From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Wankerology is the study of Wankers, in particular reference to the “Wanker score” of each individual, a measure of how much of a wanker that person is. For current wankerology research, the following definitions apply:
- An inept, foolish, or contemptible person.
- An term of address for people who are stupid or irritating to a person of high intelligence.
- A term for anybody whose actions directly cause harm or irritation.
edit Early years
The study of Wankerology was first thought of by Professor E. Centric at The University of Elitist Bastards when he was casting around for ideas for his PhD thesis. However, his studies were extremely limited due to his original definition:
- One who wanks.
After a short time toying with the idea, he realized that the ideas would never take hold due to the existence of the competing science of sociology.
edit First Revival
One of his students, however, thought differently. His name was John Smith (curiously enough this happened by sheer accident – his birth certificate was mistakenly replaced by a credit card advert at birth) and he proposed that “wankerishness” was in fact the practical face of stupidity, arrogance and annoyingness. He proposed the following axiom, laws and observations:
edit Axiom of Wankerology:
- Stupidity will always flow from a source of greater wankerhood to a place of lesser wankerhood.
edit The First Fundamental Law of Wankerology:
- Wankerishness cannot be created from nothing.
edit The Second Fundamental Law of Wankerology:
- In any social interaction, there will always be some residual loss of wankerishness.
edit The Third Fundamental Law of Wankerology:
- No person can be reduced to zero wankerishness.
To these he added two observations:
edit Observation One:
- A non-wanker’s resistance to the influence of wankerhood is in direct proportion to the ratio of the wanker’s intelligence to their own.
edit Observation Two:
- Disdain and condescension will always be directed at wankers by non-wankers, and vice-versa.
He kept his thoughts to himself due to fear of ridicule by his fellow peers. When he decided to tell one of his close friends about his prized ideas, his friend suggested there should be a Zeroth Fundamental Law: That wankers must always harm humanity and must always put it in a position to come to harm.
Although he laughed along with his classmate, the small humiliation was enough to stop him from developing the science any further.
edit Second Revival
Five years after Professor E. Centric had completed his PhD (on something), he mentioned the subject to two of his students, who were known simply as Dan and Matt as they were too arrogant for last names. They were captivated with the idea, and worked together to flesh out the main ideas, concepts and mathematical equations that form the basis of current Wankerology study.
They arrived with the currently accepted definitions of wankers, presented at the beginning of the article.
edit First Ideas
The first idea proposed by the duo was that a person’s level of Wanké (a measure of a person’s wankerhood [the ‘é’ is because all the French are wankers]) is decided by stupidity, aggressiveness, arrogance, and childishness.
edit Stupidity Equations:
The duo reasoned that stupidity has a large basis in intelligence (duh) and thus must decrease in a linear fashion from low intelligence to high intelligence. Hence;
Wanké = -(1/2)IQ + 100 (allows for 0 ≤ IQ ≤ 200 )
They later realized that the +100 term is redundant, for this equation serves an equal purpose without it, as all people would be affected by the same +100 constant.
edit Aggressiveness Equations:
When dealing with arrogance, the two students discovered that people are generally very arrogant until they are smart enough to realise that fighting gets you hurt, but personality comes into play. Thus they proposed that aggressiveness is inversely proportional to a person’s intelligence (in their data, measured by IQ) but directly proportional to the aggressiveness of their personality. Hence;
Wanké = Ag/IQ (K is the aggressiveness constant, measured in “thoughts of fighting while drunk per hour”, or tFh-1 )
However, this idea’s outputs only gave meaningful values of Wanké for the segment of the population with extremely low intelligence. Better results were found by substituting √IQ into the equation:
Wanké = Ag/√IQ (K is the aggressiveness constant, measured in “thoughts of fighting while drunk per hour”, or tFh-1 )
edit Arrogance Equations:
Satisfied with their linking of Wanké to Aggressiveness, they set about linking arrogance with Wanké. The duo theorised that arrogance is directly linked with intelligence, as smart people have something to be arrogant about. Dan proposed that stupid people were also likely to be arrogant as they didn’t know better, so:
Wanké = Ar/|IQ-100| (K is the arrogance constant, determined by “I’m-better-than-you-and-I-know-it remarks per hour” or Rh-1.)
This idea was shot down my Matt, who noted that the arrogance in stupid people that Dan had observed was in fact a facet of aggressiveness. The two then decided that arrogance only came into play after a certain level of intelligence. This “entry level” was in turn dependent on how strong the “arrogance factor” of the person’s personality was. Hence;
Wanké = 1.ab^(IQ-1ab) where a and b are digits such that 100 ≤ 1a1a2 < 200
edit Childishness equations:
After toying with several equations involving childishness, the team realized that it was independent from intelligence, and could thus be represented by the addition of a constant (determined by personality) to the equation. Hence;
Wanké = C (C is the childishness constant, determined in “sucked-thumbs-per-hour” or Th-1)
edit Final Equation:
Wanké = Ag/√IQ + 1.ab^(IQ-1ab) – (1/2)IQ + C
edit Further Study
Further study into the mysterious realm of Wankers is constant, and Dan and Matt are constantly engaged in research. As such, this page may not always be up to date on the latest ideas and concepts. Pity, that.
However, the duo are currently collecting data on the First World Wanker Survey. Put your values into the equations, and send it all to:
wankerology AT hotmail DOT com
They have promised to pretend that yours was next on the list to reply to, if only they had enough time. They also promise to get straight back to you if you can improve on their formulas.
“To be honest, it can't be that hard. Most of it's shit anyway.”