Klarinet Archive - Posting 000676.txt from 2000/05

From: "Diane Karius, Ph.D." <dikarius@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Finger length, now Flapdoodle
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:53:57 -0400

Just a clarification: the ratio of the length of the second (index)
and fourth fingers IS lower in men than in women (meaning
that the fourth finger is longer than the index finger in men).
In fact, this is consistent enough that the ratio is often
used in general biology classes/undergraduate genetics as an example
of a gender linked trait that is readily measured without any special
equipment (and is therefore used in a trite little lab where
the students go out and collect proportions of several
different traits (including tongue rolling - another genetic
trait). Can I explain why this odd little fact is true- no. The
appearance of this trait does require testosterone in utero, and if
testosterone levels are high, the difference is greater than normal.

Do I actually believe that testosterone has anything to do with
musical ability? no - you'll note that the paper specified that
female musicans in the same orchestra did not have a lower ratio than
the average female does (i.e. it was fairly close to 1) - a definite
hitch in the broadest application of their little theory. I thought
the article was interesting in light of our recent conversation about
clarinet being perceived as unmanly, not as any proof of any
difference between male and female musical ability.

>
> Ms Loban articulates:
>
>
> <While finger size and shape clearly has a lot to do with whether or not
> playing particular instruments is comfortable (or possible), I'll just bet
> this whole business of relating finger length to masculinity will turn out to
> be a lot of flapdoodle cooked up by some eggspurt bent on justifying a
> research grant. Later some other eggspurt will justify another research
> grant by writing that the first eggspurt is as dumb as a doorknob, or
> highfalutin' words to that effect.>
>
> You got that right. Some of these alleged prestigious *Journals* are apparently comprimising
> their principals in order to produce text in the hope that principals of science will be
> overlooked. If there was peer review of this paper before publication, which I doubt, I
> can imagine one peer saying to another, "Where's this guys statistical support?" The other
> peer says, "There ain't any cuz the writer had so few data samples no statistical treatment
> would fit it much less show significance." 1st peer, "Then why are we considering it for
> publication?" 2nd peer, "Cuz he's my brother-in-law and the poor guy's been trying for
> 10 years to get a PhD" 1st peer, "If we publish this people are going to say we are a
> bunch of eggspurts,dumb as doorknobs and creating a pseudo-scientific flapdoodle." 2nd:
> "Yeah, well, at least the Nobel Committee will get a big laugh out of it."
>
> Don Longacre
> At the top of the food chain on the Beagle Planet.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>
Diane R. Karius, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology
University of Health Sciences
1750 Independence Ave.
Kansas City, MO 641o6-1453
email: dikarius@-----.EDU
http://uhsweb.edu/physio

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org