Letters to the Editor
-
So the male gives her the sugar cane and she'll turn around and copulate with him and then march off with the food.
Or, she'll stare at him until he gives her the sugar cane, then tell him, "You're a sweet guy, I like you as a friend, but let's don't spoil it, shall we?" And then she'll walk off with the food.
-
Third finger, right?
Not fourth. I've never met any human beings with a longer fourth finger than their first.
-
Whah?
Okay, first of all -- this article uses the terms "SSRI" and "antidepressant" interchangeably. They are not. SSRI's are a class of antidepressant. At this point, they're probably not even the most widely used class of antidepressant. So ... is it antidepressants as a whole that supposedly inhibit one's ability to feel love, or just SSRI's? Given that the decision to go on antidepressants might be a life-or-death one, I think a little more precision is called for.
Secondly -- enough with the "autism = extreme male brain = good at math, bad at empathy" crap! The "scientist" attached to that theory, Simon Baron-Cohen, is reviled throughout the spectrum community. He really doesn't understand a thing about the condition. I have Asperger's. I am female. My ring and index fingers are precisely equal on one hand, and on the other hand the ring finger is slightly longer. There is a difference of thirty-six points (more than two standard deviations) between my verbal and performance IQ's, with the verbal score being higher. I am competitive. I am driven. I am compassionate. I am empathic. I am extremely good at some types of math and extremely bad at others, depending on how they are taught. I have no musical or spatial ability whatsoever. I am not what the "professionals" assume me to be.
How these people maintain any sort of professional respect while spreading this pseudoscientific tripe is beyond me.
-
Yes, fourth finger
Start your count from your pinky (1), ring (2), middle (3), and index (4). I wish the article had used the common names for each of these fingers instead of pointer and fourth. It is ring versus index. But, the article seems to contradicts itself on the finger issue. Why? Most people do not consider the thumb to be a finger. It is a thumb not a thumb finger like the index or ring finger. I have four fingers and a thumb. So, the article does not define things very well when it could have used precise language such as index and ring fingers.
The rest of my post refers to the idea that the fingers are counted from the pinky as the first finger. So, it is less valid if you consider the thumb as the first finger.
"If you have a lot more testosterone than estrogen in the womb, it is going to build a longer fourth finger than second finger. If you've got a lot more estrogen in the womb, the pointer finger will be longer."
The fourth finger is the "pointer" finger. The two sentences contradict each other by stating that both testosterone and estrogen build a longer fourth or pointer finger. Which is supposed to be true?
-
Despite ample opportunities provided by Ms. Traister to disentangle or recoup,
and some helpful comments by Mr. Kerner, Ms. Fisher’s musings remained so profoundly confused that it would be difficult to know where to begin to comment.
What seems most remarkable is how little respect, confidence, and hope her scheme places in the potential for men and women to choose, adapt, grow, and respect each other’s autonomy and independence. If authenticity and autonomy are the enemies of marketing, then Ms. Fisher’s typology is a perfect match for these online services and their consumers.
-
Finally
As in: "FINALLY an article so poorly organized, not to mention so supremely mired in abject pseudoscience, that I can drop my last shred of respect for Salon"
How Helen Fisher can call herself an "anthropologist" and yet feel free to reduce human identity, as manifest in mating/reproductive strategies, as something which can be reduced to a mere 4 archetypes, is beyond me.
If you want to begin to understand the whole mating/gender/Darwinism-via-game-theory issue, I recommend starting with Matt Ridley's excellent study "The Red Queen" -- like any honest attempt to tackle enormously complex dynamics, it'll fill your head with new questions, not easy stock answers.
Salon editors, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
-
Fingers
No. The count starts with the thumb. If the thumb is the first finger, then the second finger is the index and the fourth finger is the ring.
"If you have a lot more testosterone than estrogen in the womb, it is going to build a longer fourth finger than second finger. If you've got a lot more estrogen in the womb, the pointer finger will be longer."
In this case there is no contradiction.
"If you have a lot more testosterone than estrogen in the womb, it is going to build a longer [ring] finger than [index] finger. If you've got a lot more estrogen in the womb, the [index] finger will be longer."
-
Are you supposed to look at the palm of your hand or the back of your hand?
If I look at the back of my hand, my ring finger looks longer. If I turn my hand over palm up then my index finger looks longer. Why is this?
Also, what does it mean if you already know that you have excellent verbal and spatial skills but your mathmatical ability sucks.
Oh well. It doesn't matter. I am through with all that anyway. I am going to bed. Alone. I don't really want to share my Tempur-pedic with anyone.
-
Too bad psychologists weren't consulted
As odd as it must have seemed to an anthropologist to be consulted about creation of a dating site, it is odder still that the anthropologist apparently failed to consult her academic colleagues in psychology, who have studied personality scientifically for generations. To be brief, there is precious little evidence that human personality differences are best organized as types. And of course there is no good evidence for the specific four-group typology of personalities offered by Fisher. Her basis for dyad matching is no more impressive than any top-of-the-head taxonomy proposed by the garden variety motivational speaker.
-
Only fools try to find mates online
When I was in my twenties, I never could compete with the liars/pick-up artists in bars. I mean, I did okay ... but a good truth rarely beats a magnificent line of bullshit, let's face it.
It took me a few years, some time back, to figure out that men lie worse online. And women too ... well what women do is write to 10 guys for a while ... then pick the biggest liar ... and then you never hear from them again.
So the watering hole analogy does not hold up. Except perhaps for twenty-somethings who are hooking up briefly. Or older retards/drunks/stoners doing likewise.
I, of course, invite you to read my story, one of a few, The Email Bride From Hell, linked below. :)