File this under ridiculous study of the day: Bloomberg is reporting a University of Cambridge study that found traders whose ring fingers are longer than average make more money than others.
You’ve likely heard about “digit ratio” theory before. It’s based on the premise that finger size reflects how much testosterone an unborn baby is exposed to in utero, and that testosterone encourages risk-taking. This is the first time I’ve seen the emphasis on one’s ring finger, however, instead of on how short (or not) one’s index finger is. A 2005 study by University of Alberta researchers, for example, determined that the shorter the index finger, the more physically aggressive a man is. (The researchers, who studied 300 people’s fingers, said the same wasn’t true of verbal aggression, though how I’d like to know.)
The most absurd facet of the Cambridge study is the number of London traders whose fingers were measured: 44. I guess the difference in their take-home pay made the data too compelling to ignore. According to the researchers’ findings, the longer fingered traders made an average of $1 million annually; the stubbier fingered bunch made an average of just $90,956.