/b/ - Random

Men love shit tests when it's other men. Then it's 'the bants' and 'friendly competition.' Just tune their whining out.

it makes you yourself a bad friend because you don't trust them.

>>75245
Yes, that's what I suspect.

>>75246
But what if they fail the shit test? I just don't understand this. It seems to me that people only hate them because they would fail them if the test was given.

its tiresome if everyone is trying to bait eachother into misbehaving or saying the wrong thing all the time

thats the whole point of high-trust societies and communities
if everyone can get along and trust each other implicitly and naturally, it means that you will have more time and energy for productive behavior and leisure

>>75249
imagine being on the other side and your friend tells you they keep money in a jar under their sink because they expect you to steal it. it implies bad character on the part of the person you're testing, and that assumption alone is insulting enough to break off the friendship.

>>75250
How is it tiresome if you're completely unaware of being tested in the first place? It doesn't take that much energy to plot a shit test.

>leave cookie jar on counter
>wait for cookies to be stolen
>cookies are/aren't stolen
>fin

>>75251
But I would never know they were baiting me. In fact, nothing would even come of the situation if I didn't rob my friend. So how would anyone get hurt or offended? It's fine to trust people close to you, but imagine letting a new person into your life and just leaving everything unlocked and open because you're just that trusting. That strikes me as crazy.

I think it’s one of those things that people only hate when they’re caught in it lol. It’s like a cheater getting mad that you looked in their phone and found them cheating. Mad cuz bad, literally.

The textbook answer for “what’s wrong with shit tests?” is it’s technically deceitful and are a sign you’re insecure about the relationship and since you’re using a passive aggressive method instead of communicating your insecurities, this makes you are a bad/toxic person. Personally, I hate this philosophy that showing any negative trait/destructive tendencies you have is “toxic” because it’s a mindset that turns you into a fake person that never 100% opens up to anyone but that’s a rant for another day.

>>75253
Well I'm with you, mostly, aside from the looking through someone's phone thing. Communication is fine up to a certain point for sure, but sometimes you just need to pull some Scooby-Doo mystery shit and find out for yourself.

I guess this would be considered 'toxic' after all. I try not to shit test people for this exact reason, but I still find myself struggling to understand why it's so bad. If I was shit tested and failed, then it's my fault. Why do other people refuse to take responsibility for their actions? Ugh.

>>75252
>But I would never know they were baiting me.
If you are repeatedly shit testing people, believe me, they are aware. It's usually incredibly obvious (and annoying).

>>75256
I don't. The point is that a single shit test does not hurt anyone.

>>75257
I mean if you're making this thread to try to justify it to yourself, it doesn't matter. You're going to do what you want anyway. But you may lose friends from it. And it's never just the once.

>>75259
You're a little presumptuous. The point of the thread is to discuss shit tests. If you're against someone having a different opinion than you and challenging your own then that's not something I can help with.

>>75243
The only people that hate them are the ones that would fail and don't want it normalized in society.

>>75265
Not an argument.

>>75266
I'm not so sure. I have met good people who wouldn't have deserved a test, and still were against that kind of thing. But I do believe that MOST people who disagree with shit tests are bound to fail them.

The shit tests that are often hated are the "say one thing mean another" type.
Like a guy saying he'll pay the bill but it's actually a trap since he wants you to argue about it and pay your part. It's annoying and confusing when people say they want one thing and expect you to argue with them to prove yourself. If you’re either an agreeable person or poor with social cues they're impossible.

In your scenario, this would be akin to not just having the jar, but also saying "I want you to have this money" in hopes they will turn it down. If they say yes then would you conclude they suck and you should cut them off?

That said, men complaining about it do often just want to break down barriers in a "no means yes" sort of way. Which is gross.

I personally could never do them because I'm socially a dumbass and couldn't manipulate if I tried. Maybe if I was even normie level I'd agree with you 100%.

Just communicate your concerns instead of baiting people. If you can't trust someone off their word, and the history between you, then don't.

>>75302
What is wrong with baiting people lowkey? I do this myself and if they can be trusted they can be trusted if not they cannot be.

>>75303
You know what's wrong with baiting people, you also know that baiting people is wrong, you just want to justify why you do it. Baiting someone into a misdeed legally constitutes conspiracy or entrapment. Baiting someone into a misdeed socially is called being a massive cunt. Either way you're setting up a convenient circumstance for someone to act wrongfully and then being surprised when they do. But whatever, you do as you will and social selection will sort out the rest.

You are showing mistrust by doing these "shit tests". Don't expect to build trust by mistrusting people. It's not how it fucking works. Seriously. If you "baited" me into stealing I would be offended.

