The Snark | The Social Triangulation Algorithm (1): Her

How She Manages Men, Drinks, and Drama in a Bar

Picture this: she’s standing near the bar in Atlanta. Her boyfriend is eight feet away, locked in mortal combat with the bartender to secure two vodka sodas. For now, she looks solo. For now, she’s fair game. Enter: the chaos agent.

He doesn’t know she’s taken. He just sees opportunity. She, meanwhile, knows exactly where her boyfriend is, knows he’ll be back in about ninety seconds, and knows she’s about to run the most important algorithm in nightlife. And – and

Step One: The Incoming Male

Our bold stranger approaches. Sometimes casual – “Crazy busy here, huh?” Sometimes pushy – “Need a drink?” He’s thinking opportunity. She’s already calculating risk.

Step Two: Past Experience

She’s been here before. Too polite last time? The guy lingered until it got weird. Too sharp? Her boyfriend thought she was being rude. Her internal archive is full of case studies. Tonight’s move? Dependent on both input and audience.

Step Three: The Boyfriend Variable

She triangulates:

• Boyfriend = jealous/protective → go hard shutdown (“Not with you, thanks.”).

• Boyfriend = laid-back/confident → polite brush-off (“Already got one coming, thanks.”).

• Boyfriend = watching closely → playful deflect (“Two vodka sodas… he’s right behind you with the credit card.”).

She’s not just dealing with the stranger. She’s pre-managing the re-entry of her partner, who will walk back into the scene any second.

Step Four: The Output

Her words are the algorithm’s print statement. One stranger, one boyfriend en route, one line to balance it all:

• Polite: “Already got one coming, thanks.”

• Playful: “Yeah, two vodka sodas – he’s right behind you.”

• Sharp: “Not with you, thanks.”

The stranger hears a brush-off. The boyfriend, when he returns, hears either reassurance, loyalty, or (in some universes) “why were you so harsh?” Every possible outcome is loaded into a single sentence.

Why Writers Should Care

This isn’t “man approaches woman, woman rebuffs.” This is a live-fire social scenario where she’s juggling:

• The stranger’s intent.

• Her own boundaries.

• Her boyfriend’s temperament.

• The fact that her ‘alone time’ has an expiration date.

It’s not just dialogue. It’s triangulation in real time – the kind of tiny social detail that makes fictional couples believable.

Closing Snark

At the bar, she’s not sipping her drink. She’s running code:

if (guy == pushy) and (boyfriend == jealous):

    response = "Not with you, thanks."

elif (guy == casual) and (boyfriend == chill):

    response = "Already got one coming, thanks."

else:

    response = "Two vodka sodas. He’s right behind you."

And that, dear writers, is how you turn a simple “hi” into a subplot.

Addendum: Outcomes for the Chaos Agent

Because while she’s triangulating, the chaos agent has his own outcome tree – and spoiler: it’s a lot less complicated.

Scenario A: The Polite Brush-OffHer: “Already got one coming, thanks.”Him: Nods, grins, pivots. Internal log: “Eh, worth a shot.”

Scenario B: The Playful DeflectHer: “Yeah, two vodka sodas – he’s right behind you.”Him: Laughs, tips imaginary hat. Internal log: “Respect. She’s quick.”

Scenario C: The Sharp ShutdownHer: “Not with you, thanks.”Him: Hands up, retreats fast. Internal log: “Yikes. Jealous boyfriend alert. Next.”

Meta-Truth

Chaos agents don’t care about fallout. They measure success in attempts, not outcomes. Their only mission is to toss a pebble into the pond and see if it ripples.

And that’s your scene: she’s coding survival, he’s shrugging it off, and the boyfriend’s about to arrive with two vodka sodas and a whole new variable.

“Every bar has its chaos agent. The question is: how does she code the response?”

The Snark