2d/4d Digit Ratio: Aspergers and Androgyny

Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  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

Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Nov 2012, 10:04 pm

aghogday wrote:
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.


Yeah, I'm guessing I was too. When I was in the womb, all the normal pregnancy signs pointed towards having a male rather than having a female. My parents never actually had it checked for, and were quite surprised when I was born.

I do show other signs of androgyny too.



bigwheel
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 239

17 Nov 2012, 11:06 pm

That is totally interesting and informative. Thanks so much for taking the time to explain it and convert the math etc. So the lady in question is the hard driving domineering masculine type? The baby boy is a effeminate lazy bum who cant hold a job maybe? This is becoming uncanny. I am on the cusp of normal right? Cept as how I have been corrupted by them two? My mind is running wild here.

aghogday wrote:
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



Jojopa
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 120

17 Nov 2012, 11:44 pm

I got a 0.986, which if I understand this correctly means my digit ratio is more androgynous than more males... interesting.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,852

17 Nov 2012, 11:54 pm

bigwheel wrote:
That is totally interesting and informative. Thanks so much for taking the time to explain it and convert the math etc. So the lady in question is the hard driving domineering masculine type? The baby boy is a effeminate lazy bum who cant hold a job maybe? This is becoming uncanny. I am on the cusp of normal right? Cept as how I have been corrupted by them two? My mind is running wild here.

aghogday wrote:
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


Sorry, I don't think I was clear in my communication. A normal bell curve distribution, in this case, is only associated with the measurements, not any indication of what might be considered "normal" personal behavioral traits.

In general lower digit ratios are correlated among males and higher digit ratios are correlated among females. Wiki lists many correlations in the article linked on high digit ratio and low digit ratio.

Not being able to hold a job down is not one of them for males with high digit ratios, nor is a masculine domineering personality type among females with high digit ratio. All the correlations are sourced in more detail on the Wiki page, if one wants to pursue just how strong some of these correlations are on the traits listed there.



Last edited by aghogday on 18 Nov 2012, 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,852

17 Nov 2012, 11:58 pm

Jojopa wrote:
I got a 0.986, which if I understand this correctly means my digit ratio is more androgynous than more males... interesting.


Yes, and that reflects the topic article research that showed an overall higher digit ratio among the males studied with "high functioning" autism as opposed to the control group. Interesting that in that particular study the 2d/4d digit ratio was actually slightly higher on average among the ASD females, than the control group females, even though they measured higher in androgynous head, face and serum testosterone levels.



bigwheel
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2012
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 239

18 Nov 2012, 1:35 am

Could we get an interpreter for non AS folks here? Thanks. Now I am trying to figger out where all this extra testosterone comes from on this deal. Surely not 8O



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,852

18 Nov 2012, 2:16 am

bigwheel wrote:
Could we get an interpreter for non AS folks here? Thanks. Now I am trying to figger out where all this extra testosterone comes from on this deal. Surely not 8O


That's a good question, for the topic article, as higher levels of exposure to prenatal testosterone (from the mother in pregnancy), and higher levels of serum testosterone in adulthood are usually correlated but not in that study.

In women, testosterone is produced by the adrenal glands. In men there are two sources of production, one of which is the adrenal glands. I'm pretty that is what you were asking by the "surely not" phrase followed by the shocked emoticon.

The production of higher levels of testosterone in males and females is influenced by genetics, and environment from the time of prenatal development all the way until death.

The research is very new on this issue with individuals with higher functioning autism. And, warrants a great deal more study to determine the whys of the findings.

Higher stress levels can lead to higher production of cortisol and testosterone among females; that is the most common environmental factor associated with higher levels of exposure to testosterone during pregnancy.

This study showed testosterone levels in the normal range among males, on average with "higher functioning autism", and another study has shown the same general findings among males with "higher functioning" autism, with higher levels of testosterone among males with more "severe" reported symptoms associated with Autism.

That may have been more detail than you were looking for, but I think the most concise answer to your question among females, is the adrenal glands.



whirlingmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun

18 Nov 2012, 6:53 am

aghogday wrote:
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

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.


Yes I had seen the Wikipedia link prior to your reply, however I still don't understand as it doesn't explain. It really only discusses the meaning of the lower ratio, not higher than normal ratio. Accordingly, if I take the opposite meaning, I must be ultra female (people have said I'm very feminine before). Although this doesn't in any way correlate to AS going by this study, and I've already had a confirmation of AS, plus both children pending assessment. I'm aware that low ratio is said to be only an indicator of risk factor, not a 100% either way, as there will always be subjects who differ and all the causes of autism are not yet known, at least they know more than one gene is implicated.