>>75303
Because it implies you're incapable of trust or actually holding a real relationship with them, which requires good faith and some honesty. They will also figure out what you're doing and that awareness will further poison it. Or they might not recognise it as shit testing but they will know something is off and it will change how your relationship unfolds, probably kill it as it in fact demonstrates that you are manipulative and untrustworthy.

I think the money one is a bit unfair as people can be desperate to support themselves or to pay for medicines so they or a loved one don’t die. It’s cruel to tempt someone like that.

Instead of setting up tests, just learn to take someone at their word and their actions. Don’t make excuses for anything wrong they do.

>>75307
>>75310

Soo… You should just trust somebody with no proof that they are trustworthy? Why? Because that's 'normal' and 'socially acceptable'? Because it's just the way everybody else does things?

Imagine if you honestly had told somebody you leave your money somewhere, and it wasn't a shit test. You did it because you trusted them. And then they rob you! Then everybody here would be saying 'lol why did you trust that person, how stupid. Sucks for you'. Like it looks like the only reason this shit is considered wrong is because people say it is, and that's it. I guess that's how morality works in general, but. I've always found the 'it's wrong because we say so' approach quite gross.

>>75317
If they need the money that bad they should ask. I know my mother's pin number but I'm not about to rob her blind because I have the ability to do so. I just ask when I need cash. It not only showcases them being a terrible person if they rob me, but also, they're prideful too. And I dislike prideful people who are hurting for things.

>>75321
NTA
>You should just trust somebody with no proof that they are trustworthy?
You already do this on a daily basis, why is it so hard to grasp? Everytime you go to a grocery store, you're trusting that the bank will transfer the money to the store, the food you buy is somewhat edible, the cashier won't ripoff and that the other customers won't stab you over 20$. At the very least, even walking down the street, you have to trust that no stranger is going to stab you in broad daylight in a lunatic frenzy, that they're not going to push you into the street to get run over by a car, etc. You implicitly have to trust others to do their jobs and to not murder you on a daily basis. Trust is not black and white. You can trust someone to feed your cat, that doesn't mean you have to trust them with your safe combination. Trust does not exist as all or nothing, you don't have to trust someone with literally everything or literally nothing.
>Because that's 'normal' and 'socially acceptable'?
I don't think so in the slightest, but nice attempt at constructing a straw man to punch down so effortlessly.
>Because it's just the way everybody else does things?
This but sincerely,] and unironically. The entirety of society is everyone trusting everyone else to not fuck everything up too badly. As long as the farmers produce enough food, I don't have to worry about my food supply going poof and dying of hunger in a month. I trust the city engineers to get water to my house so I don't die of thirst in three days. In turn, I am trusted to do whatever it is I can that benefits others. Obviously some people fuck this up royally, and then the trust breaks down until it is restored again. Jesus Christ, to even post on this website you have to assume that the internet isn't going to just being maintained tomorrow, that Admin is going to keep the site running long enough for you to get a reply, and that everyone you are talking to is on at least some level sincere with what they are telling you. Does that mean you take everyone at face value 100% of the time? Of course not, but if people were dishonest 100% of the time here, why would you even bother coming to the site?

Maybe that's all too general for you, maybe your definition of trust doesn't include the general notion that anyone on the street is at the very least, not trying to kill you every single second and just can't. Alright, let's ratchet it down, just two people. Let's start with just two people, two people meet each other doing a hobby or some bullshit, whatever. Trust is a two way street, that person is trusting you and you are trusting that person, and you are both observing each other. You are then trusting that the other person trusts you, and the other person is trusting you that you trust them. It is true, shit testing people without them knowing, theoretically, has 0 downsides, and would certainly prove they are trustworthy, but needing to prove that that person is trusting you, by definition, means you don't trust that person. This is why some people find shit testing abhorrent. You violated their trust that you trusted them. They will then correct mentally "Well, even though I trusted her to trust me, that turned out to be not true. Now I know that she doesn't trust me, which means my trust in her was misplaced. She's probably going to look at all of my actions with scrutiny no matter how many shit tests I pass."

You do have a point, only bad people would fail a shit test, therefore, good people who pass a shit test shouldn't concern them, but it's the meta-act of shit testing them in the first place that makes you seem abnormal, paranoid and defensive. These are all fine things to be, if you are okay being these things. If you want to come off with those traits, continue to shit test people, just be aware that any normal person with good-faith trust in other's is going to be intuitively abhorred by your behavior, you will only be surrounded by other abnormal, paranoid and defensive people. If that is what you want, continue to shit test, if you instead what to have more meaningful interactions with others, I recommend doing what the majority of other people do, and assume they mean no harm.

Are you all hanging with people stealing your shit all the time? I cant even imagine of needing to do this.

>>75345
Very intelligent post, deserves a bump.

