Monday, November 7, 2016

The Smackability Quotient™: HOW TO calculate if someone is worth smacking


Written by Nashama Mohamed, in collaboration with Nicole Tirrell.

This is dedicated to my dear friend Michael McCreary, who said the word "chillax" twice in a radio interview.

Summary:

This paper explores the fringe mathematics of objectively determining if an individual qualifies to be smacked, by constructing a mathematical formula and graphical representation of great scientific value.

Introduction: 

Physically, it's not difficult to apologize. But not everyone has the privilege to be forbearing. Saying, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, and here's a cupcake," is hard work for many individuals. It's called having an enormous ego, and it is a psychological condition that plagues more than 27% of the world population (Narcissus, 2013).  

There is an abundance of research in current literature of psychology regarding Narcissism and how people come to be complete bigots, however, there is a dearth of literature about the implications on people who surround these individuals. 

It's the same principle the 21st century philosopher Ricky Gervais contends (Ricky, 2013), "When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid."

Wise, scientifically accurate words.

It is for this purpose my colleague and I will attempt to construct a mathematical instrument that would accurately calculate (yes, really) if these individuals are worth smacking.



Shown above is a simple and elegant formula derived from several components of the human personality. Because, after all, when smacking someone (preferably in the throat), what we are looking for is simplicity and elegance.

Purpose:

The aims of constructing this equation are to simplify the complicated decision of inflicting violence on smackable individuals and to offset the disturbing number of yoga pants articles affiliated with Smackability™ on Google search results. 

Analysis:







Social scientists Robert Raskin (dead) and Howard Terry (also dead, I presume) created a wonderful 40-item questionnaire called Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) to measure narcissism in an individual.

In our equation, Ego is equated with narcissism and pride, although I'm afraid Sigmund Freud will give me hell for this. Ego is also directly proportional to Smackability™ of a person, implying that the higher one's Ego quotient is, the more smackable one becomes.







Tolerance can be assessed through the lens of various concepts, such as disability tolerance, LGBT tolerance, gender tolerance, and even tolerance of co-workers talking about their foot fungus.

A bunch of dull scientists created an interactive series of tests called Implicit-association Test  (IAT), designed to dive deep into your psyche and determine whether you're a human landfill or not. The Tolerance component of our equation will be the score you achieve in any of these test, which you can take for free in here.

This is paradigm shifting.

Finding the Threshold of Smacking

We have now established the definitions of the two components and its derivatives. Wasn't that a hoot?

The NPI test gives you a definite score between 1 to 40, however, IAT doesn't give you any. Instead, the bias tests give you vague categories of, "No Preference," "Slight Preference," "Moderate Preference," and "Strong Preference." Because that's how they roll.

Fret not. We have established fixed scores for these categories which are as follows:

No Preference = 1 unit.

Slight Preference = 10 units.

Moderate Preference = 20 units.

Strong Preference = 30 units.

We translated this into a graph. See below and calculate if that bugger is deserving of physical altercation.

Enlarge this thing here.

To clarify, the pale red area of the graph represents the scores of The Smackability Quotient™, the darkened area of the graph is utterly useless, and the Coin Toss Point is literally you flipping a coin. Heads? Leave. Tails? Smack.

Most importantly, we have added an Area of Exemption, where an individual's personality is so atrocious to the point they are beyond help. Do not engage in physical altercation with these individuals for they are already dead to you.

Ethical Implications: 

Calculating a quotient constructed in a sketchy blog with unreliable mathematics to smack someone (preferably in the throat) has no ethical implications, obviously.

This document will definitely hold up in court when you face assault charges.  

References:
  1.  Narcissus, C. (2013). I made this up, I just like the number 27, New York: St. Smack's Press
  2. Ricky, G. 2013. I can't believe I'm Harvard referencing a tweet. Is this what my academic career has come to? [Twitter]. 30 Oct. Available from: https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/395479363229323264 [Accessed: 23 September 2016].

No comments:

Post a Comment