Re: Intro to 5 element chirology

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:32 am

Patti wrote:Well actually you are correct, apparently axes is plural for axis:

http://www.mathopenref.com/axis.html

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:15 pm

Thanks Martijn

Okay I am pretty sure I got it now. So the hand is only a "pure" type/shape if the measurements and ratios fall on the axis directly. All the area in between the colored arrows is a mix of hand type. Most will be mixed hand shapes sunny

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:24 pm

tap wrote:Thanks Martijn

Okay I am pretty sure I got it now. So the hand is only a "pure" type/shape if the measurements and ratios fall on the axis directly. All the area in between the colored arrows is a mix of hand type. Most will be mixed hand shapes

Yes Tap, exactly!

When the hands are inside the areas between the axes, then it requires a closer look regarding the distances towards the 2 axes involved.

(Notice: the discussion about hand shapes is still 'in process', so in time I might get at a point to decide that it might be necessary to chance the position of the axes at least a little bit)

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:58 pm

Martijn

(Notice: the discussion about hand shapes is still 'in process', so in time I might get at a point to decide that it might be necessary to chance the position of the axes at least a little bit)

I am really a novice at the 5 element hand reading, but the chart does look somewhat off due to the fact that the "average" male and female marks are below the "center" of the chart.

PS I guess air hand is just not as common.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:54 pm

tap wrote:Martijn

(Notice: the discussion about hand shapes is still 'in process', so in time I might get at a point to decide that it might be necessary to chance the position of the axes at least a little bit)

I am really a novice at the 5 element hand reading, but the chart does look somewhat off due to the fact that the "average" male and female marks are below the "center" of the chart.

PS I guess air hand is just not as common.

Yes Tap, your observation is correct... but that relates directly to how the elemental hand shapes are defined. So, this is not an issue regarding the position of the hand shape axes.

Actually, I can explain this by detail:

For, for example one of the early elemental experts (Dukes) used the following description:

"If the hand has fingers that are longer than the palm..." and "If fingers are shorter...".

This implicates that in the elemental approach (far) most people typically are classified as belonging in the 'short fingers' category - because less than 1% of people have fingers that are longer than the palm.

(However, I should add here that later the descriptions for long fingers were improved with more realistic guidelines)

More important: based on this criterium one can expect 'fire hand shape' (short fingers + large long palm) and 'earth hand shape' (short fingers + squarish palm) to be most cost common.

However, since squarish palms are not very common... this explains why the 'fire hand shape' is generally most common (especially in Europe & the US - I already have planned to present a chart describing the average finger ratios for various countries).

Also, please be aware that the finger coordinates for average males and females is also very close to the 'neutral zone' - where the 4 hand shape axes start!

Tap, I hope this explains enough why the average for males and females are found located close to the fire hand shape axis?

wave

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:24 pm

Thanks, got it. While I was charting the hand shapes I noticed not one of them was "Air"...so I was just thinking about that (and that does correlate with your chart). Just surprised I did not have one "Air" shaped hand.

Makes sense that the finger/palm length was moved from 100% + to 80% for the air hand.

Thanks for explaing further. Thumbs up!

Patti Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:34 pm

When you refer to the length of the palm in previous systems, you are assuming that they measured to the wrist. Personally I've never measured to the wrist. I measure to the high point at the heel of the palm to look for normal. It seems the best I can remember this is what I was taught in 1981 in the non-credit class I took at UC. It's in my earliest notes. The other standard was to measure the whole hand to the face... but that wasn't helpful if a person's hairline was missing. Very Happy

**tap** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:00 pm

I can't remember where (I think Johnny Fincham), but I am pretty sure I read that air hand is found more in the Nordic region (I am doing too many things at once ..looked at his book briefly, but didnty see that).

This should be interesting.

However, since squarish palms are not very common... this explains why the 'fire hand shape' is generally most common (especially in Europe & the US - I already have planned to present a chart describing the average finger ratios for various countries)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:27 pm

Patti wrote:When you refer to the length of the palm in previous systems, you are assuming that they measured to the wrist. Personally I've never measured to the wrist. I measure to the high point at the heel of the palm to look for normal. It seems the best I can remember this is what I was taught in 1981 in the non-credit class I took at UC. It's in my earliest notes. The other standard was to measure the whole hand to the face... but that wasn't helpful if a person's hairline was missing.

