Talk:Digit ratio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 2006 update needed 2 Merge proposal 3 Being bold on merge 4 Prior text 4.1 2D:4D and sexual orientation 4.2 2D:4D difference in populations 4.3 References 5 Merge from Peter L. Hurd 5.1 moved here from DGG talk page 6 fascinating

[edit] 2006 update needed

We are halfway through 2006, and several new articles have come out on "digit ratio." These are easily found on Google Scholar and should be incorporated. -- W. L. (Bill) Overal, 05 June 2006.

[edit] Merge proposal

This really ought to be merged with 2d:4d (which is a better article), but I think the main article ought to be called Digit Ratio. They both need work. I'll see if I can find some time over the next couple of days. Pete.Hurd 14:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely concur on merging. The main article should be Digit ratio, and 2d:4d should redirect to it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I did some work on Digit ratio, and I think it contains all of 2d:4d that was worth merging here. I don't know how much of the rest of 2d:4d is worth moving to Biology and sexual orientation or prenatal hormones and sexual orientation but as far as I'm concerned 2d:4d can be depreciated in favor of Digit ratio (which still needs some work). Pete.Hurd 06:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Being bold on merge

Below is the text of 2d:4d that I just redirected here. I think Pete.Hurd has done a good job in transferring any important parts, but the below contains the prior page in case anyone wants to work in additional material. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prior text

2D:4D is a sexually dimorphic trait of 2nd and 4th (digit) finger ratio to propose that prenatal androgen level influences sexual orientation in both sexes.(2D:4D, male <female, that related to individual's prenatal exposure to testosterone (PET))

This would means that male's 4th digit would normally be longer than their 2nd digit. In comparison, female's 2nd and 4th digit length are normally similar.

The importance of 2D:4d are still under research. Due to its nature as a sexually dimorphic trait (different between male and female) many researcher speculate that it correlates with genderization of brain functions such as sexual orientation, spatial orientation, verbal ability, mathematical ability, aggression level, even sexual performance ability.

—I don't know if this is true, but i have measure my digit ratio and i have 0,90 (and i measure it in both hands)... And i am not autist, that's for sure. What this means? I am a big guy, and well, intelligent, maybe it has some connection to this?

[edit] 2D:4D and sexual orientation

The origin of homosexuality may involve psychological or biogenic factors. However, attempts to test psychological models have led to negative findings (Rahman and Wilson, 2003). In contrast, there is accumulating support for genetic and neurohormonal influences on homosexuality (Lippa, 2003).

Although the suspicion of androgen hormones (DHEA, DHEA-S, testosterone, and androstenedione) causing female rodent (mouse) homosexuality is not a new one (Meyer- Bahlburg, 1984). The original research inject androgen hormones into female rodent's womb, which leads the female fetus grow up to be "lesbian". The "lesbian" female would try to mate with other female when fully grown. Also its brain functional pattern are closer to male than female.

It was Bogaert and Hershberger (1999) who linked such relationship to male homosexuality. This link was investigated in the recent past. In year 2000, an article in Nature from Berkley stirred up researchers’ interest on such link. (Williams, Pepitone, Christensen, Cooke, Huberman, Breedlove, Breedlove, Jordan, & Breedlove, 2000).

Williams et al. (2000) used the sexually dimorphic trait of 2nd and 4th (digit) finger ratio (2D:4D, male <female, that related to individual’s prenatal exposure to testosterone (PET)) to propose that prenatal androgen level influences sexual orientation in both sexes. They found homosexual males and females have significantly lower 2D:4D ratios than heterosexuals. It implied that both homosexual males and females have higher PET. This finding was later supported by various researchers (Csathó, Osváth,, Bicsák, Karádi, Manning, and Kállai, 2003; Brown, Finn, Cooke, and Breedlove, 2002; Lalumiere, Blanchard, and Zucker, 2000; Lippa, 2003; Rahman and Wilson, 2003; Robinson and Manning, 2000).

