sang along to the radio last night on the way home and was deeply disappointed with the results. I’m much better at sports though, having won my fantasy football league two out of the last three years, and enjoying a successful career in football and baseball through Junior High and two years of hockey during 5th-6th grade. Yeah, I was a total elementary school jock.
- I’m not an inherently aggressive person. In fact I think I’m the opposite. The only exception to this is when I’m driving though. While I’m nowhere hear as aggressive as I was when I was younger, I still have my moments – particularly depending on what music I’m listening to at the moment. Hence why I spend most of my time in the car listening to Public Radio – it’s like Quaaludes for my commute.
- I’ve never had my testosterone level checked, so I can’t speak to that. My hair is thinning (which I’ve heard is due to testosterone levels) but I’m not a very hairy person in general (which I’ve heard is also a sign). So this may be a no, and I’m not about to go into my doctor to get my testosterone checked “because my finger length is funny and I read something about it on the internet”.
- My reproductive success has also been a failure – as I’m still childless*. But that’s probably been due more to intentional sabotage on my part than the length of my fingers.
So in the end it appears as though I exhibit some, but not all of the traits of the low-ratio male. Which I think is good because we guys never like to be classified and defined by the length of their…finger.
* That I know of
Comments
1) Hold your hand palm-side up.
2) Take a ruler/tape measure/yardstick and measure from the base of the pointer finger (use the crease between the pointer finger and the palm as the starting point) to the end of the finger.
3) Repeat for your ring finger.
4) Divide the length of your pointer finger (second digit or "2D") by the length of your ring finger (fourth digit or "4D") to get your 2D:4D ratio.
Men's are typically less than 1, women are usually equal to 1 or greater.
"If your ratio is .91 to .93: You can expect girls to fall at your feet, Mr. Macho! But watch out, because the stress of competition (not to mention all the children you'll father!) will catch up to you!"
And people say social scientists aren't real scientists...
It's interesting stuff. Also, the length of the pointer finger is very closely related to the length of that man's flaccid penis (probably on a not so cold day, or not right after getting out of the pool).
Very high correlation there.