http://www.celebritytypes.com/faces/test.php
Pretty interesting test. It determines what kind of people you prefer to handle threats "outside" or "inside" the tribe by letting you pick between different facial structures (Chad and not-Chad, to put in robot speak).
Pic related, it's my results.
100% on everything dominant
>>24541432
These kinds of tests are never very accurate. I took one similar to this earlier today that said I was more libertarian then libertarians themselves, though it did get the lack of sympathy correct.
interesting.
original
>Your INGROUP DOMINANCE PERCENTAGE is: 83.3
>Your OUTGROUP DOMINANCE PERCENTAGE is: 100
>Your TOTAL DOMINANCE PERCENTAGE is: 91.7
I let the fellow beta deal with other people's relationshit. Otherwise they can chill in their caves and shitpost on the walls while Chads do all the work.
Whoops.
Honest results, btw.
>87.5%
>>24541517
this
I always chose the tougher looking faces, but my reasoning was that I thought that I should be the one doing everything. What the fuck kind of test is this?
i chose dominant whenever there was a degree of interpersonal conflict, so literally all out-group scenarios, and some in-group ones. some in-group ones didn't have that aspect of conflict, and rather had more of an emphasis on caring, compassion, planning, contemplation, and shit where a more balanced level-headed response may have been more suitable than just bulldozing the situation with the highest test chad at the fore.
Everyone else has the opposite slope
I always felt this way though; be harsher with ourselves, be cooperative with the outside. This way we keep ourselves in check, and if every tribe did this we'd end up without idiots trying to take over everything.
The big problem I always think is when the bad shit grows from within and no one addresses it.
This is beyond retarded. The premise for this bullshit is entirely that you can determine whether a man is dominant or cooperative based on their fucking face type. I have a round face but I'm still a hardass in both group work and when it comes to debating others. It's no wonder girls' POV on men is so warped. They're being taught nonsense.
>>24541812
I bet you let your girlfriend please other men
>>24541812
Kek tier. Your genes are trash
In my case the feminine faces just seemed like they couldn't handle anything lel
>>24541876
We don't live in a society where that shit happens
If it does, shit girlfriend, find better replacement
>>24541898
Think about it;
Treating everyone in your group very nicely, agreeing, everyone gets a say, everyone is right
Then new outside idea comes by, ANGRY, NO, THAT IS NOT US, AAAAAAH, KILL IT
The mentality of reddit circlejerks and tumblr feminists. People who usually accomplish nothing, fear the outside world, need reassurance from their close pals who think exactly like them.
That is what the cooperative ingroup to dominant outgroup slope says
>>24541812
>be harsher with ourselves
Kek. Your in group dominance is the same as mine.
Then I complete it up by not being a c u c k and having a higher out group dominance.
>>24541679
>>24541679
>>24541679
>>24542099
Out group dominance implies that you're completely right with what you're doing
If it's a kill or be killed world, go ahead and kill anyone that's not in your tribe.
But imagine you're a sandnigger living in a shithole, getting together with your buddies, beating women, raping boys, praying to allah
then one day supreme race comes in, new commercialism, everyone earns much more, quality of life improves, better education, lower mortality rates for infants
Outward dominance would be "No, our mudslime ways were better, get all these guns and kill random people to make it stop; join us or you're stupid and we'll kill you"
Inward criticism would fix that "Hey, maybe all this new shit isn't so bad", but in order to do that you have to engage in foreign concepts. Cooperative doesn't mean kek yourself and take it in the ass.
>>24541812
>less than 50% dominance
Have fun being dominated by outside Chads you candy-ass.
It's amazing how there really only seemed to be one right answer most of the time.
>>24541694
>but my reasoning was that I thought that I should be the one doing everything
Maybe you should have read the preface for the test then.
>>24541679
>>24542249
Put her there, champ!
test says I am probably right-winged. yet I am communist.
70.8 %
58.3 in group
83.3 outgroup
>>24542236
>Cooperative doesn't mean kek yourself and take it in the ass.
I think you're thinking of the word
>cooperate
as two groups of people hold hand and hand to get a task done.
No you candy-ass. What is the opposite of dominance? Being dominated.
Think about all the context of the questions.
Think about movies of a dude raping a chick. He always says shit like, 'cooperate with me. It will be much easier on you.'
You can still dominate people while they're cooperating with you.
Didn't know what to expect really
>>24542268
>For each of the following questions, decide who you think should be in charge of resolving the tribe's problem.
