2d/4d Digit Ratio: Aspergers and Androgyny

Page 1 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


2d/4d Digit Ratio as a Measure of Androgyny and Asperger's (please see post on how to measure 2d/4d digit ratio, right hand)
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of greater than .99 on my right hand 14%  14%  [ 8 ]
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than or equal to .99 on my right hand 8%  8%  [ 5 ]
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .98 on my right hand 5%  5%  [ 3 ]
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .97 on my right hand 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .96 on my right hand 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .95 on my right hand 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .94 on my right hand 10%  10%  [ 6 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of greater than .99 on my right hand 12%  12%  [ 7 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than or equal to .99 on my right hand 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .98 on my right hand 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .97 on my right hand 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .96 on my right hand 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .95 on my right hand 5%  5%  [ 3 ]
I identify as biologically female/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .94 on my right hand 19%  19%  [ 11 ]
Other, please comment, and thanks for participating:) 10%  10%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 59

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,932

17 Nov 2012, 3:57 am

http://keithsneuroblog.blogspot.com/201 ... l?spref=fb

Research presented last summer, linked above, showed an association of androgynous physical features and "high functioning" ASD.

I recently posted a poll asking the general question among those identifying with Asperger's/other autism spectrum disorder/biological male/biological female on a subjective judgement of whether or not they identified with having androgynous features.

A fairly easy objective measurement of androgyny presented in the study above is 2d/4d digit ratio, on the right hand. A subjective judgment can be difficult because a personal assessment is usually based on facial characteristics which according to the study above was more highly identified among females with "high functioning" autism as compared to males.

To measure 2d/4d digit ratio one can use a metric ruler and measure from the finger tip to the crease of the right hand, and divide the measurement of the index finger by the ring finger. For example a 75 millimeter index finger divided by a 80 millimeter ring finger would be .9375.

This is going to be a very detailed poll; I appreciate the time and effort of anyone that participates, as it has been a long time special interest of mine. :) Please comment, if you do participate, and you find a 2d/4d digit ratio that is lower on your left hand than your right hand, with details of that measurement vs. the right hand. But, please answer the poll only based on the 2d/4d digit right of your right hand.

Unfortunately, the maximum poll options did not allow for me to enter the options for "other autism spectrum disorder", so please comment with your results, if you participate and identify with an ASD other than Asperger's. Thanks.:).



Ellingtonia
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 200

17 Nov 2012, 5:25 am

I picked "I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .94 on my right hand"

I got right hand ratio of 0.9324 and a left hand ratio of 0.9487

Also interesting is that the left hand fingers were both longer than their right hand counterparts by 4-5mm. Not sure if that means anything.



kotshka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 653
Location: Prague

17 Nov 2012, 6:02 am

I'm female, asperger, same measurements on both hands. 0.9444...

I remember hearing that women with longer 4th fingers than 2nd tend to be more masculine and often are homosexual or bisexual. I'm definitely very androgynous and bisexual, so it seems to be true in my case. Never heard of a link with AS though.



whirlingmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun

17 Nov 2012, 6:25 am

Mine was 1.0588, sorry I selected the wrong poll answer, I put that I had a less than .94 because I got confused and measured the wrong finger.


_________________
*Truth fears no trial*

DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum

http://www.planetautism.wix.com/one-stop-shop


whirlingmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun

17 Nov 2012, 7:00 am

...and according to Wikipedia, the normal female ratio is 0.932 and 0.998. So what does a very high ratio mean then?


_________________
*Truth fears no trial*

DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum

http://www.planetautism.wix.com/one-stop-shop


Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

17 Nov 2012, 1:16 pm

Mine is about 0.915 on the right hand (and 0.926 on the left hand). My left hand fingers are shorter than my right hand. Right hand is 65/71, left is 63/68.



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

17 Nov 2012, 2:38 pm

http://i.imgur.com/K3KaY.jpg

Tell me my digit ratio based on my picture of my hands with calluses torn open.



Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

17 Nov 2012, 2:51 pm

1000Knives wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/K3KaY.jpg

Tell me my digit ratio based on my picture of my hands with calluses torn open.


