Tuesday, March 22, 2011

A Game Theory Classic: "What is a Shit Test?"

It was the initial discovery of a now defunct blog called "The Reality Method" that was my first "red pill" with regards to Game. I have no idea who that blogger was, but I read his entire blog and archives back in 2007 when I first discovered it. He had one post that was the ultimate eye opener for me, entitled "What is a Shit Test?"

Reading and understanding that post was THE paradigm shift in my understanding of female hypergamy, DHV, AMOG, and all of the other theories and jargon one encounters when they first discover "Game" on the internet.

While The Reality Method is long gone (not even google cache has it), I saved a few of his postings that were pivotal in helping me gain an understanding of "Game."

Here's what I saved from that classic post: "What is a Shit Test?"

“Passing Shit Tests – the Formulas that works 100% of the time:

As it turns out, there are a couple of ways you can pass a shit test, strike through the Gordian knot / slip between the horns of the dilemma.

1. Ignore it

Pretend you didn’t hear. Laugh it off or just pay attention to something else for a second. Let it roll off your back like water on a duck. This sounds easy, but to do it fully 100%, you have to really be totally nonreactive – I’m talking about down to the level of unconscious pupil dilation here. Otherwise she thinks you’re just avoiding answering – which is better than answering, but is still not going to make her very attracted to you.By ignoring it totally, though, you are saying in effect, “I won’t be tested. I totally refuse.” Which is dominant, but still a very blatant cop-out. Which is why I’ll only use this method as an absolute last resort, if I really am caught off-guard and blindsided by some test.

2. Agree and Amplify

If a girl says “I’m fat,” then “Yes, you’re HYOOOOOGE.” Or “It’s just more cushin’ for the pushin’.” Agree and Amplify; show her you’re not afraid to piss her off, but do it in a playful way. Don’t INSULT her; poke fun at her (gently). The worst you’ll get is a swat on the arm and that is proof that she is more attracted, not less.

Some people might also call this a “reframe”; a term which I believe is probably borrowed from political discourse terminology. You’ve taken her frame (the shit test) and turned it into something entirely different and non-threatening.

For instance, if she says, “You’re a tough guy, aren’t you?” You might say, “Yeah, so what is it you like about tough guys anyway?” Deliberately mis-interpreting her question as adoration, not a shit-test.

Reframing / Agreeing and Amplifying is powerful. It’s my preferred method of answering shit tests. It demonstrates that not only are you not needy / logical, but neither are you willing to fall into her trap and try to lie to her face.

Being able to sidestep the shit test is one of the most important aspects of interacting with women. Without this knowledge, you will get shot down / disqualified 95% of the time by truly “hot” women automatically, without them even thinking about it. I’ve written a lot lately about more “advanced” topics like bisexual girlfriends and threesomes, but I really think this post, and getting this one area handled, is responsible for guys getting into better interactions, more quickly, than all the advanced sex-theory I will *ever* write.

Ultimately, we should be glad for shit tests. They help ensure that every woman we met hasn’t already been plowed up one side and down the other by 15,000 other random guys.”

With more and more people discovering these concepts every day, I sometimes forget that I have been reading and internalizing the concepts of game for over 4 years now, and there are plenty of newcomers that still struggle with the concepts. Many men are angry when they discover the definition of a shit test. Many deny that it is an intrinsic part of a woman's psycho-sexual makeup...that "real Women" don't shit test. They couldn't be more wrong.

The Shit Test is how women screen the worthiness of potential mates. It is hard-wired in their psyche, in exactly the same way the male's primary means of screening potential mates is based on his visual assessment of her genetic suitability.

Getting angry at the female instinct to shit test is the equivalent to getting angry at the sun for rising in the East. It is an intrinsic part of woman-hood.

Susan Walsh pulls up an excellent example demonstrating this from her own past in a post she submitted to VD's Alpha Game as well as posting it at HUS.

It is a personal account of a boyfriend she had when she was 14 years old. Despite his good looks and her initial crush on him, he "beta-ized" rather quickly and killed her attraction for him. Without even conscious realization, Susan recalls giving him a shit test that he failed spectacularly. Despite her conscious desire to not be cruel to her boyfriend, she literally could not help her feelings of disgust and contempt when he failed her shit test.

There was a lot of anger and contempt expressed by commenters on Susan's post. These upset men fail to grasp the concept that his was not Susan's fault. It was not some great moral failings of a cruel 14 year old girl blithely dumping a boyfriend who was in mourning. The failure from her story comes from a society and culture that brainwashed her doomed ex-boyfriend into believing that showing his vulnerable side and communicating his fears and sorrows to her, and doing whatever ridiculous notion she requested was the key to attaining a lasting romantic and loving connection with her.

