Letters to the Editor
-
Well now that Allie cued me in on how to measure,
my fingers don't fit the "profile" either. My ring finger is longer. Writing, communication, and social skills have always figured in how I make my living. However, most people on initially meeting me always seem to think I am vague, harmless, and rather sweet. Therefore, they tell me all their personal business.
I once filled out an e-Harmony profile some years back and they saw me as a great conciliator. They seemed to want to match me with men who will lead. However, I never follow, so how strange is that?
I think the guy who made up his own advertisement for Craig's List is on the right track. Congratulations on your coming marriage sir.
-
A Little More Info...
I would agree with some of the other comments about the article being confusing in spots. As others have stated, this topic is quite complex (even parts of it), so to expect enough "context" in this length of article to adequately explain things it unreasonable. One of the most difficult things is to present a complex topic in terms that the audience can understand, without dumbing down the content too much or making it too complex that it turns away readers...
The digit ratio is considered differently for the genders. That is, the same tendencies don't apply to men and women. Women generally have longer index/point than ring fingers. Men are the opposite. So, for each sex (biological classification, not gender) one considers the ratio of the two finger lengths. So, we shouldn't think of the ratio in the same way for both sexes. Of course, this ratio can be different for each hand. A detailed study of the digit ratio is reported in "Digit Ratio" by John T. Manning. The book discusses health issues, fertility, etc.
-
Ring - Index Finger
Among chiromancers -- a long ring (Apollo) finger implies the artist, if longer than the Saturn (middle) finger -- a gambler, risk taker -- the long index (jupiter) finger is the director -- sort of an ego/talent dichotomy
and the 4 temperament types go back to -- well I think the platonic types were improperly cited ... the humors & the 4 elements to be sure
astrologically speaking -- if his mars is in aspect to her venus, ergo erotic chemistry --
if A's mercury aspects B's mercury -- damn, we CAN talk --
This anthropology major prefers metaphysics to academic pseudo science
-
Dr. Fisher's Theory...
Actually, it's not hers at all. As mentioned in the article, the idea of classifying humanity into four temperaments dates back to the Ancient Greeks. However, her claim that adding a biological component to the theory is something new and innovative is laughingly, maddeningly wrong. That's how it all started! It was once believed that each human being had a balance of four humours, and the predominant humour determined their temperament - choleric (what Fisher calls the negotiator), phlegmatic (the director), melancholic (builder), and sanguine (explorer). The idea that an abundance of blood or bile determines your personality has, of course, long since been dismissed as unscientific. Fisher's ideas about estrogen, dopamine, etc. playing such specifically delineated roles in developing personalities is every bit as unscientific. She splits the types rigidly along lines of biological gender. While gender does play a role in temperament, it's simply not true that all men are [fill in the blank] and all women are [fill in another blank], no matter how fervently so many people would like to believe it.
You know which famous figures would fit into Fisher's "Estrogen" category (Idealist/NF according to other models)? Goethe, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, among others. Fisher's theory seems to imply that these men were temperamentally "female" (in the strict way that she envisions that term). But are they really less "manly" (however you may define that term) than, say, a supposedly-testosterone-fueled "director" (Albert Einstein would fall into that cateogry. So would Marie Curie, for that matter.)?
And finally, the terms Artisan, Guardian, Idealist, and Rational were not thought of by Plato (He did name similar categories, but he did not use those words). They come from the work of David Keirsey; though I'm sure he would be flattered that his words were mistaken for those of one of the greatest philosophers of all time!
Speaking of Keirsey, I would recommend his Please Understand Me, which explores the ideas of temperament and personality types without resorting to Fisher's quackish nonsense.
-
finger counting
Fingers and toes are numbered as follows:
Thumb=1 Pinky=5
Hallux (Big Toe)=1 pinky toe=5 - Figure out the pattern..
They are (and should be) referred to as "digits".
I would have loved to see a reference regarding digit growth regarding testosterone and estrogen. Is this the typical retrograde observational studies of anthropology or good old basic science? Four personality/identity types are out dated and are much more complex than what is presented. A dating service, is a dating service period; to attempt to link it with some sort of "science" (which anthropology is not) is just another way to sell sell sell.
-
Humbug
Four personality types? Gimme a break.
Sounds like junk science or some totally discredited nonsense out of the 1920s.
Check with experts like Dr Robert Hogan at
http://www.hoganassessments.com in Tulsa, OK.
I have no connection with this firm, but admire their adherence to strict scientific standards in evaluating personality.
-
Psychology and the Science of Meeting People in Bars...
I'm writing to reply to Dr. Fisher's comment to the effect that meeting someone in a bar offers a more artificial environment for mating than online dating because, ancestrally, we would have much more information about "the boy at the water hole" from friends, family, etc. I’d like to address the implication that online dating is a better way to meet people, or rather, a more naturalistic way, based on the amount of a priori information we have about our online matches.
So, what can we really know about the random guy/girl at a bar? Dr. Fisher inadvertently answered this question in a previous interview with queerty.com:
“Basically, academics do not know what keeps people together long term. Anybody who tells you they do it either lying or ignorant, because what they find is that we know we tend to go out and marry and are attracted to people who are similar only in a certain amount of ways – socioeconomic background, ethnic background, religious values, same degree of good looks, same degree of intelligence and same degree of education. That’s all they know. Period.”
As it turns out, you can reliably infer all of the features she highlights above about a random person at a bar. Why? First, people that go to the same bar probably live within a few miles of each other. Second, by virtue of living in roughly the same geographical location one can infer that those people are reasonably similar in socioeconomic status. Third, socioeconomic status is correlated with both intelligence and education. Finally, if it is the case that people do go for the same degree of good looks, then, chances are, they’ll head to a bar frequented by people with the same degree of looks. Taken together, this is why relationship scientists (academics) have known for a long time that the number one predictor of two people becoming romantically intertwined is proximity.
So, now I’d like to pose a similar question to Dr. Fisher: what can we learn about a person from an online assessment of finger length that you can’t at a bar, meeting someone face to face?
I’ll go ahead and give you my answer: NOTHING. Like fluctuating asymmetry, digit length is correlated with indicators of immunological competence, but they are generally tools used by researchers to assess these things. Day to day, people could care less about digit length, they are much more interested in finding out what others do for a living, whether or not they look attractive, and whether or not they seem agreeable, which is much harder to infer from an online profile than over a few beers at one’s favorite night club. But then, what do I know, I’m just an academic. Period.
P.S. Dr. Fisher, I’ll be happy to supply you with references on each of my points above, upon request.