Patti, the wrist crease represent the 'heel' of the hand! There are sources that describe this explictely, for example:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA316017

"PALM LENGTH - Subject's right hand is extended, palm up. With the bar of the sliding caliper resting on the palm, measure from the proximal edge of the navicular bone at the wrist (wrist crease) to the skin crease formed where the middle finger folds upon the palm."

NOTICE: The word 'navicular bone' was later replaced by the word 'scaphoid bone' - which is known to represent the heel of the hand (see: http://orthopedics.ygoy.com/2009/12/27/types-of-hand-fractures/).

PS. I can add...

Palm length is usually measured from the crease between the 3th finger and the palm, to the upper wrist crease. (Only in x-ray or radiographic assessment the 'scapoid bone' (which represents the heel of the hand) is used for anthropometric purposes)

So, the method via the wrist crease is used in:
- scientific approaches (at NASA they also use it - see page 39: http://www.humanics-es.com/FireFighterAnthropometry.pdf );
- in industrial perspectives;
- paediatric examinations;
- and in most hand reading approaches.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:30 pm

tap wrote: I can't remember where (I think Johnny Fincham), but I am pretty sure I read that air hand is found more in the Nordic region (I am doing too many things at once ..looked at his book briefly, but didnty see that).

This should be interesting.
However, since squarish palms are not very common... this explains why the 'fire hand shape' is generally most common (especially in Europe & the US - I already have planned to present a chart describing the average finger ratios for various countries)

Correct. See: page 26 in Fincham's book (The Spellbinding Power of Palmistry).

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:37 pm

Sorry if I made some mistakes, it was late.
I think my earth/fire hand that Martijn mentioned could be classed as earth shape. But my mistake was a good test, because the chart showed this!

Tap one of the fire/water cases is borderline. The other one seems fire/water to me.

I agree with not including my cases on the chart, I just posted them to see how they fit in, and because of that vertical line I found when I plotted them on the graph.
Thanks for replying re how Lori's stats helped Martijn.

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:46 pm

Lynn wrote:Sorry if I made some mistakes, it was late.
I think my earth/fire hand that Martijn mentioned could be classed as earth shape. But my mistake was a good test, because the chart showed this!

Tap one of the fire/water cases is borderline. The other one seems fire/water to me.

I agree with not including my cases on the chart, I just posted them to see how they fit in, and because of that vertical line I found when I plotted them on the graph.
Thanks for replying re how Lori's stats helped Martijn.

Hi Lynn,

Yes, very nice to hear that the chart was right about the mistake! Very Happy

By the way, I was thinking... would you be interested to take a closer look at your favourite examples in your hand collection for each hand type?

(NOTICE: I am not asking you to select based on measurements, instead I would love to see you making some measurements for hand examples that you considered in the past a representing typical examples for each hand shape type)

Then we can use your measurements as a validation test for the hand shape axes based on the examples in the 4 books. And then we can also compare these materials with your CS guidelines for a typical 'fire hand shape'!

How does this proposal sound to you?

wave

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:08 pm

I've just realised a problem, on the finger length thread where Martijn assessed my hands as fire/water.
Martijn measures across the metacarpals, I measure across the centre of the palm, so all the data I gave you last night will be wrong according to Martijn's way of measuring (yet it fits into the axes!!).
Ive checked the earth/fire hand that Martijn thought I had wrongly assessed, and it isn't an earth hand, it is fire/earth combination. Because of muscular development it is wider across the centre of the palm. If I'd measured according to Martijn's criteria it would be a fire hand (with short fingers only 70%)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:25 pm

Lynn wrote:I've just realised a problem, on the finger length thread where Martijn assessed my hands as fire/water.
Martijn measures across the metacarpals, I measure across the centre of the palm, so all the data I gave you last night will be wrong according to Martijn's way of measuring (yet it fits into the axes!!).
Ive checked the earth/fire hand that Martijn thought I had wrongly assessed, and it isn't an earth hand, it is fire/earth combination. Because of muscular development it is wider across the centre of the palm. If I'd measured according to Martijn's criteria it would be a fire hand (with short fingers only 70%)

Yes, that makes your earlier measurements so far irrelevant (except for your own hand measurements - which you reported to have been made at the metacarpals).

