Comments on: 2D:4D Ratio-Here is why Obama is aggressive

By: jacks

jacks — Fri, 21 May 2010 23:17:14 +0000

I don’t understand what you are talking about because you can’t see his second digit (pointer finger) in the picture. How in the world does the picture help?

By: Traveller_Adventure

Traveller_Adventure — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:40:00 +0000

Very very interesting post..I like this one. gotta bookmark this one.

Cheers,
Buat Duit Dengan Blog

By: who cares

who cares — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:15:41 +0000

i totally disagree with this study..

By: abhishektiwari

abhishektiwari — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:39:27 +0000

Nope, I guess title itself is wrong, thanks for comment .

By: obamamama

obamamama — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:32:56 +0000

Studies also show that younger sons, or subsequent sons, show an even lower digit ratio than older sons, and even more curious, is that these younger sons had a higher chance of being homosexual. Based on your theory, the lower the digit, the higher the chance of Obama having homosexual tendancies. Are you sure you want to continue with this point?

By: Winawer

Winawer — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:16:50 +0000

Though the title was suggestive, I wasn’t saying you did single out any specific person. But every time my supervisor published a paper on this and it wound up in the media, he invariably got weird e-mails from people asking if their digit ratio explained this or that thing about their life. It’s almost inevitable: describe this line of research to people, and they immediately begin staring at their hands and over-applying the idea.

By: abhishektiwari

abhishektiwari — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:26:58 +0000

aila i never thought in this way, i must accept your points and next time i will be taking care of this

By: abhishektiwari

abhishektiwari — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:14:18 +0000

I am not sure but they have opposite characteristics or women aggression don’t correlate with 2D:4D ratio

By: abhishektiwari

abhishektiwari — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:11:05 +0000

Very correct, that why I did not make any conclusion about any specific person, did I? What ever be the reason Obama will be known for his decisions and for 2D:4D ratio. The post is about how 2D:4D may be correlated with aggression which in itself is not a new topic, much have been said and revealed, I too was involved with one of projects where salivary testosterone level in different individuals was highly correlated with their 2D:4D ration. Although it is very clear that 2D:4D is significant, but not just because initial hormonal exposure in the womb.

By: Winawer

Winawer — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:40:38 +0000

I did my M.Sc in one of the labs involved in this research, so I’m familiar with it; one thing to keep in mind is that though there is a statistically significant relationship between aggression and 2D:4D ratio (though the evidence is at times confusing), the total percentage of variation in aggression in humans explained by 2D:4D is very low, somewhere around 5% if memory serves. Thus, the correlation between 2D:4D and aggression may be robust, but predicting anything about a specific person’s level of aggression using it would be a waste of time.

Also, the whole reason that people research 2D:4D is exactly because of that link between the digit ratio and prenatal testosterone exposure. Prenatal androgen exposure is supposed to have an organizational effect on the brain and is coincidentally thought to affect the expression of hox genes in the fingers (or perhaps it just affects finger bone growth directly). In any case, 2D:4D is used because it’s a way of indirectly measuring something that happened in the womb, where we can’t directly measure the level of androgens that the fetus is being exposed to. (In other species like mice, another commonly used measure is ano-genital distance; I believe that the same relationship for AGD holds in humans, but isn’t measured as often for obvious reasons).