"Europe vs. North American straight man effect" I don't know what this is and I can't find anything on the 'net. Would you please give an explanation? A link or citation would be nice too.Stassa 18:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2D:4D difference in populations

According to Manning’s (Manning, Barley, Walton, Lewis-Jones, Trivers, Singh, Thornhill, Rohde, Bereczkei, Henzi, Soler, and Szwed, 2000) the mean 2D:4D is different between populations. International research had been conducted in Poland, Spain, England, Hungary, Germany, South Africa, Jamaica, and Finland (Manning et al., 2000).

[edit] References

• Blanchard, Ray. (2001) Fraternal Birth Order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones and behavior, 40, 105-114

• Bogaert, A., and Blanchard, R. (1996). Physical development and sexual orientation in men: height, weight and age of puberty differences. Personality and Individual difference, 21,77-84

• Bogaert, A.H. and Hershberger, S. (1999). The relations between sexual orientation and penile size. Archive of sexual behavior. 28, 213-221

• Brown, W. M., Finn, C. J., Cooke, B. M., & Breedlove, S. M. (2002). Differences in finger length between self-identified "butch" and "femme" lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 123-128.

• Csathó, A., Osváth, A., Bicsák, E., Karádi, Manning, J., Kállai, J. (2003) Sex role identity related to the ratio of second to fourth digit length in women. Biological Psychology, 62, 147-156

• Kimura, D. and Carson, M. (1995) Dermatoglyphic asymmetry: relation to sex handedness and cognitive pattern, Personality and individual difference, 4, 471-478

• Lalumiere, M. L., Blanchard, R., and Zucker, K. J. (2000). Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 575-592.

• Lippa, R. A. (2003). Are 2D:4D finger-length ratios related to sexual orientation? Yes for men, no for women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 179-188.

• Manning, J.T., Barley, L., Walton, J., Lewis-Jones, D.I., Trivers, R.L., Singh, D., Thornhill, R., Rohde, P., Bereczkei, T., Henzi, P., Soler, M., and Szwed, A.(2000) The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences, and reproductive success: evidence for sexually antagonistic genes?, Evolution and Human Behavior ,21,163–183

• Manning, J.T., Wilson, D.J. and Lewis-Jones, D.I. (1998). The ration of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentration to testosterone, leteinizing hormone and oestrogen, Human Reproduction, 13 (11), 3000-3004

• Meyer-Bahlburg, H. (1984). Psychoendocrine research on sexual orientation: Current status and future options, Progress in brain research, 61, 375-398

• Michaels, S. (1996). The prevalence of homosexuality in the United States. In R. P. Cabaj, & T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

• Rahman, Q., Wilson G.D. (2003a). Sexual orientation and the 2nd to 4th finger length ratio: evidence for organizing effects of sex hormones or developmental instability? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28, 288-303

• Rahman, Q., Wilson G.D., and Abrahams, S. (2003).Biosocial factors, sexual orientation and neurocognitive functioning. Psychoneuroendocrinology, article in press, (accepted 24 July, 2003)

• Robinson, S. and Manning, J.T. (2000). The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length and male homosexuality, Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 333-345

• Williams, T. J., Pepitone, M. E., Christensen, S. E., Cooke, B. M., Huberman, A. D., Breedlove, N. J., Breedlove, T. J., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2000). Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature, 404, 455-456.

[edit] Merge from Peter L. Hurd

Please see the recent AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Hurd, for arguments. Mine is that every one of the sources cited at Peter L. Hurd is about a study conducted by Prof. Hurd, not about Prof. Hurd. The study merits at least a sentence or two in this article. There is no sign of multiple non-trivial independent sources that are actually about Prof. Hurd, which is what we'd need to write an encyclopedia article at Peter L. Hurd.

That should be reason enough to merge. However, in cases of living persons, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event is an extra prod for us not to keep a stand-alone article at Peter L. Hurd. Pan Dan 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pete.Hurd expressed a desire not to have biographical details about him at Digit ratio. I just want to emphasize that I am not suggesting doing that. I am suggesting merging into Digit ratio a sentence or two about the study, nothing about Prof. Hurd except his name as the author of the study (with his graduate student assistant). Pan Dan 12:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The page on him was kept at AfD just this week, and shouldn't be reversed here. The arguments at the AfD were keep, and PH was in the end willing. He is one of the people interested in this subject, but not the only one. The above arguments were rejected, and Pan Dan is engaged in the well-known procedure of first stripping content and then trying to merge, after which people often try to remove the paragraph. I have of course restored the content. DGG 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being "reversed." A merge is a form of keep.