However, no problem, Lynn... you are welcome to present new measurements.

PS. Please be aware that working here with 'ink prints' could become problematic if you do not consider the 'clues' that signal the true borders of the palm at the metacarpals.

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:35 pm

posting new measurements isn't the solution as far as I am concerned. The problem is bigger than that. It means our two systems are not compatible because they present different conclusions as to hand shape. In your system I am fire/water handshape which is a different assessment from my fire (with a little air added from finger length). Fire/water does not fit the way I express myself out into the world!

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:50 pm

Lynn wrote:posting new measurements isn't the solution as far as I am concerned. The problem is bigger than that. It means our two systems are not compatible because they present different conclusions as to hand shape. In your system I am fire/water handshape which is a different assessment from my fire (with a little air added from finger length). Fire/water does not fit the way I express myself out into the world!

... Sounds like you are now suddenly jumping into conclusions based on your ideas about your behavior???

(This doesn't make sense Lynn... especially after nearly all you measurements earlier today perfectly fitted with the model present by the axes! That was a strong indication that there is high compatibitly between your own approach and the approach of the axes. However, I can not see how you made the measurements... so I can not explain why your incorrect measurements did works became compatible. Maybe you can stop for a moment making measurments from handprints... and instead focus on hand photos?)

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:10 pm

Lynn, in this new picture I have now made an attempt to estimate the STARTING POINT of the 4 axes - based on the distances between F, E, A and W buttons!

The principle requirement that I have added here is that the axe of an element can not manifest in a zone which is at a smaller distance to 'average button' of one of the other elements.

I think this choice makes sense....and I think your problem (regarding the water element) has now also disappeared completely. But does this make sense for you as well?

Looking forward to hear your thought about this small (but important) modification!

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 6 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes-axes-2

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 6 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes-axes-2

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:53 pm

Guess what Lynn?

The new modification regarding the starting points of the axes has forced me to change my earlier assessment for you hand shape - and I think you will much more like the result, see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1975p15-about-finger-length-do-you-have-normal-finger-length#20988

PS. And I have found a few other arguments why this modification was an important step to make, because now we can for example also see in the picture why the combination 'earth/water hand shape' is impossible to find in one hand! (And it's for sure the only impossible combination)

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:18 pm

Martijn I also have an unanswered question. Did you check again the measurements on the handprint you posted?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:08 pm

Lynn wrote:Martijn I also have an unanswered question. Did you check again the measurements on the handprint you posted?

Yes Lynn, I have:

Yesterday, I tried to find out how you came to the 0.75 ratio (75%) of finger length versus palm length, and I found that you must have assumed that the palm length for that hand is MORE than 1/2 cm longer than is actually seen in the print.

I assumed it to be not much longer than is seen in the print, which explains why I described that the fl/pl ratio is close to 0.80 (80%).

(But this was not really important regarding the point that I wanted to make for that hand regarding the various guidelines that the authors have presented, etc. Therefore I didn't make an issue about the difference that we found for the ratio - afterall, we can only speculate about the true location of the wrist crease, etc.)

Does this answer your question?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:10 pm

PS. Looking forward to hear your thoughts about the new starting points for the axes. Very Happy

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:51 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:Martijn I also have an unanswered question. Did you check again the measurements on the handprint you posted?

Yes Lynn, I have:

Yesterday, I tried to find out how you came to the 0.75 ratio (75%) of finger length versus palm length, and I found that you must have assumed that the palm length for that hand is MORE than 1/2 cm longer than is actually seen in the print.

I assumed it to be not much longer than is seen in the print, which explains why I described that the fl/pl ratio is close to 0.80 (80%).

(But this was not really important regarding the point that I wanted to make for that hand regarding the various guidelines that the authors have presented, etc. Therefore I didn't make an issue about the difference that we found for the ratio - afterall, we can only speculate about the true location of the wrist crease, etc.)

Does this answer your question?

