This test might make you feel bad, but not me... because it kicked me out at question #1... which taught me the meaning of the acronym "waysa."
Dr. Helen took the test, which told her she was a "classic beta." Among her minuses: cursing. Fuck that test.
July 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
51 comments:
This is why I have no intention of re-entering the dating scene after the death of my husband. We were married 16 years, most of them happy, which I think would come as a surprise to whoever wrote that test.
but the exceptions don’t make the rules.
Well, that's wrong.
Shows how much they know. The test, of course, is all about externals. After 40, if that's all you care about, you are in for a very bad time.
Naomi said...
This is why I have no intention of re-entering the dating scene after the death of my husband. We were married 16 years, most of them happy, which I think would come as a surprise to whoever wrote that test.
You broke the code.
But don't close your heart. You never know what goodies life may have in store and there are people out there who really can see past the packaging.
Ann Althouse said...
which taught me the meaning of the acronym "waysa."
Bet Meade can tell you.
I just want to...uh,...the mole...with the hair, uh
never mind.
Even though I'm 'waysa', I persevered for awhile but it got to be too much work. No wonder I'm 'waysa'. Thank God for a happy marriage...I truly would hate to feel I had to try to be a success at dating.
Roissy also has a dating market value test for men. It's pretty interesting too.
Now, if *I* were to create a dating market value test for women, you all know what the first question would be. A wrong answer would result in immediate disqualification.
Peter
That test is not interactive, you have to do it manually. I lost interest.
God, Roissy is still wasting his time!
That guy has nothing to do.
I guessed that WAYSA was (Why Are You Still Asking?).
I'm slightly nicer to women than women are.
I think you could probably put together a test like this that would give meaningful numbers, in comparing one person's dating prospects to those of another; but this guy hasn't done that here.
Some big flaws:
BMI is too crude of a tool here. There are female athletes with great physiques who would loose points, and poorly toned women who would gain points.
Penalizing a woman for too high of an IQ? Idiotic. Show me a man who finds intelligent women to be unattractive. Laughable.
The whole section on attractiveness of the face is just crude guesswork and handwaving. He should have given ten examples of faces, rated from 0 to 10, and women could decide where they fit looking at that scale. It would still be subjective, but it would at least make some sense. And this was a huge part of the test.
And that part about whether or not they laugh at a small penis: I'm sorry, but am I the only one who would prefer a woman that would laugh at one?
Finally -- he gave positive points, for "date-ability", if the "woman" is 15 years old. What the hell is wrong with this guy? Apparently he has a small penis, and he's looking for a 15 year old girl that's too stupid to make fun of it.
The comments there are funny -- one woman claims to have scored a 55, and she only lost points because she's so intelligent. She apparently thinks quite a bit of herself.
I took this test on behalf of Mrs. Pastafarian, and she only scored a 5. That's about the same as I scored on the male equivalent, so I guess we're well-matched, a couple of classic betas. That's bullshit, by the way -- she's quite a bit better catch than I am.
I think some of these extra-special high-number alphas work for me. Maybe they're ultra datable, but as employees they're overdressed twats.
I'd say this test is more a measure of fuckability than datability.
My biggest problem with the test is that sense of humor isn't on there anywhere. I don't care how physically hot or scintillatingly intelligent she is, if she can't make me laugh or only laughs at one type of humor, it's time to move on.
And yeah, a woman who curses isn't a problem for me in the slightest.
Just google "Roissy in DC" and realize that he's the piece of work responsible for such an irritating "test."
Waysa. Indeed.
It's important to remember that "dating" here is a euphemism for "having a one night stand with a pick up artist". Most of those with low scores should be very happy about it.
michael farris said...
It's important to remember that "dating" here is a euphemism for "having a one night stand with a pick up artist". Most of those with low scores should be very happy about it.
Very good point. I didn't know who had made the test 'til after I commented. A little deeper reading would have saved me some time and annoyance.
Femininity is a big turn on to guys. Use it, gals, even if it is out of fashion.
I'm sorry to hear about your loss, Naomi.
I find your comment and interesting coincidence; just yesterday I told my sweetheart that when he's gone, I have no interest in re-entering the dating game.
