Classify Oscar Wilde

[Gamera]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fQqHHodIre0/THAYVmGQzgI/AAAAAAAADxE/TpDd1V1FtWY/s1600/Oscar+Wilde.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_21uyteZHo9A/SzHfQDa2XlI/AAAAAAAAJeU/DeayKo2m31Q/s400/chp_oscar_wilde.jpg

http://www.1001libros.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/oscar-wilde_main.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_znvhR0is8nc/SC9VuJTn0TI/AAAAAAAAAsg/vdexAbPZlxw/s400/oscar_wilde.jpg

[Matritensis]

Brilliant Gay Extraordinnaire.

[Agrippa]

Slightly feminised Atlanto-Nordid.

[Aviane]

North Atlantid.

[Don]

Gamera, muchos de tus personajes poseen rasgos en común... que me hace recordar a mi respetado Quevedo.


Érase un hombre a una nariz pegado.
Érase una nariz superlativa.
Érase una alquitara medio viva.
Érase un peje espada mal barbado.
Era un reloj de sol mal encarado.
Érase un elefante boca arriba.
Érase una nariz sayón y escriba.
Un Ovidio Nasón mal narigado.
Érase el espolón de una galera.
Érase una pirámide de Egito.
Los doce tribus de narices era.

Érase un naricísimo infinito,
Frisón archinariz, caratulera,
sabañón garrafal morado y frito.

[Curtis24]

Slightly feminised Atlanto-Nordid.

How can you tell he's feminised?

[Debaser11]

Sexually and racially "progressive."

[Curtis24]

Sexually and racially "progressive."

Come now, how exactly is a person "sexually" progressive? :P

[Debaser11]

According to the media, by being a...oh you have that little smiley guy at the end of your question. :)

[The Ripper]

Are big reproductive organs a progressive trait for males? :cool:

[Debaser11]

^Not according to Dr. Phillip Rushton.

To paraphrase him:

"Do you want big brains or a big penis? You can't have both. Take your pick."

[The Ripper]

^Not according to Dr. Phillip Rushton.

To paraphrase him:

"Do you want big brains or a big penis? You can't have both. Take your pick."

Does it have to be either or. :(

[Debaser11]

Well, Rushton has been described as a race realist. But one can dream, I suppose. Why do you think I type like Mordid?:cool:

[The Ripper]

Well, Rushton has been described as a race realist. But one can dream, I suppose. Why do you think I type like Mordid?:cool:

:D :thumb001:

[Curtis24]

^Not according to Dr. Phillip Rushton.

To paraphrase him:

"Do you want big brains or a big penis? You can't have both. Take your pick."

I"ll have to look this guy up.

[Curtis24]

^Not according to Dr. Phillip Rushton.

To paraphrase him:

"Do you want big brains or a big penis? You can't have both. Take your pick."

Well, after reading his Wiki article, I disagree with much of his theories. First, he's wrong that testosterone("big penis") and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Military and corporate leaders typically test higher than average for testosterone - clearly these people aren't of low intelligence compared to the general population.

Second, I also disagree with his theory that higher intelligence necessarily means a higher degree of altruism. His Wikipedia article explicitly states that Rushton believes that Mongoloids(East Asians) engage in more caring behavior because they have higher average intelligence than Caucasians. I don't see this based on anecdotal observation and experience - for instance, how does "I.Q = kindness" square with the systemic atrocities committed by the Japanese in WWII? Or the Mongols under Genghis Khan, for that matter?

[Groenewolf]

Second, I also disagree with his theory that higher intelligence necessarily means a higher degree of altruism. His Wikipedia article explicitly states that Rushton believes that Mongoloids(East Asians) engage in more caring behavior because they have higher average intelligence than Caucasians. I don't see this based on anecdotal observation and experience - for instance, how does "I.Q = kindness" square with the systemic atrocities committed by the Japanese in WWII? Or the Mongols under Genghis Khan, for that matter?

I agree that a high IQ does not necessarily mean that someone has to be more altruistic. However there is a higher change to have a long term view on things and to oversee the consequences of actions. However I do not think it is an effective barrier against psychopathy on its own.

[Murphy]

I'm beginning to think the people in this thread truly don't have any understanding of Oscar Wilde.

[Curtis24]

I agree that a high IQ does not necessarily mean that someone has to be more altruistic. However there is a higher change to have a long term view on things and to oversee the consequences of actions. However I do not think it is an effective barrier against psychopathy on its own.

True. But I think morality is more complex than being "high I.Q. = only behaving immoral when you can get away with it". There have been many times where I personally could have done immoral things, in my self-interest, and easily gotten away with it with no longterm consequences. But I chose not to do those things.

At the same time, many low intelligence, blue collar workers - white and black - have strong moral codes, working steadfastly their entire lives despite having low social status.

Obviously, those with low IQ are more likely to be caught for crimes. But I"m not so sure that low IQ by itself is a predictor of criminality - perhaps when combined with other aspects it could be, but not by itself.

