Some relic of the early PUA theory, the term AMOG. Directly abbreviates “Alpha Male Of the Group,” but practically it means the following:

  • The PUA goes into a set.
  • Some power in the set (usually the highest status member) diminishes him.
  • The PUA loses all status, and the set is over.

We are not interested in this particular dynamic, but we are interested in a derivative dynamic. The part, “some power diminishes the player out of the set”. This power can be the girl herself, an intruder, the friend group, her parents, or what have you.

This idea generalises, essentially we can fully partition the scenarios as follows:

  • That power is “legit”; the player had no possible actions.
  • That power was bluffing; somebody got more out of the situation at the expense of the player.

Clearly, the first proposition was an error in the decision-making process before we even reach the point where we get blown out. The second is more nuanced; it is way more common than people give it credit. It is also the generalised form of a shit test.

Definition of power, expectations and confidence

Let’s start with a working definition of “power”. This term is mythologised in the Manosphere; there are a billion working definitions of power, expectations, and confidence that all work depending on the way we want to use it. We will go for such an approach, we aim to get an acceptable definition for our purpose, not a generalised one:

Power is measured by how much Party A has to adopt or change his behaviour in the presence of Party B.

There we go, for example, you walk into a store and you want to get a water bottle for free. Walking away without paying, of course, is theft, and it is theft because society exerts power over its citizens in the form of the Law of the land. If you are the store owner, where your local power overrides the State’s in your shop, you can step away with the water bottle without paying.

Now we will make a claim. Based on information asymmetry, people have a relative idea of power in any social setting. The cumulation of this knowledge is what we call “manners” and “politeness”. For brevity, let us call this acceptable behaviour.

Acceptable behaviour is not rigid and hierarchical. There is wiggle room, gradations, and it is in flux relative to context. There are strong social expectations that everyone conforms to this shared understanding. In particular, people are pushing the boundaries all the time; this is what can be dubbed a generalised frame test (or shit test).

There is a qualitative difference in how a person’s misunderstanding is dubbed. If a person asks for more than the shared narrative, he is dubbed a social violator. People straight up won’t take him seriously and will alienate him quickly. In contrast, a person who is asking for less than what he is supposed to, quickly drops to the level of his asking, which we call his value significantly diminishes.

To clarify, what we mean by “asking” for more or for less is a combination of both verbal behaviour and his physical behaviour, i.e., his body language. Is he giving more space than he should? Is he averting his gaze more than he should, etc?

In literature, that is why an overly agreeable person quickly loses value. That is why being excessively polite and generous loses value.

We are now ready to define socially acceptable confidence. Note that this means confidence in the social setting, not confidence in the psychological setting, i.e., which emotions lead you to confidence:

Confidence is precisely the smart limit testing of the acceptable behaviour. Not asking too much, not asking what everybody expects you to.

Think about it even in the Daygame context. A cold approach is not forbidden. It is highly unusual, so it attracts intrigue. It manifests as the following thought in the girl’s mind: Who is this guy talking to me? She lets you continue talking to her, partly so she can understand where you stand within the acceptable behaviour.

We now reach the part of social intelligence and calibration at its finest level:

Calibration is precisely how much more you ask based on your current standing in acceptable behaviour.

Social intelligence is how much you can back up your ask.

When both work in your favour, i.e., the girl is within your range, your approach is calibrated to indicate confidence, and you can back up your behaviour with social standing (for example, a witty stack), you have hit the bingo trifecta. She accepts the frame push, or your proposition of your value and position relative to her prior idea of acceptable behaviour. Attraction + admiration ensue, we are on the money!

To bring the definitions home, let us consider how social intelligence is defined in a casual context. Some keywords that are thrown around are, clear understanding of the context, and actions based on this understanding.

Well, ain’t that backing some unusual behaviour (the ask) with understanding of the context? So you understand what is happening better than most, and you can therefore excuse a bigger range of actions (literally the definition of power) than someone would blindly expect from acceptable behaviour.

Shit tests and AMOG’ing

We have come full circle now, here are the two scenarios we theorised at the beginning of this post:

  1. That power is “legit”; the player had no possible actions.
  2. That power was bluffing; somebody got more out of the situation at the expense of the player.

When we are in scenario 1, the player is the social violator. At some point, he missed the guidelines of acceptable behaviour and asked for something he shouldn’t have. This led him to that situation.

When we are in scenario 2, someone else is the social violator. The player again misunderstood the social structure and acceptable behaviour. He allowed the behaviour at his expense without reacting.

The insight

If we have perfect knowledge and understanding of the social situation, then we can never end up in either situation 1 or 2. We literally brought this to ourselves.

With the caveat that social violators (at all levels) are common, so our frame (or understanding of the acceptable behaviour) is under attack frequently. Sometimes we can use another’s frame gaps to gain an unfair advantage, albeit understanding that this is inherently a risky move.

When women shit test you, or better put, frame test you. They test exactly the concepts of acceptable behaviour, calibration, and social intelligence we defined above.

Check out my article here: https://coffeedaygame.wordpress.com/2025/11/15/power-structures-and-the-generalised-shit-test/