<p>What do you all think of that article?</p>
<p>Seems like a great example of that a correlation does not show cause and effect....</p>
<p>seems true for me at least...</p>
<p>no flattie, it's not saying that it caues anything, it just *indicates *that something's more likely</p>
<p>and it didn't work for me, my ring finger is longer than my index but i got higher reading scores</p>
<p>Wow... it worked to predict my scores!</p>
<p>weird, cause i am better in math by a lot and my ring is bigger than my index :D</p>
<p>ok, so i'm an anomaly</p>
<p>ring vs index =
masculine vs feminine=
Math oriented vs Verbal oriented</p>
<p>o.O how freaky. it is true!</p>
<p>wow it is true. my ring is longer. my math owns....</p>
<p>it is ridiculous- not truep- i am counterex.</p>
<p>Mmm - my kid does better on reading/writing on the ACT but better Math on the SAT. I think her fingers stay consistent.
Next thing some loony tunes will be injecting their pregnant selves/spouses with hormones to try and produce a wiz kid in their field of preference!!</p>
<p>Doesn't work here. </p>
<p>I'm female, my ring finger is much longer than my index finger and my verbal aptitude (based on SATs and GMATs plus 25 years of working!) is significantly better than my math aptitude.</p>
<p>haha this is true for me!</p>
<p>i have big hands and big fingers and a big purple monster. why was my score a 1200? :(</p>
<p>Ha. That does not apply to me AT ALL.</p>
<p>Good math scores? Pffft.</p>
<p>From the original press release:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The results of numeracy and literacy tests for seven-year-old children can be predicted by measuring the length of their fingers, shows new research.</p>
<p>In a study to be published in the British Journal of Psychology, scientists compared the finger lengths of 75 children with their Standardised Assessment Test (SAT) scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Looks like they were studying 7-year-olds who took a British test, also referred to as the SAT, not the high school one we talk about on this list.</p>