Bow's Potential Success in Business

Bow's ring finger is much longer than his index finger

The other day I read an article that purported to be able to predict success in business based on the relative length of the ring versus index finger. Those with ring fingers longer than index finger were supposed to be much better at business than those for whom the opposite condition held true. This was supposed to be the case regardless of gender. The idea behind it was that a longer ring finger tends to be an indicator of greater exposure to testosterone in the womb, and higher testosterone masculinizes the brain, regardless of genetic or anatomical gender. Thus official sex has less bearing on business success than the relative length of one's ring finger as compared to one's index finger.

As might well have been predicted, I immediately started studying my ring and my index finger and came to the conclusion that they are nearly equal. It is actually hard to tell which one is longer, though if you look at the joints, my index finger's joints occur higher, so I think my index finger is a little longer.

But then I looked at Bow's! His ring finger is so obviously longer than his index fnger that there is no room for doubt!

Bow, according to that article, has great potential for success in business! Maybe I should just turn the reins of Inverted-A Press over to him! There's just one problem. Bow has no work ethic. None whatever. When I ask him to proof a book, he just scribbles over everything. It's not that he can't read. It's not that he is unintelligent. He just does not seem to be able to curb his desire of the moment in order to accomplish a distant goal. He has problems with impulse control. 

And this made me question the results in that article even more. As explained in the article, the longer ring finger is a result of greater exposure to testosterone in the womb. If that is the case, then there is certainly no question in my mind that Bow was exposed to a great deal more testosterone in the womb than I was. Number one, he's male and I am female. Number two, he's a chimpanzee and I am a human. I think male chimps are probably exposed to more testosterone in the womb than the average male human. That's why a male chimpanzee is super masculine, compared to a male human. Exposure to testosterone makes male chimps much more aggressive than male humans. They feel the need to constantly display their greater dominance.

However, in order to succeed in business, you also have to exercise a great deal of self-control, planning for the future and making sure that you do not crash and fail, due to too much risk-taking. If today's business climate requires the aggressive nature  of a chimpanzee male without self-control, it can be for only one reason: that going into debt and incurring bankruptcy is not punished with dire consequences, anymore.

At this point, some of my readers wll probably protest that I am forgetting there's a difference between humans and chimpanzees that transcends the issue of the ratio of ring to index finger length. No, I'm not forgetting that. I know that humans and chimpanzees are different in many ways, I just don't happen to think it's a matter of intelligence. It is, in my opinion, much more an issue of self-control.

Do I think that if chimpanzees show they are capable of language they should be granted the rights of humans, including universal suffrage? No, I do not. I think that someone who is not capable of managing money -- no matter how intelligent he is -- should not get to vote. I think that it's not about sex or race or species: it's about personal responsibility. Bow has not demonstrated that he is capable of  personal responsibility, and that's why he should not have the same rights as the rest of us.

On my other blog today, I write about the universal suffrage that was granted in New Jersey  between 1776 and 1807 to all free people of any color or gender over the age of twenty-one who were not in debt and owned property valued at fifty pounds. 

http://theodosiaandthepirates.blogspot.com/2014/08/universal-suffrage-for-free-people-in.html

This is what the animal rights activists do not seem to grasp: you cannot be free unless you are responsible for yourself. Those who are supported by others need to be under the control of the people who take care of them and pay for their food and clothing and shelter. It is not right for anyone else to have any say in the matter. It is not right for some people to be taxed so that other people can raise chimpanzees or children or run a business. 

If the people who are most successful in business today have ring fingers that more nearly resemble Bow's rather than mine, this may have been the result of a simple selective process: allowing debtors to vote away the rights of creditors.  It may not seem like a subject for scientific inquiry, but natural selection works in mysterious ways!