The Daily Mail reports on a study that concludes the ratio of lengths for one’s ring and index fingers predicts that person’s ability in literacy and numeracy:
Pupils with longer ring fingers are said to be more likely to excel in numeracy while those with shorter ring fingers tend to be more adept at literacy.
Scientists believe the trends can be explained by the levels of testosterone and oestrogen that children are exposed to in the womb. The sex hormones are thought to govern brain development as well as finger length.
The ratio is determined by taking the length of the index finger and dividing it by the length of the ring finger. If the ratio is smaller than 1, that student tended to score better on numeracy tests than on literacy tests; if the ratio was larger than 1, the opposite was true. Fingers of equal length [a ratio of 1] suggests little difference between one’s abilities in math and language.
The best I can do is provide an anecdote [though I'm sure someone will replicate this study on a larger scale than the University of Bath's cohort of 75]. My ratio of index:ring is .979; I’ve always had to put far more work into words than numbers. My parents, who I can now blame for negligence toward the womb when I encounter roadblocks in all things literature, have ratios around .94 for my father and .95 for my mother.
And if you aren’t sure which finger is your index and which is your ring, the cropped photo above, courtesy of The Daily Mail, can help you out.
LiveScience, via Yahoo! News, has a writeup linking this study to SAT performance. They also have links to other research about the correlation between finger length and abilities/behavior.
What’s your ratio? Is it valid?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Tracy Allison Altman 05.28.07 at 9:52 am
I also blogged about the finger height test – I found it interesting in conjunction with the new study linking ceiling height to different types of problem solving. So if I’m looking for a new technology breakthough, ideally I’ll put some long-ring-fingered people to work in a loft-style, high-ceilinged office? http://www.evidencesoup.com/canopener/2007/05/new_evidence_ab.html