Wikipedia also said:

Quote:
A 2011 paper by Zhengui Zheng and Martin J. Cohn reports that "the 2D:4D ratio in mice is controlled by the balance of androgen to estrogen signaling during a narrow window of digit development."[8] The formation of the digits, in utero, is thought to occur at 14 weeks, and the bone-to-bone ratio is consistent from this point into an individual’s adulthood.[9] During this period if the fetus is exposed to androgens, the exact level of which is thought to be sexually dimorphic, the growth rate of the 4th digit is increased, as can be seen by analyzing the 2D:4D ratio of opposite sex dizygotic twins, where the female twin is exposed to excess androgens from her brother in utero, and thus has a significantly lower 2D:4D ratio.[10]

Importantly, there has been no correlation between the sex hormone levels of an adult and the individual’s 2D:4D,[11] which implies that it is strictly the exposure in utero that causes this phenomenon.

A major problem with the research on this topic comes from the contradiction in the literature as to whether the testosterone level in adults can be predicted by the 2D:4D ratio,[12] but male sexual traits that are stereotypically attributed to testosterone levels have been found in correlation with the 2D:4D. So there should either be a correlation with one or the other but not both.


So I'm unsure as to how reliable this 2D to 4D ratio research really is.


_________________
*Truth fears no trial*

DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum


dunya
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 148

18 Nov 2012, 9:51 am

0.985 right hand
1.0 on left hand



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,852

18 Nov 2012, 4:38 pm

whirlingmind wrote:
aghogday wrote:
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

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.


Yes I had seen the Wikipedia link prior to your reply, however I still don't understand as it doesn't explain. It really only discusses the meaning of the lower ratio, not higher than normal ratio. Accordingly, if I take the opposite meaning, I must be ultra female (people have said I'm very feminine before). Although this doesn't in any way correlate to AS going by this study, and I've already had a confirmation of AS, plus both children pending assessment. I'm aware that low ratio is said to be only an indicator of risk factor, not a 100% either way, as there will always be subjects who differ and all the causes of autism are not yet known, at least they know more than one gene is implicated.



Wikipedia also said:

Quote:
A 2011 paper by Zhengui Zheng and Martin J. Cohn reports that "the 2D:4D ratio in mice is controlled by the balance of androgen to estrogen signaling during a narrow window of digit development."[8] The formation of the digits, in utero, is thought to occur at 14 weeks, and the bone-to-bone ratio is consistent from this point into an individual’s adulthood.[9] During this period if the fetus is exposed to androgens, the exact level of which is thought to be sexually dimorphic, the growth rate of the 4th digit is increased, as can be seen by analyzing the 2D:4D ratio of opposite sex dizygotic twins, where the female twin is exposed to excess androgens from her brother in utero, and thus has a significantly lower 2D:4D ratio.[10]

Importantly, there has been no correlation between the sex hormone levels of an adult and the individual’s 2D:4D,[11] which implies that it is strictly the exposure in utero that causes this phenomenon.

A major problem with the research on this topic comes from the contradiction in the literature as to whether the testosterone level in adults can be predicted by the 2D:4D ratio,[12] but male sexual traits that are stereotypically attributed to testosterone levels have been found in correlation with the 2D:4D. So there should either be a correlation with one or the other but not both.


So I'm unsure as to how reliable this 2D to 4D ratio research really is.


Yes, I agree just the finding of the topic article would make one question the correlation of serum testosterone in adulthood and 2d/4d digit ratio.

However, while there have been some recent studies that indicate serum testosterone is not related to 2d/4d digit ratio in young athletes a correlation has been found in older men here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592297

It is also interesting that comparatively lower levels of testosterone are being found in younger men as opposed to older men across cultures, but the reasons for this haven't clearly been determined.

The environment can play a big role in the increase of testosterone during the course of adulthood, as well as a decrease. There have been some suggestions in studies that chemicals in the environment are influencing prenatal testosterone and adult testosterone, differently in males and females.

One thing for sure though is that 2d/4d digit ratio is a sexually dimorphic trait, per androgyny that is definitely correlated just by that physical trait alone, regardless of how it may impact behaviors, serum testosterone levels in adulthood, or identified sexual traits in males as opposed to females.