I trust whoever is most like me and think they should be in charge of resolving the tribe's problem, and in this case all the only information available is the severity of their features.
What can you know about someone based on the look of their face? All you can claim is one developed with more testosterone than the other. If you make an appeal to what you think their genetics are based on their face and evaluate their chances of success on the resultant quasi probabilities, you're a retard. Psychology is such a fucking scam. How much of a dumb faggot do people need to be to think that they have some insight into a person's ability based on the look of their face? What an asinine test.
Pic related.
>>24542482
>What can you know about someone based on the look of their face?
>This test was made on the basis of the following research:
Facegen Modeller FaceGen 3.1: Dominance Face Data Set Social Perception Lab, Princeton University
Laustsen, L., and Petersen, M. B.: Winning Faces Vary by Ideology Political Communication 2015
Oosterhof, N. N., and Todorov, A.: Modeling Social Perception of Faces IEEE Signal Processing Society, Volume 28, 2011
Oosterhof, N. N., and Todorov, A.: The Functional Basis of Face Evaluation Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 2008
>>24542482
>napolean.gif
>not realizing 'napolean complex' was named after said person
>not realizing that Napolean had Napolean Complex because he didn't have enough masculine features
>>24542482
yeah, really. This was such bullshit. I sat through the whole test and for each face I thought "well, fuck, I don't know these motherfuckers, how can I choose?"
complete bullshit results too, which didn't describe me politically at all
>>24541923
Got this exact same thing. I just picked the masculine faces for everything.
Shittiest online test thing I've done in a while 2bh.
The perfect test for exposing betas.
AAahH love it
I chose the more beta looking people for things that involved diplomacy, building stuff or fixing things inside the tribe because i think they are more intelligent looking, chose the darker dudes for REAL threats or things like those guys demanding a toll/tax or whatever
>>24542630
>betas looked more intelligent
lmao no, you fell for the meme
>>24542430
That's a high stakes dominance situation. If your life is in danger, you take the dominant route. Control, restrict, direct, kill
If a bouncer told you that you were causing too much of a scene and told you to leave, is it better to fight them?
In a real society, taking dominance out of the equation of high stake scenarios always leads to better outcomes. Whether it's you or the other person. Someone can be dominant, but it's easier now more than ever to disarm that person's dominance.
But hey, if you think everything is about hording as many Stacies as you can and killing each other in bars to prove your dominance, go ahead.
I just think there's a time and place to be dominant, and that time and place should be with family/ friends to prevent them from doing stupid shit like that.
>>24542534
Those discuss social perception of faces and whether that person is dominant or cooperative. This test intends to infer that we prefer a dominant or cooperative person to handle internal/external affairs.
What it really affirms is whether we want someone we assume is dominant/cooperative to handle each situation. If they wanted to present to us which style of management we want to handle different situations, the fucking faces have nothing to do with it evaluation of ideologies.
>Unlike most people, you prefer a Dominant leader to handle internal matters.
Yet all I see here is dominant leader types. Clearly this shit is on to something about /r9k/.
Ingroup dominance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ4XUnxupBs
Outward dominance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0
along with those videos of black people fighting, terrorist beheadings, etc
>>24542555
>the greatest general in recent history
>embarrassed the English
>English universities create "napolean complex" after the dust settles
>baby lambs like yourself live life eating up everyone's bullshit and end up on /r9k/ because you're a limp faggot and not because you've struggled
>>24542855
>and not because you've struggled
Just had to cover your bases when you're doing all that projection, right?
Your INGROUP DOMINANCE PERCENTAGE is: 66.7
Your OUTGROUP DOMINANCE PERCENTAGE is: 83.3
Your TOTAL DOMINANCE PERCENTAGE is: 75
Unlike most people, you prefer a Dominant leader to handle internal matters.
Like most people, you prefer a Dominant leader to handle external threats.
Overall, your choice of leaders suggests that you are politically right-wing.
>>24542902
>implying
*originality
>>24541812
>>24542099
>>24542241
>>24541876
Do you realize that an higher score means that you need a strong leader, and not that you are one? You are more likely to be the fuccboi of leader ungabunga chads
>>24543034
>this is what keks really believe
In this case you are the fucking leader because you're delegating all tasks. You're such a kek that you couldn't even put yourself in that position prior to starting the test. The test speaks for your method of governance, you fucking loser.