But if he wants to when I'm gone, he has my blessing.
I recall a lyic from the King and I:
All my memories are happy tonite,
I had a love of my own....
It is all still breast size and intelligence. The rest is filler material. The breast size points went to medium large. and the intelligence points went to OK, but not as smart as the man. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Thank you Lynne...for words which helped me recall my own value.
I too have had a love of my own. Still do, along with the affection and respect of family, peers, friends, neighbors, children and small animals.
When the hard stuff of life shows up, stability, character, integrity, common sense, endurance, humor and perspective are some of the other characteristics which significantly add to after market value.
Roissy's blog is great. Beta herbs hate it of course, but it's just mostly verifiable observations of human behavior programmed deeply in our DNA. I'm not surprised the high nerd factor of the commenters here finds him offensive.
I always marveled at some of the men I knew who always got the hottest babes to go for them. They were often nothing special to look at but they understood female psychology so well that they never lacked for attention from the most desirable women.
Game is simply a pragmatic analysis of the techniques women respond to. And it has nothing to do with what women say or consciously think they want.
Of course it flies in the face of feminism and beta PC thought, which is pretty much standard fare here, but like they say nothing succeeds like success men who understand game have better success with women on every level from casual sex to LTRs.
I would disagree with much of this. In particular, the idea that a woman has to enjoy the types of sex that many women don't for the guy's sake, and must have tried innumerable positions to be attractive misses something, and that is that the more she is willing to do, the more types of sex she is interested in to please a guy, the more likely it is that she has had sex with that many more men. And the ultimate goal should be to marry the alpha male, not sleep with him once or twice. It has been shown that, up to a point, probably the best way to marry a guy is to be a virgin. Or, at least not nearly as slutty as the rest of the women with whom they are in competition.
I have always chuckled about the series Sluts in the City. The reality is that the more guys they slept with, the lower their value as permanent mates. And as their biological clocks were ticking, and in real life, they would have been competing with women 10 years younger, in a place that already had too many women, their attraction would likely have been rock bottom.
the series Sluts in the City.
It didn't jibe with reality because it was actually about gay men.
There is a lot more that I disagree with. Maybe it was spending ten years with someone who got marriage propositions on a regular basis - even, when she was with me. I am not the possessive type (which may have been why we clicked).
In any case, she was definitely an alpha. The woman every guy in the room wanted, and who all the women hated for that reason. But she would not have fared all that well on the test. Too much muscle (and so, too low a BMI). Too smart. Too competitive with other women. Much too selective when it came to dating and intimacy. But even now, in her early 50s, she still turns heads - she got asked out a couple of weeks ago by a musician in a well known 60's era band when she flew through the SLC airport (a name I even recognized).
I should note in passing that even now, she does score high on the physical attributes, ranging from face (high cheekbones, narrow chin, etc.), breasts, proportions, legs, etc. Nevertheless, the thing that is totally missed by the test, is that she still has some sort of crazy charisma. It appears to be the same sort of thing that Bill Clinton has, that when they concentrate on and smile at you, you know that you are the most important person around.
Roissy's blog is great. Beta herbs hate it of course, but it's just mostly verifiable observations of human behavior programmed deeply in our DNA. I'm not surprised the high nerd factor of the commenters here finds him offensive.
Ugh! How to answer this idiot!
He falls somewhere into the cult idiocy that Crack Emcee so often cites.
Roissy has to be middle aged by now. He continues to try to find deeper meaning in pussy hounding and bar trolling. The odor of some slob living in his parent's basement pervades his site.
Yes, feminism is a crock, but the barfly existence that seems to endlessly fascinate Roissy and his followers isn't a bit better.
Paul, you and Roissy both need to find something to do with your time.
Roissy is such a smuck that he is obviously working full time at pussy hounding and writing about pussy hounding. And, to top it off, the moron doesn't even appear to make a buck off his adolescent obsessions.
I'm trying to think of some famous male game players who have (through game playing) snagged the "hottest babes" and "most desirable women" for successful LTRs and I can't come up with a very long list.
In my experience, deeply programmed game behavior and techniques don't fill the bill when loss, injury, illness, and death enter a relationship.