[Debaser11]

Curtis, those are all valid criticisms of the man. I was sort of speaking in jest about the big penis/big brains thing. I think his studies on IQ are valuable, though. He sort of gets too hung up on showing Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid as a linear progression in every respect. I think he oversimplifies the role of testosterone, too. I also do not think Mongoloids are more altruistic. I even believe that Negroids in their proper context (Africa without outside perversion of their culture), can be quite altruistic in their own right. But all the evidence we have about world culture completely goes against that claim he makes about East Asians being the most altruistic. He should just stick to raw left-brained IQ studies.

As far as understanding Oscar Wilde, Dorian Gray is a great big fag book. What's there to understand?

[Groenewolf]

True. But I think morality is more complex than being "high I.Q. = only behaving immoral when you can get away with it". There have been many times where I personally could have done immoral things, in my self-interest, and easily gotten away with it with no longterm consequences. But I chose not to do those things.

There is a correlation between low intelligence and tendency to commit crimes. However I do agree with you that it is not the only factor in play. That is what I meant with a barrier. Like I said high intelligence in this context means being better able to oversee the long term consequences of such actions. However it does not have to lead to altruistic behavior, which seems to influenced by other factors then someones raw intelligence.

[Agrippa]

Well, after reading his Wiki article, I disagree with much of his theories. First, he's wrong that testosterone("big penis") and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

Yes, that is wrong if you put it that way at least, because being high in testosterone might or might not mean you have a huge penis. Actually many Eunuchoid variants have a bigger penis than many hypermasculine ones, so to conclude from penis sizes to masculinity is not exactly right.

On average, there is this correlation, but there are other genetic factors involved on an individual basis, other traits can be more conclusive than penis size, which is still an indicator though of course.

Its similar to hairiness, because hairiness too being increased by masculinity, but other genetic factors can be much more important, so you can end up with a hairless but highly masculine male - vice versa less often, but still often enough, just think on hairy but normally fertile and otherwise normal (hypertrichosis) women.


Military and corporate leaders typically test higher than average for testosterone - clearly these people aren't of low intelligence compared to the general population.

Yes, but they are a selection from the higher level segment, they are the risk taking and often less empathic individuals.

Otherwise a hormonal level around the average (somewhat above is ok, somewhat below too), seems to be optimal, neither too high nor too low is better and Europids to good overall.


Second, I also disagree with his theory that higher intelligence necessarily means a higher degree of altruism.

That's right, but to make the great post of Groenewolf even more simple: Stupid people do more often stupid things ;)


His Wikipedia article explicitly states that Rushton believes that Mongoloids(East Asians) engage in more caring behavior because they have higher average intelligence than Caucasians.

I'm not sure about that, he just states they are that way and that is true, they are more law abiding and have a lower tendency especially to uncontrolled aggressive behaviour in comparison especially to Western African Negrids.


I don't see this based on anecdotal observation and experience - for instance, how does "I.Q = kindness" square with the systemic atrocities committed by the Japanese in WWII? Or the Mongols under Genghis Khan, for that matter?

Well, now you look at those things from the modern Western Liberal and Cultural Marxist perspective, but that is wrong.

Because even in the bible, originally, not killing another human was the great sin per se, but killing another member of your group and that even worse for a bad reason is the BIG SIN.

If you kill other people in a war, and it is even a just war, or one helping your people, that is nothing of a crime. Something like international law being very new and to think of murder in times of war as being the same as doing a violent crime in peace is something naturally rather foreign to most traditionallly living people.

Actually the opposite is true, you sacrifice yourself as a soldier for your people, that is a collective and moral deed.

So you better judge how often a people fought to the death, for their people, their ruler, their law, their principles and their interests, rather than looking at whether they killed others in times of war.

It is always about individual crimes in the context of a given group and rule. So you should rather look for the criminal statistics and individual behaviour for comparing people on that.

War is something exceptional and there are completely different rules in war - even the Jews and bible knew, some modern Christians and their secular spin offs wanted to make it otherwise - for good or for bad - or both, but that is far from the truth in most of history.

Also, the Tungids are no ideal Mongoloids in that comparison, they are not living in huge social unities, closely together, in a civilised society like the typical East Asian farmer civilisations, so they are, actually, a different kind of Mongolids (Northern ones) than those which Rushton used for his studies - he dealt mostly with Eastern and Southern Mongolids.

By the way, the Mongol Khan was an exception individually too, because he was particularly cruel in certain respects and even killed his brother at young age already it seems. So he doesn't serve us a good example in any case...

[Sharkeatpeople]

Nordo-Atlantid/Atlanto-Nordid.

[Smeagol]

Atlanto-Nordid.

[Graham]

Atlanto-keltic.

[SkyBurn]

As far as understanding Oscar Wilde, Dorian Gray is a great big fag book. What's there to understand?

Of course this member was from Texas :P

Anyway, I'm going Kelto-Nordid

[Kalimtari]

Stephen Fry vibe

[Bagot]

Stephen Fry vibe

+ 1

[Iloko]

North Atlantid

[Odin]

Atlantid.

[The Blade]

Hallstatt Nordid.

[Swept Under]

Tronder-like type(Keltic Nordic with Alpine/Brunn/Borreby-like element).

[Aiwado]

Northwest European. A great poet.

[Streuner]

Dinarized North Atlantid

[Kore]

Halstatt Nordid