OPW -- Hand size matters, according to Helen Fisher at Chemistry.com. Apparently the difference in finger length makes a difference. Your comments please...
Comments
This is great ad, because it is interactive, intriguing, highly viral and it takes an approach to "testing" that looks different from other companies that rely on "word-based" tests.
Of course, I'm sure that Dr. Fisher would be among the first to say that she is not responsbile for the discovery of the "finger length" issue. There is some scientific research behind the idea of measuring the ratio of second to the fourth digit length. Interested readers can see:
But it should also be mentioned that these types of correlational findings and especially their implications are controversial. After all, a correlation is not the same as causation, and when one looks at a large enough sample -- one can find almost any correlation to be significant. That is actually an inside joke in the social sciences, namely that "everything correlates with everything else." So, a given correlation may be statistically significant, but it would still be regarded as generally insignificant if it the level of correlation was weak.
Finally, it's no secret that sexuality has strong influences in biology, but one must also factor in psycho-social variables as well. Both nature and nurture are at work here.
HAND SIZE? i rarely let folks PALM off ideas like these on me. sounds like a stretch. i wouldn't want to get nailed by the results of a test like that, nor would i likely knuckle under to interpretations. i hate to sound tight-fisted or heavy-handed with this topic, but i rarely get fingered by these schemes. just call me calloused ...
This is great ad, because it is interactive, intriguing, highly viral and it takes an approach to "testing" that looks different from other companies that rely on "word-based" tests.
Of course, I'm sure that Dr. Fisher would be among the first to say that she is not responsbile for the discovery of the "finger length" issue. There is some scientific research behind the idea of measuring the ratio of second to the fourth digit length. Interested readers can see:
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=260
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Biology/Length-of-fingers-determine-sporting-ability-and-sexuality.5333
https://profreg.medscape.com/px/getlogin.do?urlCache=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tZWRzY2FwZS5jb20vbWVkbGluZS9hYnN0cmFjdC8xNjAwNTE1Nw==
But it should also be mentioned that these types of correlational findings and especially their implications are controversial. After all, a correlation is not the same as causation, and when one looks at a large enough sample -- one can find almost any correlation to be significant. That is actually an inside joke in the social sciences, namely that "everything correlates with everything else." So, a given correlation may be statistically significant, but it would still be regarded as generally insignificant if it the level of correlation was weak.
Finally, it's no secret that sexuality has strong influences in biology, but one must also factor in psycho-social variables as well. Both nature and nurture are at work here.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine
Posted by: James Houran | Mar 29, 2007 at 11:51 AM
This one is just too easy to hit out of the park...
Posted by: Andy Arnott | Mar 29, 2007 at 07:34 PM
HAND SIZE? i rarely let folks PALM off ideas like these on me. sounds like a stretch. i wouldn't want to get nailed by the results of a test like that, nor would i likely knuckle under to interpretations. i hate to sound tight-fisted or heavy-handed with this topic, but i rarely get fingered by these schemes. just call me calloused ...
Posted by: mike mccartney | Mar 30, 2007 at 11:19 AM