Ring and index finger - Same length?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06 June 2007   #1
Ring and index finger - Same length?

After my initial hand studies and going by the length of my own fingers, I have always drawn the index finger shorter than the ring finger. After a bit more research and looking through dozens of photos, it seems to vary between people to the point where on some hands the index and ring finger are the same length.

So my question is, when drawing hands do most people just go with the assumption that the index and ring finger are equal lengths? What length do you usually draw them at? Does it really even matter?

Cheers
 
Old 06 June 2007   #2
My ring finger is slightly taller than my index, and i'm anatomically correct, so go for that.
Just kidding, its probably something that differs from person to person. If it looks good, it is good.

Erik
__________________
Vimeo
 
Old 06 June 2007   #3
there's been a lot of [science] news articles about this recently, it seems the level of exposure to testosterone in the womb leads to a greater difference in length between the ring and index finger, and also causes differences in brain development, leading to a correlation between the size of the finger difference and [seemingly unrelated] things like spatial reasoning ability, ability in sport, levels of aggression, etc

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s674140.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottop...all/index.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/695142.stm

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...rticlekey=81319
 
Old 06 June 2007   #4
Sorry for the redundancy. ottokar beat me to the post

Originally Posted by WeetBix: So my question is, when drawing hands do most people just go with the assumption that the index and ring finger are equal lengths? What length do you usually draw them at? Does it really even matter?
Cheers


The male index finger is shorter than the ring finger in general. A woman's ring and index finger are roughly equal in length. The shooter the index finger is in relation to the ring finger, the higher the levels of testosterone exposure the fetus experienced in the womb, from what I've read.
__________________
 
Old 06 June 2007   #5
Not sure about the above posters statement of the fetus and the womb as most growth happens while you are breathing from outside the womb (of atleast in this case, your scale grows ).

I believe when drawing/creating a human, it all depends on how the hand has grown. But teh average is that the ring finger is slightly longer, but because of the shape of the palm area, the ring finger lines up almost evenly with the index finger.
__________________
Anatomy Thread of Rist

Sketchbook
 
Old 06 June 2007   #6
Originally Posted by Fl3wk: Not sure about the above posters statement of the fetus and the womb as most growth happens while you are breathing from outside the womb (of atleast in this case, your scale grows ).


The stage is set in the womb.
__________________
 
Old 06 June 2007   #7
Originally Posted by Quadart: The stage is set in the womb.


I dunno, lots of variables while you live makes me a critic of this scientific THEORY.
__________________
Anatomy Thread of Rist

Sketchbook
 
Old 06 June 2007   #8
then, why is there a correlation between the difference in ring and index finger length and things like spatial reasoning / awareness, or aggression, things that take place in the brain? that's the whole crux of the matter.

so far, you're only saying 'no, i don't think so', but how do you explain away the correlation then?

although i'm not a scientist, the 'news' part of our posts is the link between finger length ratio and agression [for instance], and the link between finger length ratio and testosterone levels in the wombs is written about as if it were already an accepted fact.

for instance
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2007/5/23/fingerlength.html
Quote: We can use measurements of these fingers as a way of gauging the relative exposure to these two hormones in the womb


also, this link explicitly states that relative finger length does not change after 14 weeks gestation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn509

Quote: Relative finger length is determined in utero by about 14 weeks' gestation and does not change as we age. Various studies have shown that finger length ratios are a robust indicator of how much testosterone a baby is exposed to in the womb.


i can find and quote articles to you, but since i am not a scientist, i cannot go from the article [which is a summary for a popular science magazine] to the actual research papers that could prove things like "relative finger length does not change after 14 weeks gestation."

to get back to the original question, it seems that generally, women have equal sized ring and index fingers, and in men there is variation.

http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/...h-2243486.shtml

Quote: The study's findings did not apply to women. Generally speaking, women's index and ring fingers are almost equal in length, because they're exposed to less testosterone in the womb.


given all the posts today, i would also believe the same to be true for male and female children, and even foetuses over 14 weeks old, but you can believe what you want.
 