My "stripping" of the article removed resume-type content. Please actually address the issues I raised in my edit summaries if you think the "stripping" was not warranted. Pan Dan 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

People were discussing Keep, Merge, or Delete on the AfD, so that consensus emerged for Keep not Merge suggests that Keeping and not merging is the community's will at present. FWIW, in case it affects how people view my comments, my opinion was merge, but now I will go with the community's consensus. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, if you are looking for something to do, the Biography article I think is most merited relating to this topic is one for Prof. John T. Manning. That ought also to generate some needed history for this article. Pete.Hurd 22:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved here from DGG talk page

Hello DGG, User:Pan_Dan made a series of edits to Peter L. Hurd on 20 June 2007 in an attempt to force a merger of articles with the page on Digit Ratio. I think this has something to do with the article being keeped at AfD, whilst user:Pan_Dan opposed the article. The edits have been reverted by an administrator, user:Trialsanderrors once already but he has just reverted the page back again. I considered this to be vandalism and editing in bad faith as it goes against community concensus, so I reverted the edit back. Once again it has been reverted back by user:Pan_Dan. Normally I would have contacted user:Trialsanderrors in regard to this, but he is on a wikibreak. I am not experienced enough to handle this situation and would like you to take action to preserve the inclusion of this academic. Thanks R:128.40.76.3 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored the page. I suggest you comment also at the merge discussion on the talk page for digit ratio. DGG 15:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DGG, I don't appreciate your reversion. I explained my edits and referenced the relevant Wikipedia policies in my edit summaries.

    You did not explain your reversion except to say the removal of content was "undiscussed." This is contrary to WP:BOLD; good-faith edits rooted in policy don't have to be "discussed." Pan Dan 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are wrong, go back at see what it says at BOLD," But anything you end up doing that turns out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. Don't be insulted if that does happen". Discuss he removal of the material on the Peter L. Hurd page. Don't edit war. The best course would be to wait a month or two, and then renominate for AfD. DGG 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that my edits were explained and rooted in policy, and your reversion was totally unexplained except for a misguided admonishment about the need to "discuss."

