Wheat Waffle's Attraction Scale
Wheat Waffles' Three Tier Theory[edit | edit source]
Wheat Waffles' Three Tier Theory divides men into three coarse tiers: Chads, Normies, and Subfives. This tier system is proposed in his video[1] 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.[citation needed] The concept of male-female rating deviations has ben reaffirmed though aggregation of multiple rating data.[2] 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)[3] | High Arousal and Positive Valence | Low Arousal and Positive Valence, or Neutral Valence | High Arousal, Negative or Neutral Valence |
Emotion(Bradley)[4] | 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 | Arms Close to Body |
Proxemics | Close or Reducing Distance | Stable Distance | Far or Increased Distance |
Traits | Negatives as Positives (Halo effect) | Meritocratic | Positives as Negatives (Failo effect) |
Wheat Waffles' Exponential Attraction Theory[edit | edit source]
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[5][6][7] However this rating system puts 4s, which should be by name "Subfive", to be a Normie.
Decile | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | EQUATION |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 in X chance of matching (WW Estimate)[8] | 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[9] | 1.25th | 2.5th | 5th | 10th | 20th | 30th | 55th | 65th | 80th | 10*SQRT(5/3)^(10-RATING)-14.5
Estimation, See 80/20 Rule |
Clarification on Proxemics and Skin Contact[edit | edit source]
The problem with his idea is that it is not quantifiable. In order to reduce this problem, Proxemics of skin contact[10] and social distance[11] 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[11] | 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)[10] | 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[12][13] | 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)[10] | Palms, Arms, Face, Torso/Legs, or Chest/Groin | Palms, Arms, or Face | Palms | N/A |
Occasion (Hall)[10] | N/A | Torso/Legs | Arms | N/A |
Never (Hall)[10] | 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[edit | edit source]
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.
See Also[edit | edit source]
- ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azBEWpbtlxM
- ↑ https://goldvalueideas.com/2021/03/17/sex-differences-in-romantic-selectiveness/
- ↑ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Emotion_classification#/Circumplex_model
- ↑ https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2001-10055-007
- ↑ https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
- ↑ https://senseoffairness.blog/2020/02/14/the-unfairness-of-online-dating/
- ↑ https://freedomandprosperity.org/2019/blog/attractiveness-income-sex-and-inequality/
- ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRCNxJvgu6Y
- ↑ https://goldvalueideas.com/2021/03/17/sex-differences-in-romantic-selectiveness/
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 https://www.zmonline.com/the-latest/oxford-university-creates-map-of-appropriate-touching/
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 https://mangementchallenge.weebly.com/proxemicsspace-design.html
- ↑ https://sethnichols.org/2020/11/09/17-relationship-gardens/
- ↑ http://www.pursuitofhisbest.com/2014/06/the-friendship-hierarchy.html