I don't shittest, i take calculated risks. Humans are flawed creatures, anyone will betray you if tempted too hard, better not to experiment on people you care about.

>>140105
That post was bad, it missed the point, no wonder it didn't get a reply.

>>75345
>>140105
>>140259
>>140260
Shit testing is already sullying mutual assumed trust and pushing someone away in your head and in theirs when they notice how you see them. When that happens they no longer trust you and no longer feel obligated to treat you in good faith, which produces worse results. Such as them intentionally working against you. Such as no longer seeing any reason to not do bad things towards you, the test producing what it was supposed to uncover, when they would otherwise be good to you. People have limits and you can't expect them to be patient while you have only shown suspicion. It might be comforting but it does not work in reality. In reality both parties will end up suspicious, distant, and on guard. It's not about failing or passing but the social and psychological effect that regardless of the test itself is noticed by both and impacts your relationship. I'm not talking about close relationships so much because to betray someone's trust so whimsically necessarily means you were never close to begin with. Talking about the casual ones that make up most relationships, that can go either way.

No matter how you put it. You are fostering a social breakdown on unfair grounds (they trust you but you don't trust them) and encouraging dysfunctional norms in society that would encourage everyone to be suspicious of others and reluctant to give the basic good faith required to build anything. People match what they find others doing, as social norms, but also as mentioned it isn't something you just do for your own indulgence with no consequences. How you see them and how they see you sets the stage for what's possible. You also can't repair this even if you both dutifully play pretend. You will never be close.

>>140273
now that's a good post.

>>140260
Make a better post then, I'm still here, prove me wrong.

People that realise they are being shit tested will asume the worst out of you, at least be polite and let them know you don't trust them yet or test them very subtly. I don't wanna feel like in a uni exam everytime I met some rando.

This whole concept is so foreign and passive-agressive seeming to me. If you have some disagreement or suspicion, just talk it out like adults. You don't need these childish games to prove something is one way or another.

>>140301
I may or not be offended, I've never had it happen so I'm not certain. It would tell me I was dealing with an incredibly neurotic person with severe trust issues. This typically is a very unpleasent person to maintain long term interactions with. Offense may not be the right word, "immediately warned to stay away" may be more apt.

>>75251
If somebody told me that I would just assume they trust me enough that they can tell me something like that. The only way you would find out if it was bait is if you tried to steal it.
But regardless OP you should trust your friends and not be a schizo.

>>140303
my mother did this shit to people when I was a kid, (shes not passive-aggressive) I assume some areas that just have more thieves will make people grow up to distrust new people coming into their house, or want to see if your longtime mate has the decency to leave the tenner on the table. Personally, I'd never do it, but wouldnt have an issue with someone trying to find out if Im a thief, its not like asking "hey would you steal this?" is going to yield results as accurate as coming home to a tennerless table.

>>75243
That's not a shit test, that's you being paranoid and in some cases right in your paranoia. A shit test is when YOU do something wrong and check how the other person (the man) handles it.

>>140346
males call anything that isn't sucking their dicks a shit-test

>>140273
Perhaps you should get out there and meet more people, and widen your spectrum a bit. Take me for example, i feel rather glad when someone trusts me with something important and even if i perceive that this trust is only a facade, it doesn't make me any less glad, because it means that someone is willing to take a risk in order to get to know me better, why would i just assume i'm entitled to someone's trust just like that, i'm perfectly fine with getting my trustworthiness tested.

I generally think it's retarded to do it to everyone all the time and creates paranoia for you and others. However laying traps and shit tests have their place if you already have a reason to be suspicious of someone. It should be a last resort but it can be useful to finally catch them in the act if you cannot otherwise.

It backfires on you because when someone figures it out despite passing your shit tests (and they will), they'll consider you manipulative. Then you lose your relationship with a trustworthy person. Shit testing in this way would make you very prone to being unable to keep good people around.

>>140388
>Take me for example, i feel rather glad when someone trusts me with something important and even if i perceive that this trust is only a facade
How do you determine that the trust was given as a facade?

>>75243
Trustworthy people want to hang out with other trustworthy people.
Doing shit tests will drive them away (they ain't stupid) and let you fester in a toxic social circle of your own making, ironically justifying in your head your "need" for those shit tests.
This sounds a lot like bad upbringing on your family's part (which probably trickles down from your socioeconomic status given your only example is about stolen money in a cookie jar, I don't want this phrase to sound this mean but I can't find a good way to say it).
If anyone reading this think like OP, go to therapy, there is a lot of work to do.