Yes I understand that it's not really important reagrding the point you wanted to make about 80%
However it is important in checking how we measure hands!! No I haven't assumed anything about length of palm being 1/2 cm longer than it is!
I printed it out. Measuring from top of palm under middle finger straight down (the ruler hits the bit where the palm curves upwards) - looking to the ulna side the lower moon mount is level with exactly 10cm. I measured the finger 7.5 cm. So, how are we measuring differently?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:14 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:Martijn I also have an unanswered question. Did you check again the measurements on the handprint you posted?

Yes Lynn, I have:

Yesterday, I tried to find out how you came to the 0.75 ratio (75%) of finger length versus palm length, and I found that you must have assumed that the palm length for that hand is MORE than 1/2 cm longer than is actually seen in the print.

I assumed it to be not much longer than is seen in the print, which explains why I described that the fl/pl ratio is close to 0.80 (80%).

(But this was not really important regarding the point that I wanted to make for that hand regarding the various guidelines that the authors have presented, etc. Therefore I didn't make an issue about the difference that we found for the ratio - afterall, we can only speculate about the true location of the wrist crease, etc.)

Does this answer your question?
Yes I understand that it's not really important reagrding the point you wanted to make about 80%
However it is important in checking how we measure hands!! No I haven't assumed anything about length of palm being 1/2 cm longer than it is!
I printed it out. Measuring from top of palm under middle finger straight down (the ruler hits the bit where the palm curves upwards) - looking to the ulna side the lower moon mount is level with exactly 10cm. I measured the finger 7.5 cm. So, how are we measuring differently?

Hmmm... I am not (yet) able to explain the difference that we found for that print.

By the way, I always measure palm length at the center of the palm (and in cases where the upper wrist crease is not visiible - as in this case - I try to visualize where the wrist crease most likely can be expected).

Lynn, if I follow your description literally about how you made your measured - this could indicate that you measured the lowest part under the mount of moon - as you mentioned 'looking to the ulna side the lower moon mount is level with exactly 10cm'? This could explain why you found a lower ratio than I did - because measuring a point under the ulna would/could create a larger distance to the beginning of the 3th finger compared to a central point at the wrist - but I am not sure that I understood your description properly...?

PS. In general, I think we agree that ink prints are hard to assess precisely - so I am not sure that it will come much helpful to discuss the handprint that I presented. However, maybe as an alternative... I can propose that you might want to focus on my assessments for the hand photos taken from Lori Reid's book (which Patti presented in this topic) and the water hand photo presented by Gettings in his book. Or maybe you thoughts focus specific on the process of making measurements from ink prints???

**Lynn** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:36 pm

No I don't focus on taking measurements from prints because they are so unreliable. Yes, we don't know for sure where the wrist crease is. If you draw a line on that print across from base of luna to base of venus mount, that is the highest the wrist crease is likely to be. and if you measure straight down from middle finger, (starting from where the palm print starts) that hits the line at 9.8 cm, so that's the minimum length this palm could be. (which still doesn't explain why you thought I made it more than 0.5cm longer, but we have better things to discuss!)
by the way Martijn, one more unanswered question - does the person whose hand print it is have some learning disability?

**Martijn (admin)** Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:51 pm

Lynn wrote:No I don't focus on taking measurements from prints because they are so unreliable. Yes, we don't know for sure where the wrist crease is. If you draw a line on that print across from base of luna to base of venus mount, that is the highest the wrist crease is likely to be. and if you measure straight down from middle finger, (starting from where the palm print starts) that hits the line at 9.8 cm, so that's the minimum length this palm could be. (which still doesn't explain why you thought I made it more than 0.5cm longer, but we have better things to discuss!)
by the way Martijn, one more unanswered question - does the person whose hand print it is have some learning disability?

Yes, this handprint concerns a male who has fragile x syndrome.

EDIT: PS. Lynn, I have checked my measurement on paper and on my computerscreen - resulting in scores above the maximum score that you just described. That leaves me only wondering if you have used the full fingerprint seen for the 3th finger... but I assume that you have used it. Hmmm... I guess then it must have been your printer that slightly changed the format of the hand print. scratch

Sponsored content