My dad would shit test every dude my sister or I brought around even if they were just a friend, people do it automatically, unconsciously, it's done for a reason. My dads shit tested if the moids would flip out or if they can banter, if they're quick to anger etc. The ones he liked he took fishing or to help out with some job. Once determined not to be an instant psycho the shit tests would be more subtle or situational, that way you don't have to wait 2 years for something to happen to see how they would react. Shit tests are done by both genders. They might get better or more subtle with age as they learn what to test for and how, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly an unconscious thing. The redpill autists make them out to be such a big deal cause they always fail them.
I can explain why I don't agree with shit tests, and while they measure something, you are not testing for what you think you are testing, this is a very long post but refuting something takes more time than writing what's being refuted:
The problem with shit tests is that these tests are subjective and unfalsibiable, a test needs to have a clear pass/fail condition, and objective and tested evaluation criteria, it can't be "You will pass or fail the test depending on my preferences". It would be more precise to call it the
Preference check. The test is: "I'm gonna be intentionally annoying to you, and if you react poorly you failed the test", the issue is that both outcomes prove you right and they assume nothing is wrong with the test in the first place, example:
- If they react poorly to you being annoying they failed the test, so you were right in "shit testing" them because they failed.
- If they react how you want, such as banter or by ignoring you, they passed the test, so you were right in shit testing them because they didn't fail.
At first glance this doesn't sound like an issue because all tests have a pass/fail condition, but this is correct as long as nothing is wrong with the test. Rather than testing something objective you are testing to support a previously held belief , which is that those who get annoyed when people they don't know are annoying towards them are not reacting well, when in reality it's a completely normal reaction, this is why I mentioned earlier that with "shit tests" you are assuming nothing is wrong with the test in the first place, even that use of language implies an objective measure where failure is on the other person, rather than the one doing the evaluation using subjective criteria.
Shit tests ignore that other people are also running shit tests simultaneously with competely different criteria of pass/fail to yours, for example: If your dad was annoying towards your sister's boyfriends, and they make the decision of not wanting to be with her anymore because they have other options and don't want to have to deal with future annoying in-laws, according to your dad they failed the shit test, and according to this hypothetical boyfriend your dad failed his own shit test, how can both tests be failed and their results be true at the same time? Because a "shit test" is merely a subjective evaluation for the behaviors that you want based on prior beliefs, and the evaluator has not failure condition, and you give it an aura of objectivity by using language associated with things that are objective.
I'll explain failure condition of a test with an example: Imagine you have a kitchen scale, you put a weight that says 4 ounches on it, if it shows 100 grams the weight truly weights 100 grams, if it shows another number the weight doesn't actually weight 100 grams,
the issue with this logic is that you are assuming the scale can never be wrong. You can falsify the scale being accurate, how can you falsify your shit tests? You can't because it's subjective and there is no failure condition for the evaluator.
Let me give you an example to make it more clear: I am an employer, you and me schedule an interview at 11:00, my shit test is making you wait 20 minutes past 11:00, if you have any sort of issue with that, either by telling me directly or by distancing yourself from this job offer, then I made the right call by doing a shit test because you failed. In parallel the candidate is performing his own shit test, if they make me wait they don't respect my time and therefore will not respect me in other areas too, the employer failed the shit test. Both performed a shit test in which, in their own mind, the other failed.
Last example, this time for social interactions, imagine I DM you with the intention of being frens, after doing that I reply to you being confrontational and rude, I start calling you an autist, I'm sarcastic, I mock you, and in my mind if you get offended you failed my shit test regarding if you are sensitive or not, we were gonna be friends but you failed, in your mind I failed the shit test because you don't want to get to know someone who is rude and confrontational, specially when you just met them.
If you wanted to be more honest, rather than call it shit test (which implies objectivity, adequate evaluation criteria because it uses the word test, and the word "shit" to imply importance) you could just call it the
"Preference check", the
"Vibe check", the
"Act how I like check" or the
"Guess my rules test".