mypictureWeird article in the Independent on studies that show the longer your ring finger is, proportional to your index finger, the more likely you are to be successful (in certain areas) – apparently cuz its an indication of being exposed to more testosterone in the womb.

The ratio between index and ring finger is believed to be linked to exposure to the male hormone testosterone in the womb. On average, men tend to have longer ring fingers and women longer index fingers. The higher the testosterone, the greater the length of the ring finger and the more “masculine” the resulting child – whether male or female. The longest ring finger is known as the “Casanova pattern”.

Ok, so long ring fingers are a reflection of testosterone exposure. So isn’t it really the testosterone exposure that’s the important factor? not the finger itself? isn’t the length of the finger merely a manifestation of the testosterone levels? So isn’t the length of the finger essentially meaningless?

Put another way: if we were talking about another physical characteristic tied to hormones – say body hair – would it make sense to make a lot of noise about “body hair linked to success?” No. Cuz it’s not. It’s linked to hormones – masculinity and femininity – and it’s not news that the sexes tend to have different relative strengths in certain areas. It’s like if someone came running up to you all breathless – “OMG! We’ve just discovered something incredible! Math majors tend to have more body hair than those who study feminist theory! Body hair is a predictor of Math skills!” Riiiiiiiight.

Advertisements