People seem to forget a basic fact of life for both males and females alike: attraction is not a choice. When you fail a woman's shit test, she cannot help the unattractiveness cue this gives her...anymore than a man who recoils in disgust at the thought of sexy time with an obese Wal-Martian.


Susan Walsh said...

Keoni, that's a great post, thanks. I appreciate the support, and am frankly relieved that I just didn't get the whole concept wrong.

It's clear this particular pill is very bitter indeed. I can imagine that any man who has displayed vulnerability and lost the sexual attraction of a female would have a visceral negative response to my post. It's very understandable, though it obviously doesn't do him any good.

Keoni Galt said...

No problem Susan.

It's the equivalent to a guy finding a woman attractive...then she puts on 50 lbs. in a short period of time. Should she expect him to have the same level of attraction?

YOHAMI said...

"The failure from her story comes from a society and culture that brainwashed her doomed ex-boyfriend into believing that showing his vulnerable side and communicating his fears and sorrows to her, and doing whatever ridiculous notion she requested was the key to attaining a lasting romantic and loving connection with her."


Default User said...

I think part of the bitterness also comes from realizing that even with his woman, the status/dominance battles continue. It is the realization that there is no place where he can let his guard down, no place where he can express any hint of vulnerability. The fact that the truths uncovered make the world seem a less pleasant place adds to the pain of learning them. For some it will take far too long to realize that closing your eyes will not make those truths go away.

Remy GIbson said...

Hey now, sometimes it works, *wink*. Keoni, howzit?


paige said...

I think a man can be a bit more vulnerable with time, just like a womans looks are going to diminish with time, pregnancy, etc. Once you have basically proven yourself you only need to do maintenance work, you don't have to CONSTANTLY prove your manliness. Unless you are with a BPDer then all bets are off.

My husband has gone through a lot. He had cancer, a severe back injury and surgery, a neck surgery, and has PTSD from OIF. Of course I am going to see him being a bit vulnerable sometimes. I wouldn't expect anything different.

After the cancer he had a hard time getting his confidence back up so when he was better I had to help him along with "reward the good ignore the bad" techniques. Eventually things got better. Now he is as dominant as he ever was...perhaps I "helped" a bit too much. lol.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Paige:

I was about to say the same thing. Roissy himself says you can "fail the test" about 25 percent of the time in a committed relationship, and I must ALSO point out that the thing that lost him Susans attraction wasn't the crying about his father (though he did it early and she wasn't used to it) it was when he leaped through hoops to please her.

I will also point out that I had to learn this s*** the hard way over the course of my life. It's not the 14 year old boys fault he had no clue about this stuff.

I also think that the tendency to "shit test" probably varies among women, I'm sure there are some women that would test HL less than his wife does and probably quite a few who would test him more. Then there's a few girls who DO seem (by their actions) to value male vulnerability, I think it's partly like most things: just like some women (1 to ten percent) seem to have male like sexual wiring, I suppose a few hyper empathetic girls might be easier to please in terms of "shit tests " than others.

Regardless, here's what men need to take away from this:

A. All women will shit test at one point or another
B. It's not necessarily failure to show vulnerability, sadness or fear, BUT such things are best shown only in terms of a long term relationship and should not be the majority of your interactions with women
C. You need to be able to tell when something is a shit test and something is a legitimate issue for her
D. Lastly, if in doubt it's usually best to assume it's a shit test. If you can't agree and amplify, or otherwise beat it, ignoring it is often a winning strategy
and lastly
E. Shit tests are a part of life, esp. if you like women in your life, so it's best to get used to them and learn how to handle them. Simple self-respect goes a long way, just because she has a vagina doesn't make her any better than you , and it doesn't mean she should always get her way.


MW said...

I've observed several marriages of peers for years. The good ones are true team efforts, with minimal to no shit testing. If a woman constantly does this, then she is immature and needs to grow up. This would sour me much quicker than fading looks, aging etc.

A good marriage should be just that, a team effort. Not a powerplay where the woman is reflexively probing her husband's weaknesses looking for the first tactical opportunity to undermine him and yield to hypergamy. AND if it is supposedly her nature that she has zero control over, this removes all personal responsibility off her shoulders, giving her carte blanche to act anyway she pleases. "ohh, I can't help it, "Thuglife" was so hot and my husband is never home, always working. So it's totally hubby's fault if I cheat. I'm not responsible. If I act like an entitled selfish bitch, I'm just being true to myself. Yay me!"