On your other point, I have no intention of going back to AfD. You will recall that my recommendation in the AFD was to merge, not delete. Merges don't require AFD's. Pan Dan 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That may have been your recommendation, but the decision was simply keep. I've added a comment to the merge discussion at finger ratio, and, if you like, will explain further there, and of course you can discuss it as you like.One editor cannot force a merge If after adequate discussion you want to proceed via that route, the dispute resolution process should be followed. But removing content first and then proposing a merge of what remains will not necessarily suggest good faith to an uninvolved party. DGG 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence is really silly. If I thought the content at (the long version of) Peter L. Hurd was A-OK, then of course a merge would be a bad idea. The reason I think a merge is needed is that when content offending WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR is removed from the article, all that's left is content on the digit ratio study. My removal of the content, and the explanations in my edit summaries, demonstrate, using Wikipedia policy, why I believe a merge is necessary. (For the record, I proposed the merge before, not after (as you suggest), I removed the offending content--not that that matters.) Pan Dan 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will move this thread to the merge discussion at Digital Ratio. DGG 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that's appropriate. Pan Dan 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[Moved here from my talk page:] I see you reverted the attempted removal of material from the page earlier today. I've found it necessary to do it again already. If it happens another time, perhaps you could revert and protect the page. DGG 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I only check WP every couple of days currently, but if you need my input let me know. It seems we have a rough consensus that the long version is policy-compliant. I don't see any interpretative claims that are not backed by multiple outside sources, and we routinely use CV's for declarative claims unless we have reason to distrust their veracity. Fwiw, I don't see any evidence of vandalism on Pan Dan's part. This seems a normal content dispute where s/he holds a minority opinion. The merge proposal is nonsense btw. If an academic is deemed notable it means s/he has reached a level of exposure that warrants a biographical article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean a biographical article where the biographical details are sourced to the subject's website? Any CV is a self-released promotional autobiography--nothing to write a neutral, reliably verifiable, Wikipedia article with. And no, there was no consensus at the AFD that the long version is policy-compliant. There was a majority who declared Prof. Hurd "notable," but failed to explain how a policy-compliant encyclopedia article could actually be written on Prof. Hurd in the absence of multiple non-trivial third party sources about him. (BTW thanks for exonerating me of vandalism.) Pan Dan 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the Peter L. Hurd page but since I stopped by here, I note with interest trialsanderrors' comment that 'we routinely use CVs for declarative claims unless we have some reason to distrust their veracity.' This would indeed make life simpler for editors of biographies. Just lately the COI noticeboard is discussing Joseph Hilbe, an article where some of the details are unsourced, but they don't seem terribly important to have 'proof' of. E.g. he worked as a personal assistant to Rudolf Carnap (unsourced). So I await with interest the outcome of this idea. EdJohnston 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Academic CV's are, unless they contain interpretative claims, not "promotional". They tend to make declarative claims (claims of fact) of the "X is Associate Professor at Y" and "X published a paper in Z" variety. Interpretative claims (claims of opinion) are claims such as "X is the foremost researcher in the field of W". If we want to write a neutral biography there is no reason to remove declarative claims sourced from a CV by reputable researcher or the department website. There is generally no dispute about the neutrality of a claim that X is an associate professor at a reputable university, so we don't need to reflect varying viewpoints. Interpretative claims on the other hand tend to be disputed, so we resort to outside sources to give a panoramic view of the claim. "Professor X considers himself the foremost researcher on W (source: W's CV), a claim that is disputed by Professor Q (source: ABC)." ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just 2 steps more complicated. We are first of all talking about CVs at official university sites. People usually don't dare lie on those. (There have been cases of academics with false credentials--they usually make the Chronicle of Higher Education. That kind of investigation is usually beyond what we'd do.) But in addition CVs are acceptable as evidence for purely routine facts,such as what year a degree was awarded, etc.; they are also presumptive evidence for a degree being awarded, etc., unless disputed. I've seen them disputed, and there was recently an article at AfD with a claim to a PhD that could not be verified & the article was deleted (actually, many other facets of the bio could also not be verified, & it was just a personal web page.) In the example mentioned, that someone worked as a personal assistant to a famous person, it would not be unreasonable to ask for additional evidence if notability depended on it. In the article that started this discussion, there was no reason to question--it was basically obstructive. DGG 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

T&E's distinction between declarative and interpretative claims is well taken. But neutrality doesn't just mean that we should fairly represent all points of view on interpretive claims. Neutrality also means that we should include (a fair representative sample of) all declarative claims made by third party sources. For example, "X received a Ph.D. from the University of Knowitall" is a simple declarative statement that might be found on an academic's website. "X has struggled with alcoholism" and "X was found by a University Committee to have committed plagiarism and was forced to transfer to another university" are simple declarative statements that would never appear on the same academic's website. Now, if all three statements on X above are verifiable in third-party sources, then maybe we could use those items to build a neutral article on X, including both positive and negative content. Or, if X is squeaky clean and is the subject of non-trivial third-party sources which have found nothing negative on X, then the Wikipedia article will of course reflect that. But in the absence of non-trivial third-party sources on X, a neutral article is impossible: even given verifiable declarative statements about X on X's university website, neutrality requires including information from third-party sources that have investigated X more thoroughly than the author of that university website. Pan Dan 09:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

--end moved here from DGG talk page--

there are all those national news source discussions of his work as 3rd party sources.

I agree that if there is negative information about his work it would be appropriate to include it somewhere, but you have never proposed any, let alone cited any. You imply the subject is not squeeky-clean without providing evidence, and I think that this is altogether out of line.DGG 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That indeed would be out of line, if I had implied that. In fact I implied nothing of the sort. Please try better to understand what I was saying. I was not suggesting that Prof. Hurd isn't (or is) squeaky-clean (I have no idea). I was saying that in the absence of any third-party coverage about a subject (whether the subject is Prof. Hurd or somebody/something else), there is nothing to write a neutral Wikipedia article with. Ergo, in the case of Prof. Hurd, where no non-trivial third-party coverage is evident, it is impossible to write a sourced, neutral article.

