Episode 97: The 2D:4D digit ratio

Episode 97: The 2D:4D digit ratio

Author: Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie March 10, 2026 Duration: 1:03:23

The last few episodes have been pretty heavy. So here’s… well, here’s the 2D:4D ratio. Does the difference in length between your index finger and your ring finger reveal a huge amount about your personality (and much more besides)?

Perhaps you won’t be surprised by the answer. But we promise you’ll be surprised by just how much effort scientists have put into finding out…

The Science Fictions podcast is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. And now, articles from Works in Progress magazine are read aloud to you by… Stuart from Science Fictions. Every week, a new audio version of a WiP article will be released for your listening enjoyment. Find out more at www.worksinprogress.news.

Show notes

* Anthropological paper from 1888 on hands

* A “preliminary investigation” of digit ratio and personality (2002)

* Meta-analysis on the topic of aggression from 2017

* PNAS study on the digit ratios of London City traders

* Vastly bigger, null study on 2D:4D and economic preferences

* Study of digit ratio in orchestral musicians

* Follow-up study with contradictory results on musical abilities

* 2D:4D and the wearing of wedding rings

* Original paper on sexuality and digit ratio

* 2025 meta-analysis

* Digit ratio and penis size

* Manning’s 2020 paper on COVID-19 and digit ratio

* Critical follow-up letter

* 2010 meta-analysis on athletic ability

* Using 2D:4D to understand prehistoric cave paintings

* 2021 BMJ Christmas Issue study on digit ratio and luck

* Comparing inter- and intra-observer reliability for digit ratios across different measures (and Manning’s concerns about similar)

* Debate over “allometric scaling”: concerned; less concerned

* 2024 meta-analysis on whether this even relates to other testosterone measures

* 2026 meta-analysis still using 2D:4D (among other measures)

Credits

The Science Fictions podcast is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Every week, Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie pull apart the biggest arguments and most confusing claims making headlines. Science Fictions isn't just about celebrating breakthroughs; it's a necessary dive into the messy, contested, and often surprising realities of how science actually works. You'll hear them unpack heated debates, examine questionable studies, and explore why even solid research can sometimes lead to public confusion. This podcast serves as a guide through the noise, separating compelling evidence from overblown narratives. Each episode feels like a conversation with two deeply informed friends who aren't afraid to ask tough questions, offering clarity on topics that matter. For anyone curious about the stories behind the science headlines, this is an essential listen. Tune in for thoughtful analysis that goes beyond the press release, grounded in a genuine fascination with how we know what we know.
Author: Language: English Episodes: 100

Science Fictions
Podcast Episodes
Episode 99.5: Candidate genes [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:13:09
Here’s another one for the annals of “entire scientific field becomes totally misguided for decades”. How could it have been possible that so many scientists fell for the idea of candidate genes—that there were individua…
Episode 99: Power posing [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:13:01
For a while in the early-to-mid 2010s, the most prominent psychology research in the world was on power posing. Harvard’s Amy Cuddy did a TED talk that reached tens of millions; her exhortation to “fake it til you make i…
Paid-only episode 28: Tourette's syndrome [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 10:21
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comHave you seen the award-winning film I Swear, about a Scottish man with Tourette’s? (The less said about what happened at the c…
Episode 98: Dark oxygen [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 58:38
In 2024, researchers claimed to find something mysterious at the bottom of the ocean. It was “dark oxygen”—oxygen produced where there’s no chance of photosynthesis. So what could possibly be producing it?Natural batteri…
Paid-only episode 27: Antidepressants [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 9:06
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comAnd now… following last week’s episode on ECT, here’s part two of our double episode on depression treatments. This time we’re…
Episode 96: Electroconvulsive therapy [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:13:25
Open up some scientific papers, and you’ll hear electroconvulsive therapy described as the most effective treatment for depression (especially very severe depression). But open up others, and you’ll see it described as c…
Episode 95: Critical thinking [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:01:00
This episode is dedicated to Justin Eldridge.We like to think that, in often hamfisted ways, we’re applying critical thinking on this show. But what even is “critical thinking”? Can you measure it? Can you teach it to ki…
Episode 94: Medical marijuana [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:02:58
Here’s another episode that revists a topic we’ve covered before. A while back, we did an episode on the downsides of cannabis (for example, the risk of psychosis). But of course, a lot of people claim there are medical…
Paid-only episode 26: Microplastics redux [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 10:47
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.comIt’s rare that we return to a topic, but it’s also nice to have been right. In 2024 we did an episode on microplastics, and cas…
Episode 93: Many analysts [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:18:44
Here’s a cheery one for our first episode of the year. Guess what happens when you give several sets of scientists the same dataset and ask them to answer the same question? Well, they all find the same results, right? R…