In those kinds of situations a beta-herb with the courage and integrity to support or stand by his mate or family is worth 10 Alphas with game.
The test for a mate market value would put intelligence ( both social IQ and intellectual IQ) at the top, and passion in the middle and style towards the bottom. Nowhere on the list would you find a perfect body.
I trust the "waysa" crowd are planning to live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse.
By the way, I guessed WAYSA was "What are you sore about?"
I don't care how physically hot or scintillatingly intelligent she is, if she can't make me laugh
Serious question: is there really such a thing as scintillating intelligence without humor?
Serious answer.
"Paul, you and Roissy both need to find something to do with your time."
Fuck you. I'm a full time musician. A real one, not some phony wannabe like you. I checked out your shit and it's lame.
I'm married to an alpha female and long out of the single's scene. That has nothing to do with the practical aspects of game, which is indisputable to any objective observer or practitioner.
I never needed game, as I was always approached by hot girls, being good looking and a good player, but now I see it's practical applications in all social endeavors.
Roissy writes well, has interesting posts and commenters. I don't care about the aspects of his personal life.
I'd wager you're just jealous of all the pussy he's gotten. You certainly have reason to be jealous of his writing and obvious superior intelligence.
Fuck you, I'm wonderful, you're not, I never need game, I'm real, you're lame, you're jealous, hot girls always approach me, you're stupid.
If this is what Alpha sounds like, give me Omega.
Some of this stuff is obvious. Some of it's wrong, at least in my case.
Does a woman's attractiveness really go down as her IQ goes up? Why? Because she can see through the bullshit? for me it goes like this:
1) Kind
2) Smart
3+) Negotiable, but physical attractiveness a plus.
FWIW, my take on Game here.
If I ever want to insult older women I'll look for a way to do it that doesn't make me sound like Jar Jar Binks.
I tried to take the male version of the test but didn't get past the questions on age and height. The whole thing struck me as an abusive waste of time.
I'm a little with Naomi on this one. Naomi, by the way, you have my heartfelt sympathies. I've been married a long time now. If my wife goes to wait for me on the other side, I know I will never entertain dating or marriage again. She can never be replaced in my mind, my heart, and my soul, so there is no point in trying to find someone who could remotely compare.
I'm with MamaM. Game is for social robots.
It's funny that the main response to 'Game' tends to be similar from women and certain kinds of men. The whole 'Game is a ridiculous waste of time, women aren't REALLY like that' argument makes me laugh in the extreme.
Let's just sum it up this way:
'Yes they are'.
In exactly the same way that basic understanding of male sexuality is not hard to grasp for many females, it is important for men to begin to be honest about female sexuality.
The motivation behind these arguments seems to split along sex-lines...
Women tend to display a fair bit of fear that men will actually start doing this stuff en masse (and a good portion of them admit the effectiveness of the techniques while doing so). The typical theory for this is that it will make picking out 'real men' that much harder, and women don't like that...
For the guys, it seems to be a strong desire to hang on to a myth, even if that means a life of solitude. Rather than face the fact that women are EXCEEDINGLY sexual creatures (FAR more ruled by their libido than men are - though it's slower to awaken), these men would rather think the women are being duped.
See, it's not that women actually LIKE being bent over the couch and railed from behind to the accompaniment of dirty talk, and maybe a video camera...
No, it's cause they have been CORRUPTED by those 'slimy PUAs'...
Give me a fuckin' break already...
The value in Game is NOT, I repeat NOT, in finding lines or actions that get you laid. That would be like attending University and memorizing only what you have to to pass the exams.
The point is the Education you get along the way.
For example, sure it's ridiculous some of the things these PUAs do. The response they get from women is ridiculous too. Does this mean that a person should go out and mimic, say, Mystery, and expect success - case closed?
Nope.
It's the trying, the doing, that picking up and the analysis after a fail. It's watching what women DO, rather than what they SAY.
It's a GREAT way to figure out which women are likely toxic.
When people dismiss 'Game' out of hand, they miss the greater value involved...
A deeper understanding of the opposite sex.
They may not (Hell, PROBABLY WON'T) like what they discover, but it's important to know nonetheless...