What childish horseshit.

Hermit said...

"Once you have basically proven yourself you only need to do maintenance work, you don't have to CONSTANTLY prove your manliness."

I agree with this. A man is allowed to show his weak side occasionally, under the right conditions. When it's the death of a loved one, or personal life threatening illness/disease, the man can show his "beta side". But if he's already been acting too beta otehrwise before the incident, then all bets are off.

"this removes all personal responsibility off her shoulders"

Actually it's the fault of the man for failing the test.

Workshy Joe said...

The more I think about this subject the more I marvel at the wonders of human evolution.

The truth of what women want in a man is astounding.

They really do care about a man's character.

Just not in the way that our popular culture has lead us to believe.

Dan in Philly said...

Strange. My wife is the kind of woman who demands an Alpha male, yet I was fairly beta when I met her. I think maybe her internal clock was part of what drove her to me, but still she gave me Shit test after shit test, and I failed most of them, which only lead to more and more misery on my part.

However I had one brief, shining moment, when she was yammering on and on about something, and I asked her with a twinkle in my eye, "Don't you ever shut up?" She laughed and swatted me. I think it was moments like that which caused her to not really give up on me as an encouragible permanent beta. This is good, as I have matured into the man I am, and we are happier than ever.

Miss Conduct said...

Unlike a lot of women, I have found little to disagree with in Game Theory's general descriptions of women's courtship behavior and the motives for such behavior. I recognize my past self ALL over the place. One of the things that doesn't sit right with me, though, is the concept of free will. People much smarter and more articulate than I am have written volumes on the subject, of course. I don't think I have much new to add, but for me the question doesn't go away. Game Theory is just a subset of evolutionary biology, as I understand it. I believe many evo-bios do indeed believe that humans have no free will, and that all human interaction is governed by inherited instinct.

When Keoni Galt proclaims Mrs. Walsh free of responsibility for shit testing her teenage boyfriend, because she was helplessly obeying the inborn instinct to evaluate his reproductive fitness, he reassigns responsibility to "society and culture." I agree that these societal messages encouraging men to act more like women are pernicious but I'm not comfortable assigning responsibility for a human act to anyone other than the actor. Especially not to a vague collective entity. That's what the social justice progressives who got us into this feminist mess do. No one's ever responsible for their actions, it's always some powerful white man's fault. Mrs. Walsh seems to be making the case for women to practice chastity, and laying out an excellent case for it. She must think women have some free will in these matters.

I expect quite a few men to pounce angrily and call me names for asking about this, but I'm really trying to work out what role free will, conscience, traditional morals, and personal accountability play here.

Keoni Galt said...

I agree that these societal messages encouraging men to act more like women are pernicious but I'm not comfortable assigning responsibility for a human act to anyone other than the actor.

Miss, it's not about assigning blame...think of it this way - if her old boyfriend KNEW that acting the way he did would cause Susan to lose attraction for him, you think he would have still done it?

It's not so much even the baring his soul to her that was the attraction killer, but the acceptance of her ridiculous request to stay up all night until he heard a particular song.

MW - I think Paige adequately addressed your point. I think Susan also raised a good one about your concerns as well - the state of the relationship is usually how much shit testing occurs.

In other words, the more shit tests you "pass," the less she will feel the need to give them...the more you "fail" the more she'll keep doing it.

Anonymous said...

It's the equivalent to a guy finding a woman attractive...then she puts on 50 lbs.

I have a question here. Which of these two cases is it more like?

A) A guy loses attraction after his she gains 50 pounds of her own doing.

B) A guy feeds her chocolate cake and fried food daily, tells her "I love heavy women, skinny girls are so ugly", and then leaves her when she gains weight.

It seems like B to me. If not, why?

A shit-test seems very different than just losing attraction when faced with unattractive behavior. There's deception, be it conscious or not.

Workshy Joe said...

@anon: yes, there is deception in every shit test. That's why they are called "shit" tests.

The woman is misdirecting the man in terms of what she wants or how she feels.

Here is the hoop. Jump through it please. If you comply, you fail. If you fail to comply, you succeed.

If you want a woman who doesn't do this, best of luck. LOL.

ironchefoklahoma said...

@Miss Conduct:
I think you raise valid points.

First off, any "evo-bio" person who denies free will is just wrong. Second, you are correct in evaluating Keoni's absolution of Walsh.