Based on that picture I'm measuring 0.92 but I'm not sure whether I'm getting accurate measurements.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,932

17 Nov 2012, 2:59 pm

whirlingmind wrote:
...and according to Wikipedia, the normal female ratio is 0.932 and 0.998. So what does a very high ratio mean then?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Quote:
Digit ratio distribution

From a study of 136 males and 137 females:[13]

Males: mean 0.947, standard deviation 0.029.
Females: mean 0.965, standard deviation 0.026.

Assuming a normal distribution, the 10th and 90th percentiles for males are 0.910 and 0.984. For females: 0.932 and 0.998.


The study Wiki quoted, used a normal distribution as is done for a bell curve. Your reported measurement puts you above the 90th percentile of measurements reported in that study. So far the relatively small number of people that have responded to this poll 50 percent of the males have reported scores lower than the 10th percentile, and with your reported correction to the poll, close to 40% of the females have reported close to the 10th percentile. Using measures of androgyny lower percentile scores would indicate measures of androgyny for both biological genders.

Overall close to half of the responses so far have indicated measures of androgyny, pretty close to the overall results of the responses of the last poll. In this one so far with your correction the males are leading the females in this very limited measure of androgyny, whereas in the last poll the overall actual self-identified androgynous features were more strongly reported in females. Most people that are unaware of digit ratio, probably would not consider that as a personal measure of androgyny. It is on the level of science rather than what is usually personally determined that can be biased by culture.

The results are pretty interesting so far.



Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

17 Nov 2012, 3:07 pm

When we talked about digit ratios in high school and measured them, mine was one of the lowest two digit ratios in the class - I don't remember whether mine was lowest or second lowest. However, people found it interesting that someone of the female sex had such an extremely low digit ratio.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,932

17 Nov 2012, 3:11 pm

Ellingtonia wrote:
I picked "I identify as biologically male/Asperger's with a 2d/4d digit ratio of less than .94 on my right hand"

I got right hand ratio of 0.9324 and a left hand ratio of 0.9487

Also interesting is that the left hand fingers were both longer than their right hand counterparts by 4-5mm. Not sure if that means anything.


I measured .93 on my right hand and .96 on my left hand, and both fingers were about two millimeters longer on the left hand. The larger hand can correlate to hand dominance, however in my case, I am right handed, so it doesn't pan out for me. Other than that it is normal for one hand to be slightly larger than the other, or any other part of the body, as equal symmetry in humans is more unusual than slightly unequal symmetry.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,932

17 Nov 2012, 3:17 pm

Tuttle wrote:
When we talked about digit ratios in high school and measured them, mine was one of the lowest two digit ratios in the class - I don't remember whether mine was lowest or second lowest. However, people found it interesting that someone of the female sex had such an extremely low digit ratio.


Yes, it is very low, puts you at close to the 90 percentile among the measured males in the study quoted from Wiki. It would seem very likely that you were exposed to unusually high levels of prenatal testosterone, per that association. However, that doesn't seem to necessarily influence all the other measures of androgyny, but the correlation among most people, would probably on average be high.



bigwheel
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2012
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 239

17 Nov 2012, 4:02 pm

Dang yall make a person stay doing heavy research all day long. I am allergic to metrics but did find a tape measure in Americkan numbers and found a kid who knows how to use a calculator gizmo and it say my ratio is .91 Is this bad or good? I dont think I have Aspergers but appear to be eat plumb up with NLD. The Little Bride and the baby boy's ratio was both 1.1. I am trying to tell them I am more normal than them. Could somebody help a Brother out and save some research here? Also what is the facial characteristics we are looking for? Thanks.

aghogday wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
...and according to Wikipedia, the normal female ratio is 0.932 and 0. So what does a very high ratio mean then?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Quote:
Digit ratio distribution

From a study of 136 males and 137 females:[13]

Males: mean 0.947, standard deviation 0.029.
Females: mean 0.965, standard deviation 0.026.

Assuming a normal distribution, the 10th and 90th percentiles for males are 0.910 and 0.984. For females: 0.932 and 0.998.