It's funny that the main response to 'Game' tends to be similar from women and certain kinds of men. The whole 'Game is a ridiculous waste of time, women aren't REALLY like that' argument makes me laugh in the extreme.
Let's just sum it up this way:
'Yes they are'.
In exactly the same way that basic understanding of male sexuality is not hard to grasp for many females, it is important for men to begin to be honest about female sexuality.
The motivation behind these arguments seems to split along sex-lines...
Women tend to display a fair bit of fear that men will actually start doing this stuff en masse (and a good portion of them admit the effectiveness of the techniques while doing so). The typical theory for this is that it will make picking out 'real men' that much harder, and women don't like that...
For the guys, it seems to be a strong desire to hang on to a myth, even if that means a life of solitude. Rather than face the fact that women are EXCEEDINGLY sexual creatures (FAR more ruled by their libido than men are - though it's slower to awaken), these men would rather think the women are being duped.
See, it's not that women actually LIKE being bent over the couch and railed from behind to the accompaniment of dirty talk, and maybe a video camera...
No, it's cause they have been CORRUPTED by those 'slimy PUAs'...
Give me a fuckin' break already...
The value in Game is NOT, I repeat NOT, in finding lines or actions that get you laid. That would be like attending University and memorizing only what you have to to pass the exams.
The point is the Education you get along the way.
For example, sure it's ridiculous some of the things these PUAs do. The response they get from women is ridiculous too. Does this mean that a person should go out and mimic, say, Mystery, and expect success - case closed?
Nope.
It's the trying, the doing, that picking up and the analysis after a fail. It's watching what women DO, rather than what they SAY.
It's a GREAT way to figure out which women are likely toxic.
When people dismiss 'Game' out of hand, they miss the greater value involved...
A deeper understanding of the opposite sex.
They may not (Hell, PROBABLY WON'T) like what they discover, but it's important to know nonetheless...
It's funny that the main response to 'Game' tends to be similar from women and certain kinds of men. The whole 'Game is a ridiculous waste of time, women aren't REALLY like that' argument makes me laugh in the extreme.
Let's just sum it up this way:
'Yes they are'.
In exactly the same way that basic understanding of male sexuality is not hard to grasp for many females, it is important for men to begin to be honest about female sexuality.
The motivation behind these arguments seems to split along sex-lines...
Women tend to display a fair bit of fear that men will actually start doing this stuff en masse (and a good portion of them admit the effectiveness of the techniques while doing so). The typical theory for this is that it will make picking out 'real men' that much harder, and women don't like that...
For the guys, it seems to be a strong desire to hang on to a myth, even if that means a life of solitude. Rather than face the fact that women are EXCEEDINGLY sexual creatures (FAR more ruled by their libido than men are - though it's slower to awaken), these men would rather think the women are being duped.
See, it's not that women actually LIKE being bent over the couch and railed from behind to the accompaniment of dirty talk, and maybe a video camera...
No, it's cause they have been CORRUPTED by those 'slimy PUAs'...
Give me a fuckin' break already...
The value in Game is NOT, I repeat NOT, in finding lines or actions that get you laid. That would be like attending University and memorizing only what you have to to pass the exams.
The point is the Education you get along the way.
For example, sure it's ridiculous some of the things these PUAs do. The response they get from women is ridiculous too. Does this mean that a person should go out and mimic, say, Mystery, and expect success - case closed?
Nope.
It's the trying, the doing, that picking up and the analysis after a fail. It's watching what women DO, rather than what they SAY.
It's a GREAT way to figure out which women are likely toxic.
When people dismiss 'Game' out of hand, they miss the greater value involved...
A deeper understanding of the opposite sex.
They may not (Hell, PROBABLY WON'T) like what they discover, but it's important to know nonetheless...
(Facepalm)
It's funny that the main response to 'Game' tends to be similar from women and certain kinds of men. The whole 'Game is a ridiculous waste of time, women aren't REALLY like that' argument makes me laugh in the extreme.
Let's just sum it up this way:
'Yes they are'.
In exactly the same way that basic understanding of male sexuality is not hard to grasp for many females, it is important for men to begin to be honest about female sexuality.
