[Plutoman]

Everything is also a sliding scale.. strict categories make little sense if you do not allow the sliding scale.

I often profile people via their personalities; easy to approximate, but many people will forget that it's not absolute, but people can show different tendencies of say, extroversion.. I usually put it on a percentage, ie, someone is .9 extrovert, or someone is a .7 introvert (corollary being .1 introvert, and .3 extrovert, respectively), and you can make those judgements in a snap.

The socio-sexual hierarchy isn't here to be a strict thing. You just get a gauge on someone; maybe Red_Pillage is somewhere halfway between the beta and alpha. I will say though that these are not particularly that useful. I think it would be more useful to identify a few broad traits, and their polarities, and then scale along them. It's easier, because you are only deciding between two polarities at one time, but you still end up with a 3d or 4d setup to gauge a person's ranking.

Might just be the math geek inside me, though. I also think it has slightly less use than other types of profiling, as well. Definitely can be useful, but less than others.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Quote:

"Everything is also a sliding scale.. strict categories make little sense if you do not allow the sliding scale.

I often profile people via their personalities; easy to approximate, but many people will forget that it's not absolute, but people can show different tendencies of say, extroversion.. I usually put it on a percentage, ie, someone is .9 extrovert, or someone is a .7 introvert (corollary being .1 introvert, and .3 extrovert, respectively), and you can make those judgements in a snap.

The socio-sexual hierarchy isn't here to be a strict thing. You just get a gauge on someone; maybe Red_Pillage is somewhere halfway between the beta and alpha. I will say though that these are not particularly that useful. I think it would be more useful to identify a few broad traits, and their polarities, and then scale along them. It's easier, because you are only deciding between two polarities at one time, but you still end up with a 3d or 4d setup to gauge a person's ranking.

Might just be the math geek inside me, though. I also think it has slightly less use than other types of profiling, as well. Definitely can be useful, but less than others."

I don't want to be a dick, but this sounds more spergy than practical.

[Plutoman]

(09-10-2016 12:18 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I don't want to be a dick, but this sounds more spergy than practical.

On the surface, yes. I get that.. but you're also assuming I'm sitting with a girl and consciously identifying all that crap.

Scenario:
You walk into a bar with some friends.. waitress strolls up. You notice she has tattoos; she's a waitress, has dyed hair. This means she is impulsive, because of the career choice & age, she is high probability of being an alcoholic, and she doesn't make much, so she does happy hours.

In addition, you notice she wears slightly too much makeup in a darker fashion; she's too in her head. NF personality type. High possibility of being a vegetarian.

You lean back, look at the menu, ask "How's the chicken flatbread?" Pause. Look at her, directly, raise my hand to stop her from speaking - "Never mind, you wouldn't know - vegetarian, right?"

Her: "How did you know? Oh my gosh."

-> This happened about a week ago. She got so wrapped up in my banter that she forgot to take my friends orders, and went and placed mine. I'm talking about learning to identify traits and personality types so you can make quick assessments about a girl. How you do it depends on how you think. Some people just get these things 100% naturally and instinctually. Sadly, I had to train my instincts.

It appears asperger-type reasoning, but it's no different than looking at 2+2 is 4. You just look and see it. To explain to someone WHY 2+2 is 4, though, would take a while and seem seriously over-complicated.

Scenario regarding socio-sexual hierarchy (again, happened around a week ago):
Engage some girls at a bachelorette party. Send them over to another, more hopping bar - intend to show up sometime later, after other guys have bought them drinks. An hour later, waltz in, only two left; the rest of the girls went home (sunday night, 3rd night of partying). Drunk as expected. Guy talking to them - immediate assessment.. he's wearing clothes with a tucked in semi-dress shirt. Decent looking guy; somewhat tall, but definitely inexperienced, and has his hands in his pockets somewhat awkward as he talks to them. Fairly low on the hierarchy.

So you walk over, open the girls and interrupt their conversation. Walk over to the girl, immediately get physical. Guy is friendly, but walks away quickly - he was not going to compete.

Later, the girls are dancing, two guys come over. Size them up - are they competition? Is it something to address? Nah - guys are short, skinny, spitting good game & could dance, but far too drunk and not able to connect properly. They were hooked well enough by my friend and I, those guys won't be able to pull them. Few minutes later, the girls come back.

It's a matter of quick judgement. Learn how to decipher these situations yourself.. however works.. but you need to NOT overthink them.

[TMK]

Guess if I had to shoehorn myself in to one class of another, it would probably be sigma. I have several small groups I go between, but not too concerned about being top dog or anything like that. I approach women on the hoof and rarely go out specifically to meet them. I'm genuinely too busy in my hobbies and social life.

I think many betas are mistaken for alphas in social circles, and vice versa. Betas do actually attract a certain amount of attention, but willfully so.

Genuinely dominant men gain attention regardless of what they are doing and whether they want it or not.

So often men think that doing or saying something is the only way to engage a woman. At times, when I have been truly in my element, I have simply walked passed women in the corridor or street and they almost gasp when I just look at them and smile.

Social success is 90% frame of mind, 10% action.

[MMX2010]

Bumping this thread because, in Vox Day's reddit AMA, someone mentioned an Italian author, Leonardo Sciascia, who divided men into five categories: Real Men, Half Men, Little Men, Faggots, and Chatterboxes.

There's significant overlap between the two systems.

[debeguiled]

(10-20-2016 11:15 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Bumping this thread because, in Vox Day's reddit AMA, someone mentioned an Italian author, Leonardo Sciascia, who divided men into five categories: Real Men, Half Men, Little Men, Faggots, and Chatterboxes.

There's significant overlap between the two systems.

Much better categories.

How about Menschs, Nudniks, Noodges, and No-Goodniks?

Actually, I like Umberto Eco's classification system from Foucault's Pendulum most of all:

Quote:

There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics…

Cretins don’t even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble…

Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation…Fools don’t claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of conversation, and when they really offend, they’re magnificent…

Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong.

Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark…

Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason…

A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes.

The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be.

The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy.

You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…”

I am definitely a lunatic. I am a moron who doesn't know the ropes.