T Nation

2D:4D Ratio


I've been reading up about this lately, when I can, but the more I read and think about it, the more it appears to be a very misguided and contradictory field of research.

For example, one group of researchers will state that very low 2d:4d ratios (more masculine) are indicators for homosexuality, another group will state the opposite; that homosexual men possess more feminine ratios.

Also curious is the fact that they believe low ratios are predictors of male facial attractiveness. One of the leading researchers in this field is Professor John Manning. Manning himself has a very low, masculine ratio of 0.90, but here is what he looks like:

I don't know, somehow I don't think he has to pry women off him with a crowbar. I know plenty of guys that I would say are definitely high T guys, but they are to be frank, ugly as shit, so I'm not sure about the correlation between facial attractiveness and high prenatal testosterone exposure, I think that might more come down to what your parents looked like.

Furthermore, indicators of sporting talent?? How can you even quantify something that has as many variables as that. In one of the studies Manning conducts, he measures an up and coming soccer talent, who has a ratio of 0.97, which is pretty average at best. Sure there's probably never been guys playing a sport at elite levels that were low-T, but there are so many more variables to consider.

Then again, I'm no researcher and possibly just greatly misinterpreting the findings?


Facial attractiveness as an aesthetic quality is found to be due in large part to symmetry in both males and females. The Fink study correlated high test with less symmetry, based on the 2d4d ratio.

The ratio is not necessarily the whole picture though. Just part of it.


So you're saying the study correlated high test with less attractive faces? Interesting.

Do you have a link to the study perchance?


Sounds like some ugly nerd who's been rejected his whole life trying to prove he is genetically better looking than other guys.


It is in the wiki article you posted under Digit Ratio and Development. There is a works cited list at the end of it that just says [Fink et al 2004].

PubMed or some other scholastic resource would probably turn it up.

I can't really say that it correlates high test with less attractiveness. What people find attractive is way too subjective. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Here is the other 2-