On your first point, the "national news source discussions" you mention are about Prof. Hurd's study and would not support building on article at Peter L. Hurd; in fact they support expanding Digit ratio, hence my merge proposal. It's no surprise that Peter L. Hurd is almost entirely sourced to his university webpage, because the independent sources are not about him. Pan Dan 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many of the last 20 cases on the Academics and educators deletion sorting list that were closed as keep per WP:PROF had sources that qualify as reliable under this criterion? If, as Pan Dan suggests, we delete all biographical data sourced only by official university web pages, then is there anything left but a substub for the typical WP:PROF keep? I see Pan Dan has deleted degrees from biographical pages such as this due to lack of sources. What proportion of biographies on WP that list academic degrees would have these degrees deleted under such a policy? Pete.Hurd 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If a sub-stub remains after removing all non-indepedently-sourced content from a page whose subject has been deemed to pass WP:PROF, and no other sources are available for expansion, then either (1) WP:PROF is too broad, (2) we should accept a permanent sub-stub, or (3) we should hope that sources will eventually emerge on the subject even if none is available now. A university webpage is the perfect thing to list under External links, but filling a Wikipedia article with content from that webpage seems to me to be neither policy-compliant nor useful to the reader.

(I'm not sure what relevance Justin MacKinnon has to this discussion; it was a political campaign promotion from Mackinnoncamp07 (talk · contribs). If I hadn't stubbed it, the next newpage patroller would've probably speedied it as spam. It certainly fit wp:csd#g11.) Pan Dan 17:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Official web pages are sources for routine biographical data, and if anyone wants to change that, the Village Pump is always available. Specific items of data can of course always be challenged, and if there is any reason that can be given why an entire web page is in error, that can be challenged too. As mentioned above, I did challenge it once, and the article was deleted. The inclusion of such data has been upheld everywhere its been discussed, and it would be impossible to write most contemporary bios otherwise in all fields. The principle that such sources are accepted runs throughout WP, not just scientists. The criteria in WP:PROF have been upheld consistently at AfD, at the rate of about 3 or 4 per week, showing they have widespread community support. It's not DG or PH alone, but everyone who has commented.

My interest in this is to keep from using absurd criteria at AfD, not any particular page. Enough. WP:POINT. DGG 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'm having trouble getting my argument across to you, DGG. It's probably my fault for not being clear. So to try to clarify: I am not necessarily claiming in this discussion that no biographical data should be sourced to a non-independent webpage. I am claiming that when that webpage is the only source on a subject, then filling a Wikipedia page with information from that webpage is neither policy-compliant nor useful to the reader (I snuck the "useful" part in on my last comment; my main concern is the policy). Nor am I arguing that WP:PROF should be modified; that was just one of 3 options I laid out in my previous comment.

Finally, DGG, I find it odd that you've charged me with disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, given that this discussion is not disruptive and is the very discussion that you demanded when you reverted my edits.[1][2]. Pan Dan 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, without getting into the whole discussion, I wanted to comment on one of Pan Dan's points: I agree completely (and think there is broad community consensus) that we shouldn't be creating pages based only on non-independent sources. I think, as you say, there is also consensus that given a notable subject with some RS, we can fill out details from non-independent sources if they are unlikely to be falsified or challenged. Where there is some disagreement is whether a non-independent source can aid in establishing notability--I think that it can, but I know that not everyone is on that side. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fascinating

I wonder if there is an evolutionary and functional reason for this? Perhaps having a shorter index finger allows you to grip things better and throw things that may be needed for fighting and hunting while the longer index finger allows you a more delicate touch, picking up smaller objects like seeds. In the wrestling world, one of the strongest grips is when your thumb rests between the other hand's middle and index finger, almost as if the index finger did not exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwikipeditor (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)