There might be a better way to look at this, one that answers a few other questions as well: evolutionary psychology can describe the impulses and motivations that drive women, but not predict their specific behavior.

(Same is true for economics. You can accurately identify incentives in economics and can predict how a population will react. Economics can't predict how an individual will make a single choice.)

Female Hypergamy is an excellent way to understand the impulses and motivations that drive women. However, their "free will, conscience, traditional morals, and personal accountability" will affect the degree to which each woman will respond to those impulses and motivations.

This also (I think) explains NAWALT: some women can rein in their hypergamous natures better than others.

In other words, Hypergamy and Game Theory can't tell you which horse will win. They can tell you how to bet.

jay c said...

Here's another forum that quotes the same article.

Anonymous said...

Not that it'll happen in my lifetime, but: it's high time humanity put its foot down about this slavish devotion to 'attraction' - which is, after all, whim. In cases like this, to hell with attraction. Quit behaving like an animal and do your god damned duty as a human being. And a sane society, of course, would treat those who insist on behaving like animals as animals and use them as pets, slaves, or food.

Anonymous said...

Amazing things you learn surfing the net: male-female relationships are kind of a constant testing... shit-teasting in fact.

Just looking for more info on the subject I found that Every shit-test is to determine whether the man is willing to act without concern for what the woman thinks.

So, that's probably why I'm so happy in my relationship: I never knew what a shit-test is, so I never cared about it.

Maybe I was shit-tested many times, but normally my attitude towards a woman (or a man, or elf, or troll) that wants to know if I'm strong (or clever / smart / quick / masculine / successful/ you name it) enough to fit her/his standards, is something as a polite and smiling "shit-test-yourself-darling" behavior.

Today I couldn't be more happily in love. I tell my experience just in case someone finds it useful.


Hawaiian Tattoos said...

Ah, the 50's would have been lovely in an ideal way.. like a tropical paradise, but then again there is always malaria, oppressive heat, saw grass, jagged coral, and a lack of all comforts.. hmm.

Anonymous said...

i'm interested, what would your take be on the mental health issues associated with continually having to not have vulnerability?

Men have higher rates of depression, suicides, alcoholism and general anger in men as a result of having no outlet for emotions.

Keoni Galt said...

Men have higher rates of depression, suicides, alcoholism and general anger in men as a result of having no outlet for emotions.

I disagree with that one.

Men have higher rates of depression, suicide, alcoholism and anger, because they have been disenfranchised and dispossessed of that which they hold most dear to them.

Are you telling me if we somehow found it socially acceptable for men to just break down and cry and garner sympathy from society at large, that would make up for a man who's wife left him and took the kids and alienated them from him?


Male mental health issues have got nothing to do with 'expressing vulnerability' and everything to do with having no power over having the things they value most taken away from them.

Anonymous said...

Actually, women have a higher rate of depression. Men are more likely to commit suicide when they are depressed, however.

Alex said...

Hi Keoni,

I don't know if you are informed whenever someone comments, but FYI:

Via the following link you can actually still access the whole blog "The Reality Method". As you said - really great stuff.

Maybe you want to give other readers the opportunity to have a closer look there, too.


BTW: Do you have some suggestions as to how to find a compatible wife as an introvert? (I am 23)

Jennifer said...

It's one thing if the guy went beta over minor issues, but if he was grieving and just being "beta" about that with her, I think she was cold (unless it was simply too soon in the relationship for that; sounds like it was). But shit testing is sounding more complicated now: on the one hand it's said guys are supposed to prove their mettle by not succumbing to her whims or whatever, but on the other hand if she asks whether she's fat, she's asking for reassurance and THEN, he clearly should act out of concern for what she thinks, unlike what anonymous said. Damn. Some of these terms make things sound light, like it really is a game, but in the midst of relationships it's not; it really is vital for men to either refuse to bend to someone else's standards or reassure their wives when it's needed.

Jennifer said...

Amen Paige and MW! What awesome comments!

Shit tests ALWAYS have deception? I dunno; a while ago I was asking Alte on her blog what shit-testing was. Around the same time, I made clear some of my egalitarian beliefs about the sexes; Alte later said that I was shit-testing her and her posters myself! And she was right; in a way, I was, though I didn't know it at the time. By laying out my egal beliefs, I wanted to see how they'd react. But if the common definition of shit tests is true, then this would mean that the reaction I HOPED for would be that they would all rebuff my egal beliefs, and that's not true. If anything, I wanted just the opposite, for them to not try and fight me on them; it was a way of testing the waters. No wonder men are confused.