I just always choose the lighter face because i dont want niggers in my tribe
>>24543090
This, you candy-ass c u c k.
>>24543090
>everyone in this thread is le strong dominant leader
Kek what a delusional loser
>>24542602
> One of most skilled fighters in group
> Wants everyone to improve, trains others
> Leads expedition to kill crows who have mutinied
> Captain in charge doesn't like Snow taking charge of decisions with members in group
Inwardly dominant
> Spares wildling girl
> Goes and talks with their leader, talk about bigger threat
> Spend time with wildlings, climb the wall, spend more time, follow them
> Spares their leader of a horrible death, giving them a quicker merciful one
> Goes against own group to try and bring wildlings across the wall
Outwardly cooperative
So Jon Snow is now a confirmed beta kek?
>>24543209
>not being a robot because you're trapped between your real life social retardation while understanding that ideologically that might is right
>being here because you're actually a faggot
lmao
>>24543210
Good assessment. Confirmed kek.
>>24543341
does "being a robot" means to be a fucking beta loser accomplishing nothing in life but thinking somewhat to be a smart, confident and superior individual due to the delusion that society and social life is bad and scary?
>>24543414
dude so much cottage cheese would be on that ass irl i wish fatties actually looked like this
Asking aggressive people to handle internal problems will just bring more chaos and hate to be honest family
>>24543491
"Being a robot" refers to posting on /r9k/, you dumb faggot. An evaluation of poor social skill is contingent on the direction of society and whether your personality goes with or against the grain. I can get high marks and a good career while having a limited social life because I don't compromise my beliefs to have more friends.
>implying I'm like you
I post here once in a while to make sure at least some of you faggots don't echo-chamber yourselves into suicide, because I was like some of you dumb faggots when I was 18.
>>24543414
Now for your typical uni sjw:
> You must agree with all their ideas
> Members who stray from the path are ostracised
> Creating safe spaces, "looking out for victims"
> Pressing for authoritarian rule
Inwardly dominant, but not as much as they are outwardly:
> Screams at and protests anyone who doesn't include themselves in this group
> Deliberately hunts down people to get their group to wage war with over twitter/ social media
> Never listens to criticism or something that doesn't align with their agenda
> Abuses social constructs to create mobs that circle any opposers
Extremely dominant outwardly
BUT AT LEAST THEY AREN'T C U C K S, AINT THAT NEAT
>>24543541
Same, f@m.
>>24543649
No, they're inwardly cooperative because they compromise their meanings with each added member. Feminism added gay ism added transism added queerism added genderism added ally-ism added minority-ism, etc. The original victims change their definition of victimhood to include everyone else, so they're inwardly cooperative. The new members even rise to leadership positions. It's a fucking mess.
People who disagree with them but also have one or two qualities (minority,gay, etc.) aren't treated entirely like shit because they're fractionally members. Only ciswhite males are unilaterally treated like shit, unless they're kek allies. They're outwardly dominant with a lot of wholes.
Inward dominance dictates that all incoming members will listen to the rules the leaders have already set, otherwise they're outsiders. The leadership stays constant so long as they retain dominance.
>>24541432
Tbh justs picked the lighter skinned of all the pairings, don't get how they were always the beta version unless this test was made by some butthurt shitskin.
>>24543793
That last statement kind of goes back on itself. There are plenty sjw leaders in social circles who sort of pressure new members or outsiders to behave like them and follow the absolutes they set out.
Regardless, it still feeds into the point I'm trying to make; people here think being dominant across the board is the mark of a top quality version of themselves. That in the retarded social competition on 4chan, people put way too much focus into setting out to be the alpha. (Which in a way, sort of proves they're a beta)
"Hahah, you're not dominant, therefore you're a c u c k", then simultaneously being frustrated why everything around them is shit
>>24541432
Oy vey, I must be a nazi or something
First one to post a straight line outside of the borders
I'm reactionary, not exactly a leader type though.
>>24543972
Well, I think being dominant across the board is better so long as the leadership is overwhelmingly correct for the most part. A dominant leader should also be open to arguments in order to refine leadership, of course, but once orders are given they should be followed to the letter. In that kind of system everything runs smoothly. If it doesn't, then the leader is meant to change the orders. It's a popular mindset on 4chan because this kind of system is the most efficient so long as there is a reliable feedback chain to the leader, and so long as the leader is good.