The study Wiki quoted, used a normal distribution as is done for a bell curve. Your reported measurement puts you above the 90th percentile of measurements reported in that study. So far the relatively small number of people that have responded to this poll 50 percent of the males have reported scores lower than the 10th percentile, and with your reported correction to the poll, close to 40% of the females have reported close to the 10th percentile. Using measures of androgyny lower percentile scores would indicate measures of androgyny for both biological genders.

Overall close to half of the responses so far have indicated measures of androgyny, pretty close to the overall results of the responses of the last poll. In this one so far with your correction the males are leading the females in this very limited measure of androgyny, whereas in the last poll the overall actual self-identified androgynous features were more strongly reported in females. Most people that are unaware of digit ratio, probably would not consider that as a personal measure of androgyny. It is on the level of science rather than what is usually personally determined that can be biased by culture.

The results are pretty interesting so far.



mljt
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 353

17 Nov 2012, 5:09 pm

I don't identify as biologically anything.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,932

17 Nov 2012, 5:17 pm

bigwheel wrote:
Dang yall make a person stay doing heavy research all day long. I am allergic to metrics but did find a tape measure in Americkan numbers and found a kid who knows how to use a calculator gizmo and it say my ratio is .91 Is this bad or good? I dont think I have Aspergers but appear to be eat plumb up with NLD. The Little Bride and the baby boy's ratio was both 1.1. I am trying to tell them I am more normal than them. Could somebody help a Brother out and save some research here? Also what is the facial characteristics we are looking for? Thanks.

aghogday wrote:
whirlingmind wrote:
...and according to Wikipedia, the normal female ratio is 0.932 and 0. So what does a very high ratio mean then?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Quote:
Digit ratio distribution

From a study of 136 males and 137 females:[13]

Males: mean 0.947, standard deviation 0.029.
Females: mean 0.965, standard deviation 0.026.

Assuming a normal distribution, the 10th and 90th percentiles for males are 0.910 and 0.984. For females: 0.932 and 0.998.


The study Wiki quoted, used a normal distribution as is done for a bell curve. Your reported measurement puts you above the 90th percentile of measurements reported in that study. So far the relatively small number of people that have responded to this poll 50 percent of the males have reported scores lower than the 10th percentile, and with your reported correction to the poll, close to 40% of the females have reported close to the 10th percentile. Using measures of androgyny lower percentile scores would indicate measures of androgyny for both biological genders.

Overall close to half of the responses so far have indicated measures of androgyny, pretty close to the overall results of the responses of the last poll. In this one so far with your correction the males are leading the females in this very limited measure of androgyny, whereas in the last poll the overall actual self-identified androgynous features were more strongly reported in females. Most people that are unaware of digit ratio, probably would not consider that as a personal measure of androgyny. It is on the level of science rather than what is usually personally determined that can be biased by culture.

The results are pretty interesting so far.


According to the range from Wiki, above, your measurement fall within the low end of the normal distribution of measurements for males, while your spouse's measurements fall beyond the high end of that distribution for females, and the baby boy's measurements fall extremely far outside of that distribution of measurements.

The characteristics that make for an androgynous face are complex, and impacted by culture. The nuance in what is perceived as masculine or feminine in a face can be as simple as contrast with the same basic facial features in the link below.

In general people usually consider "strong/hard" facial features to be androgynous in females and "soft" features to be androgynous in males, however that is influenced by culture, varying to some degree between each person's perception of the face. In the picture illustrated in the link below neither face has what would likely be considered as very "strong/hard" features, but just the application of contrast can change the perception, of what is considered masculine vs feminine facial features. A list of what commonly culturally observed as masculine vs feminine facial features is listed in the second link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153100.htm

http://modern-androgyny.blogspot.com/20 ... -face.html



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,932

17 Nov 2012, 5:35 pm

mljt wrote:
I don't identify as biologically anything.


Biologically male or female, is usually identified strictly on the basis of the existence of reproductive organs, however that is not always clear, so why I described it as identified rather than making a binary assumption of biological gender, of everyone responding. My intention was not to assume that a biological gender was actually the psychological gender anyone identifies with as that is more complex than what can be measured with biology.