Old 06 June 2007   #9
Nice bit of info in that post ottokar

Thanks for the input everyone.
 
Old 06 June 2007   #10
what I find interesting is that there is said to be a correlation between difference in finger lengths and "spatial reasoning and ability in sport, levels of aggression"... and considering those scientiest found out that women have index and ring fingers of roughly the same length that makes them... smarter? Or more of a dimwit, generally?




spatial and other types or reasoning should be used when reading about new pseudo-correlations scientists have found. Just a thought...
 
Old 06 June 2007   #11
the trend is ...

http://www.brainfuel.tv/finger-leng...d-verbal-skills

Quote: Specifically, boys whose index fingers were short compared with their ring fingers tended to excel at numbers and girls with index and ring fingers of similar length tended to do better on the verbal portion of the test.
 
Old 06 June 2007   #12
Well they certainly do better at the verbal I can accept that one
__________________
Anatomy Thread of Rist

Sketchbook
 
Old 06 June 2007   #13
If you read the second BBC article again there are a whole lot of terms which get kind of ignored along the way, like "might", "seem" or "theory"...


the point is there is no proof for a causal chain (direct translation, sorry if it doesn't sound like an idiom) - next day you find a scientific team that checks some kind of ability against the fact wether or not the child was exposed to classical music during pregnancy, wether or not their parents are smokers or wether or not mars passed through the second house of virgo on the hour of their birth. That is what I call a pseudo-correlation. An interesting fact.
 
Old 06 June 2007   #14
hmm, i don't think there's a way to prove it, in the same way that one can't prove evolution. the sort of study that has been done is along the lines of ...

1. 25% of finger length ratio of 1.1 or greater

edit - i meant to write " 25% of the general public have a finger length ratio of 1.1 or greater

2. 80% of professional footballers have a finger length ratio of 1.1 or greater
3. therefore we conclude there is a correlation between finger length ratio and sporting ability

the numbers used above are just from my head, but it illustrates the principle i am talking about.

a lot of science cannot be proven. if i wanted to take the view that if a man throws something up in the air, it doesn't have to fall back down to the ground every time, how could someone disprove it? everything observed up to now supports the theory of gravity, but i could just counter 'how do you know next time i throw up a ball, it won't fall down, and then you'll have to scrap your theory of gravity altogether'.

i think that this whole issue of finger length ratio is in a different category to 'playing classical music to a foetus means a brighter child', because i think what is being measured is more clear cut. i think the situation with this issue is - 'what is the average ratio of the public, what is the average ratio of footballers, baam, a statistically significant difference'.

i do understand the principle of uncertainty surounding the intepretation of data, and the conclusions that are drawn, but all i can say is if i had to put my money where my mouth is, if i had the opportunity to bet "we've picked this random sportsman, do you bet his finger length ratio is greater or lesser than normal', i would bet it is greater every time.

Last edited by ottokar : 06 June 2007 at 10:17 PM.
 
Old 06 June 2007   #15
the way you expressed it in your last sentence is, to my mind, much more what the essence of this observation is about...

You observe things and make correlations (I think this making up correlations, weaving relations between facts in general is a very basic feature of human thinking) - what is left is the interpretation of the observed facts which has to sometimes substitute a proof.

On a related note, I was thinking about one female biologist who was criticising most of her male colleagues for always describing 1:n relationships between one male animal and many female animals as a harem of some kind.
She argued that you could say that the female population only allowed one male specimen to copulate with them which was simply a different interpretation.
(I don't remember atm the name of that biologist and what has become of the discussion... I was just reminded of it).

Basically, scientists are under a constant pressure to publish and therefore, as well as for a number of other, slightly boring reasons, I am always a bit reluctant when observation and interpretation lead to the proclamation of a new theorem. Kind of a reflex, I admit.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.