The motivation behind these arguments seems to split along sex-lines...
Women tend to display a fair bit of fear that men will actually start doing this stuff en masse (and a good portion of them admit the effectiveness of the techniques while doing so). The typical theory for this is that it will make picking out 'real men' that much harder, and women don't like that...
For the guys, it seems to be a strong desire to hang on to a myth, even if that means a life of solitude. Rather than face the fact that women are EXCEEDINGLY sexual creatures (FAR more ruled by their libido than men are - though it's slower to awaken), these men would rather think the women are being duped.
See, it's not that women actually LIKE being bent over the couch and railed from behind to the accompaniment of dirty talk, and maybe a video camera...
No, it's cause they have been CORRUPTED by those 'slimy PUAs'...
Give me a fuckin' break already...
The value in Game is NOT, I repeat NOT, in finding lines or actions that get you laid. That would be like attending University and memorizing only what you have to to pass the exams.
The point is the Education you get along the way.
For example, sure it's ridiculous some of the things these PUAs do. The response they get from women is ridiculous too. Does this mean that a person should go out and mimic, say, Mystery, and expect success - case closed?
Nope.
It's the trying, the doing, that picking up and the analysis after a fail. It's watching what women DO, rather than what they SAY.
It's a GREAT way to figure out which women are likely toxic.
When people dismiss 'Game' out of hand, they miss the greater value involved...
A deeper understanding of the opposite sex.
They may not (Hell, PROBABLY WON'T) like what they discover, but it's important to know nonetheless...
It's funny that the main response to 'Game' tends to be similar from women and certain kinds of men. The whole 'Game is a ridiculous waste of time, women aren't REALLY like that' argument makes me laugh in the extreme.
Let's just sum it up this way:
'Yes they are'.
In exactly the same way that basic understanding of male sexuality is not hard to grasp for many females, it is important for men to begin to be honest about female sexuality.
The motivation behind these arguments seems to split along sex-lines...
Women tend to display a fair bit of fear that men will actually start doing this stuff en masse (and a good portion of them admit the effectiveness of the techniques while doing so). The typical theory for this is that it will make picking out 'real men' that much harder, and women don't like that...
For the guys, it seems to be a strong desire to hang on to a myth, even if that means a life of solitude. Rather than face the fact that women are EXCEEDINGLY sexual creatures (FAR more ruled by their libido than men are - though it's slower to awaken), these men would rather think the women are being duped.
See, it's not that women actually LIKE being bent over the couch and railed from behind to the accompaniment of dirty talk, and maybe a video camera...
No, it's cause they have been CORRUPTED by those 'slimy PUAs'...
Give me a fuckin' break already...
The value in Game is NOT, I repeat NOT, in finding lines or actions that get you laid. That would be like attending University and memorizing only what you have to to pass the exams.
The point is the Education you get along the way.
For example, sure it's ridiculous some of the things these PUAs do. The response they get from women is ridiculous too. Does this mean that a person should go out and mimic, say, Mystery, and expect success - case closed?
Nope.
It's the trying, the doing, that picking up and the analysis after a fail. It's watching what women DO, rather than what they SAY.
It's a GREAT way to figure out which women are likely toxic.
When people dismiss 'Game' out of hand, they miss the greater value involved...
A deeper understanding of the opposite sex.
They may not (Hell, PROBABLY WON'T) like what they discover, but it's important to know nonetheless...
The robotic quality of that explanation was only emphasized by its being repeated three or four times. Rather like the sexual experiences that are being so frantically described, if they occurred at all.
Blog commenting is a game where you have to be dexterous enough to only submit your comment once.
7. Do you have a car?
No (under 21yo): 0 points
No (over 21yo): -1 point
Yes (under 21yo): +1 point
Yes (over 21yo): 0 points
No, but you have a motorcycle (age irrelevant): +1 point
That's from the male test. The scoring for the last answer is incorrect, especially with the inclusion of "age irrelevant."
You also get a point for having been arrested.
He must have written the male test for some specific subset of the female market.
Yeah, there doesn't seem that much difference between his method of selecting sexual partners and that of a serial killer.
Post a Comment