I think they are wrong when you are setting someone up who is 1. someone you should ideally already have a lot of trust for and 2. has not done anything wrong yet. This might be a cringe example, but on the recent 90 day fiance season, this guy Bilal sets up his fiancee Shaeeda. She has not seen his home at all yet, and he wants to "test" her to see if she is only into him because she thinks he is wealthy. Mind you when they met in her home country, he had like, LV luggage, nice designer suits, etc. and clearly appeared to be doing well for himself. When she arrives, he picks her up in a shitty rape van with garbage inside and takes her to a crappy house. She is a little upset but expresses it's because she is concerned he now appears like he sucks at managing his own fiances - he has a crappy house, a crappy car, but designer luggage and clothing, etc. But of course in his mind it's potentially confirmation that maybe she is only with him for his "money".

If there is someone you think you need to shit test you need to do some self reflection about why you don't trust the person or the situation. If the other person is reasonable they will be open to an honest conversation, even if it might mean hearing something uncomfortable about what you think of them ("I'm worried you might cheat on me because…"). I know if it were me I'd rather the person just talk to me and we can try to figure out what would give them reassurance. And then if they want something unreasonable/insane, well then I can figure out that we're not compatible. If you have a deeper/stronger connection with someone who is a partner, close friend, or family member, you should not have to do shit like this. To me it demonstrates a lack of maturity/well-adjustedness. It makes you look paranoid and generally mentally ill tbh.

What about doing a friendly test instead? Like, you hide 100$ under a counter and tell your friend that there is emergency cash, and that she (or he?) can take it, but only if she really really needs it. She'll be happy to have your trust, and if the 100$ ever disappears you can directly ask her what she used it for.
Yes, you're kinda gambling 100$. But that's cheap compared to having trust in a friend.

>>75243
I think not all shit tests are made equal.
The Jar thing you described is a bit paranoid but understandable, people can't stand shit tests that are like
>this person is really hot omg
and waiting to see what sort of response they get out of their significant other.
Testing new people is one thing, testing your partner for the "correct" response is annoying, especially when it's not a one off thing (and it rarely is with that sort of person, man or woman)

>>75251
Or worse, you try the same shit test on different people and don't know which one failed it and now all of them are suspect.
Or you tell your friend that it's there, but your mom finds it first or already has and moves it.

>>75243
Maybe I'm under the wrong impression, I thought a shit test was testing how much shit they're willing to put up with.
Like making your boyfriend get ice cream right before the store closes when you could yourself, our or doing things you know will irritate him to see if he'll day anything about it or suffer silently.
I thought shit testing was too weed out simps.

>>140301
I'm with you, never have been bothered receiving one and I usually give them without them ever finding out.
If they pass it, I don't ever have to do it again or bring it up. I don't care what anyone else says, and if I lose a friend over it, they were worth losing. >>75345 is completely off the mark in that they assume a friend in your interpersonal life and is capable of completely crippling you emotionally and maybe materially is the same as some random person with responsibilities out in public who can be held much more accountable. And even in a personal environment, I'm still going to be observing people closely if I don't know them well. Naivete isn't a virtue.

In Poland we have this beautiful ballad written by our national author in 1822 called Świtezianka, about a rusałka (lake nymph) who fell in love with a hunter. But she didn't trust his words when he pledged his love to her. So she changed how she looked to fool him, and then tried to get him to walk into a lake with her under the disguise of an insanely beautiful woman. Then, when he tried to kiss her disguise, she revealed her true self, killed him and condoned his soul to thousands years of suffering while she danced on the lake. So that was also a sort of test and it really influenced me when I read it in 8th grade class. What a girlboss.

>>75245
Not sure nona, i don't know any man that would pull what OP talked about

I see social interaction as a completely mechanical thing so I'm always running all sort of tests and testing theories of how communication works. Idk how everyone else works but this works for me.

>>140587
>>this person is really hot omg
The real issue with this shit test is that it isn't passable. The sort of person who asks this has such strong sensitivities that anything you do will be taken as proof of your "guilt", especially if you recognize the shit test for what it is and it comes across.

>>141019
Do any of your tests involve doing shit tests?

I always assumed "shit test" meant being annoying/a bitch/verbally abusing your partner until he does something about it.

>>141088
no, shit test is a term scrotes use for when you check if theyre a good enough partner or not. they dont like it because they more often than not fail it and this hurts their chances of having sex

>>141089
Glad we agree on what a shit test is, if not whether or not it's a good thing to do.

>>75243
>>141089

I have seen them write about shit tests and I read a lot of it and usually what they are talking about when they say "shittest" is a woman acting out for attention just to see how he deals with it or trying to wind him up to test his character or something like that. As in women throw shit at them to test them. A jar of money isn't shit, its more like being irritating and being a nuisance and seeing if he'll tolerate it or not

I don't get why you'd do that but apparently some women do this