Also in reviewing the Wiki article it appears to need some cleanup, as it suggests that all the traits listed are correlated with high digit ratio, where some are actually not, as it is identified in the resourced links that lower digit ratio is correlated with some of those traits. That is identified in the talk page of that wiki article.



madnak
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 166
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

19 Nov 2012, 7:24 am

Apparently I'm an outlier; the index finger on my right hand is significantly longer than the ring finger. I know my testosterone level is normal-to-high, though I don't know anything about prenatal levels.

Looks like the correlation with circulating testosterone is weak. Sadly (for me), it seems like there's a vigorous negative correlation between digit ratio and physical attractiveness: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~roney/human%20nature.pdf

I hope I'm an exception to the rule.



whirlingmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun

19 Nov 2012, 8:21 am

I don't know if you amended (if it's possible) my poll response, but if you didn't, that means that females with a very high ratio like myself are above 8%, perhaps around 10% (I haven't made any attempt to calculate and maths isn't my forte).

So that would mean that so far, there are approximately 50% of females with very high ratio compared to those with low ratio.


_________________
*Truth fears no trial*

DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum


Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

19 Nov 2012, 9:37 am

aghogday wrote:

The environment can play a big role in the increase of testosterone during the course of adulthood, as well as a decrease. There have been some suggestions in studies that chemicals in the environment are influencing prenatal testosterone and adult testosterone, differently in males and females.



Thanks Aghogday for another interesting scientific thread.

I've been seeing a certain low haired genotype amongst some people round here. Often with Scandinavian heritage

Polynesians often display low body hair but high muscular and skeletal development, as well as the ratio, and even androgeny

Mahu or fafa ene when a son is raised a daughter, is fairly common throughout the south pacific. Our red light areas have these huge polynesian lady boys!

Personally, i have experienced fluctuating levels of body hair, and their thickness and darkness, yet I am barrel chested and well muscled naturally.

Sperm count is another area. From my understanding, testosterone inhibits sperm, so higher counts are seen amongst gentle androgynous guys than bald virile hairy chested ape men

I have been to sperm donor meetings and donors have an inner spark to accompany their higher than normal sperm counts, but testosterone wise they appeared average.

From my experience of support groups, and viewing avatar photos of this website, I would hazard a guess that testosterone does in fact play a part in ASD's.... autisms vary, I have met some hairy aspies, true

but not all autisms are the same, which is a kicker here

Recently, I have become aware of the how cannabis can lower male testosterone. But only significantly with chronic use and individuals with existing hormonal issues

I'm starting to see the effective treating of ASD's from a hormonal analysis approach, with potentially natural choices

The remedy is to abandon modern devices for environs free of electronics, plastics, processed foods, pesticides or city water supplies

Heading for the hills to repair hormonal and endocrine imbalances may pay the best dividend
but requires a high level of commitment

Imagine living in a log cabin, no electrickery or putas, drinking mountain water, eating wild foods
Everyday

So much estrogen in the water nowadays. All the waterfowl are having large gaggles.... and many females, that ratio will continue, which is at least good news for aspie guys :wink:



Sophie_C
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1

19 Nov 2012, 12:26 pm

OK, enough of the giant elephant in the room no one's talking about! :)

Yes, there is a transgender aspect to a number of people with Asperger's/ASD, and it's a lot higher than the average population.

Whether it's androgynous and the person is in the middle or is something more extreme, it is present in many of us.

Being born a boy or girl, it happens to both sides. And, while it's primarily in the mind, there can be a body-present manifestation to it, sometimes in the digits (like it is in partial deafness in a number of NT M2F TGs).



SilverDragonfly
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 15

19 Nov 2012, 1:42 pm

My ratio is 98.5 on both hands.

I am a female with diagnosed AS.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,852

19 Nov 2012, 4:37 pm

Sophie_C wrote:
OK, enough of the giant elephant in the room no one's talking about! :)

Yes, there is a transgender aspect to a number of people with Asperger's/ASD, and it's a lot higher than the average population.

Whether it's androgynous and the person is in the middle or is something more extreme, it is present in many of us.

Being born a boy or girl, it happens to both sides. And, while it's primarily in the mind, there can be a body-present manifestation to it, sometimes in the digits (like it is in partial deafness in a number of NT M2F TGs).


There seems to a significant potential association that hasn't been studied yet, specific to this issue, as unusual symmetry of the brain is associated left handedness which has some associations with the described conditions noted. Hormones affect brain development, and hormones affect digit ratio, there seems to me to be no doubt that it results in some interesting variations, in both areas.