Wheat Waffle's Attraction Scale

Wheat Waffles' Three Tier Theory

Wheat Waffles' Three Tier Theory divides men into three coarse tiers: Chads, Normies, and Subfives. This tier system is proposed in his video as an alternative to the Decile scale, due to the fact that females are more likely to inflate the score by 2-3 points for "virtue signaling" (Platitude) and threat avoidance purposes (AKA offensiveness avoidance). The concept of male-female rating deviations has ben reaffirmed though aggregation of multiple rating data. some data can be considered based on Indicator of interest and Fuck-off signals.

The table below shows typical female reactions to a male in each tier:

	Chads	Normies	"SUBFIVE"
Emotion (Russell)	High Arousal and Positive Valence	Low Arousal and Positive Valence, or Neutral Valence	High Arousal, Negative or Neutral Valence
Emotion(Bradley)	Appetitive Motivation	Low Arousal, Neutral Valence/Pleasure	Defensive Motivation
Example	Happy, Surprised	Neutral, Relaxed	Disgust, Anger
Physical	Accentuation of Beauty	(None)	Misaligned Foot, Head or Naval
Psychological	Female Desiring Skin Contact	Soft Rejections (Friendzone)	Arms Close to Body, Deterrence
Proxemics	Close or Reducing Distance	Stable Distance	Far or Increased Distance
Traits	Negatives as Positives (Halo effect)	Meritocratic	Positives as Negatives (Failo effect)
Complement	"Attractive", "Hot" (present-oriented)	"Fine", "Nothing Wrong" (past-oriented)	"Some Day", "Find" (future-oriented)
Typology	Type-Independent, "Gold Standard"	Type-dependency and Niche Markets	Universally identified as a unique category
Gymmaxxing	Unnecessary	Necessary	Compensatory & Detremental
Height	6 foot 4 (1.95m) increases attractiveness	5 foot 11 (1.8m) as average	5 foot 6 (1.65m) decreases attractiveness
Matches per day	10+	1-3	~0
Attention	Flows From Female to Male	Flows From Male to Female	Disassociation
Jawline	Sharp increases attractiveness	Round	Weak decreases attractiveness
Eyes	"Hunter Eyes" increases attractiveness	Regular Eyes	Protruding Eyes decreases attractiveness
Relationships	Polygyny permitted, female-funded, memorable	Needs commitment, "equal couples", forgetful	Requires simping
Dating	Easy With No Need For Game	Flaking is Common, Game is Needed	Direct Rejection, Game is Useless
Selection	Elective (exposure)	Competitive (amongst normies)	Self-sabotage
Texting	Leaves women frustrated if on read	Gets left on read for hours	Blocked & Filtered
Photos	Mirror Selfies is Sufficient	Photogenic Techniques Needed	Completely Useless
High School	Gets Dating Gossip, "Heart-Breaker" banter	Self-Help & Platitudes, "The One" banter, Just Be First	Exclusion from the conversation
Aged Chances	Dominate since the 20s	Can Statusmaxx in the 30s	(Lucky if in the 40s)
Lookism	"Nothing to worry"	"You'll find someone"	Insistence on Personality
Tactic Preference	Online and Cold Approach Works	Warm Approach > Cold Approach > Online	Approaches Will Fail

Wheat Waffles' Exponential Attraction Theory

His other idea is that when the decile scale is correctly calibrated, the match rate becomes exponential. An equation can be derived from his scaling factor to give resolution to values. His Theory coincides with Tinder researches However this rating system puts 4s, which should be by name "Subfive", to be a Normie.

Note:

• The matching chances between the Tinder study and his opinions are 2 points short.
• Female attention scales exponentially (2x as much) on decile-equivalent scale, but the population distribution is psuedo-linear (a shape between a uniform distribution and a semi-circle).

Decile	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	EQUATION
1 in X chance of matching (WW Estimate)	3	5.5	10	19	34	61	110	200	370	3*(SQRT(10/3))^(9-RATING)
WW Naming Scheme	Chad	Chad	Chadlite	Normie (Brad)	Normie (Tanner)	Normie (Melvin)	Subfive	Subfive	Subfive
Top Percentile of Attractiveness	1.25th	2.5th	5th	10th	20th	30th	55th	65th	80th	10*SQRT(5/3)^(10-RATING)-14.5 Estimation, See 80/20 Rule
1 in X chance of matching (Tinder Experiment)	11	19	35	63	110	210	380	680	1240	100/EXP((B1-52.3)/16.8)

Clarification on Proxemics and Skin Contact

The problem with his idea is that it is not quantifiable. In order to reduce this problem, Proxemics of skin contact and social distance can be used as an effective tool, and that their naming scheme can be matched well.

Proxemics	Intimate Space	Personal Space	Social Space	Public Space
Distance	under 1.5ft or 0.45m	1.5~4ft or 0.45~1.2m	4~12ft or 1.2~3.7m	over 12ft or 3.7m
Roles (Hall)	Partner	Friends & Family	Acquaintance & Extended Family	Strangers
Dunbar's Definition	Ego Support Clique (Kin)	Sympathy Group (Superfamily) Affinity Group (Band)	Active Network (Clan) Acquaintance (Megaband)	Memorable Faces (Tribe)
Casual Naming	Boyfriend Intimate Friends or "OG"s	Anytime Friends or Close Friends Party Friends or Good Friends	"Casual" Friends (Wedding/Funeral) Frenemies or Acquaintances	"Faces" or Strangers
Allowed (Hall)	Palms, Arms, Face, Torso/Legs, or Chest/Groin	Palms, Arms, or Face	Palms	N/A
Occasion (Hall)	N/A	Torso/Legs	Arms	N/A
Never (Hall)	N/A	Chest/Groin	Face, Torso/Legs, or Chest/Groin	Palms, Arms, Face, Torso/Legs, or Chest/Groin
Rating Estimation	"Chad"	"Normie"	Upper "Subfive"	Lower "Subfive"

Possible Critiques

The claim that "there is a leap in numbers" implies that either the theory of exponential attractiveness is not "smooth", or the accuracy of match rate measures decreases as it reaches the extremes, following a more sigmoidal pattern. The only other explanation that can explain this phenomenon is that either there is a "cap" (truncation) on maximum fitness.