The general sentiment is that cooperative leaderships are messy and ineffective because they compromise the structural integrity of a unit and take needless risks in the name of equality. I like a merit-based pecking order with clear rules, qualifications, and conditions for victory.
Whoever is right should lead, and we should determine who is right by argument. The problem is that not everyone has the capacity to know who is right or to know who is right quickly enough. Sometimes people just need to have faith fucking listen, because ideological obfuscation and smokescreens are very effective against groups that have people with wider ranges of intelligence and personality.
In modern settings, dominance doesn't refer to brute power as much as it refers to authoritarianism.
>>24541432
I got literally all dominance
>>24544333
>so long as the leadership is overwhelmingly correct for the most part.
This is impossible to gauge; everyone from their perspective is correct, and for good reason.
Of course, not everyone can be correct- but that's the problem. If you're outwardly dominant and push your own agenda WITHOUT being hard on yourself and your associates/ subordinates, then that problem perpetuates.
For a process where morals or discussion don't really have a place, dominance absolutely works the most efficiently, like you said. Dominance is fan-fucking-tastic when it's keeping things in order.
I'm just being a massive faggot and trying to turn this discussion into being "Drop the whole 'us vs them' mentality"
That's the agenda I'm pursuing to get across here. You aren't always right, I'm not always right, we need to understand that to get closer to whatever "right" is
>>24544518
It isn't impossible to gauge. The inner circle of leadership (with regards to argumentation; even an inner circle of one person should internally evaluate all conjurable opposing ideas) need to be fair and rational with each other. From the leader point of view, talking to subordinates should be "you obey what I say because I have studied this", "you trust what I say because I have earned your trust", and "it's us vs. them" when the opposing faction holds ideals that you've already considered and are/will be a threat or encumbrance to your movement.
I look at a debate as a situation of ideological refinement more than a situation of "you vs. me". You could argue that a refinement process is actually a cooperative method of leadership, but it looks to me from a pragmatic point of view like micro-dominance. That kind of conflict internal to leadership between opposing ideals is great for eliminating gray areas and retaining unity in your party, as long as trust in the leader doesn't dwindle. In real world situations, the lower members of any large faction hardly have a working understanding of upper-level strategy and are forced to place their trust in leadership or join someone else, which would require them to evaluate their competition, which they're also probably unable to do since the competition's motives are nearly equal in complexity to their own leadership's.
There hardly are any real cooperative groups apart from team activities, sports, and video games. I'm likely missing things here, but to me everything with a large scale seems like a dominance-lead group whether the non-leaders know it or not. Even democracies are stringed and bankrolled. There's always paranoia about an "inner circle" even in big social groups, and that neuroticism exists because it's true.
>>24545022
actually got me to view this whole thing more objectively
I still think we're discussing things on entirely different levels; I'm thinking more along the lines of personal acquaintances, family, colleagues, while you're referring to larger corporations and world leaders
I would still fucking love to hear what you have to say
>I look at a debate as a situation of ideological refinement more than a situation of "you vs. me"
^ ^ ^
fuck, too beta, maybe I should cheat on my gf to even things out
>>24545332
I don't know what you're asking 2bh.
Nobody has a monopoly on philosophies. They're up for anyone to play with, utilize, manipulate, or build on once they're understood. The validity and soundness of your ideas function in tandem with their defensibility. They need to put them under stress to become infallible in the future. So in a debate between two people, both parties leave the table better off. Debates notify you of vulnerabilities in your ideologies and let you prepare for your next skirmish.
You should be relying on friends, colleagues, and family to attack your ideologies because they're the only ones who won't exploit a lack of understanding for their own gain. They're a part of your council. If they don't then you're all just living and working together, separately in disunion. A part of me resents my parents for not teaching me even though they provided for me. Feeding a kid and trying to keep him happy is how you would raise a dog. Great parents challenge their kids and show them their ideological holes in order to bring them up to the same page, but that isn't a cooperative leadership. That's fair dominance and kind authority. If you have to say, "because that's how it is" to a question about the world, then you haven't refined your philosophies enough.
I think a lot of people avoid conflicts because they tie their ideologies to themselves and treat them territorially. That mode of thinking ends up making them feel bad when they're proven wrong or end up losing ideological confrontation. Bad feelings and conflict avoidance naturally work together as a positive feedback loop in most people. I think that's why people avoid controversial discussion among family and friends, when really a cogent unit of closely-bonded people should know what each other thinks and feels about topics that are important to one another and topics that obfuscate/threaten their way of life and vision.
