The 80/20 percent thing

Post Reply New Topic

So it's basically what size battery is rammed up your rear end?

The 80/20 percent "thing" just sounds like a subversion of the Pareto Principle, in order to justify more "hypergamy" rubbish from a different angle.

The concept of the Pareto Principle is meant to express that 80% of outcomes are the result of only 20% of the inputs. Basically, 20% of the things you do, are responsible for 80% of the things that happen to you.

The source of this concept came from the observation that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by only 20% of the population. Which sounds far too much like "the top 20% of men get 80% of the women" for it to be a coincidence.

You'll notice that the Pareto Principle specifies "outcomes" not "successes". That's cos the outcomes don't have to be positive. Good choices result in good outcomes, while bad choices result in bad outcomes. That means if you're getting mostly bad outcomes, it's a result of a relatively small number of bad choices.

Maybe it's not that women are too picky. Maybe you just aren't as spiffy as you think you are.

I can't see why people ponder these numbers. 80/20, 70/30 or 60/40...how does it matter? All you can do is throw your hat into the ring, do your best and hope to get lucky.

To elaborate further:

Here's how it's been subverted. The intended point of the 80/20 rule, in business, is to find out what those 20% most effective inputs are, and focus on those - or to find your worst practices, and stop them - in the name of efficiency. Where the incel mentality co-opts the concept, is unilaterally assuming that the "best inputs" are being attractive, wealthy, dominant, etc - and that most women must prioritize them - and basically ignores the existence of negative traits or anything else.

It refuses to acknowledge the importance of literally anything else, except as being of secondary or minor importance, after the money and looks - or acknowledge that maybe looks and wealth don't matter as much as they're thought to.

It also ignores the flipside, and how negative behaviors can undermine any good qualities you might have. Rating people with numbers is sketch, but I shall use numbers as the lingua franca of the realm to make the point. The scale doesn't go from 1-10. it goes from -10 to +10. Like, and dislike. Zero being neutral or irrelevant. There's a scale for every trait you have, good or bad.

Not every scale matters - or matters to the same degree or extent - to every person. You could be a 5 on looks, but a 1 on personality and a -5 on attitude - and if they don't care about looks, you're a -4, in total.

To reiterate my initial summation, maybe it's not that your looks aren't high enough, or your wealth isn't high enough, but that your other qualities, negative qualities - ones that people downplay or refuse to acknowledge - are eating away at your "score" more than you realize.

Maybe it's an American thing, but I go out in public and see some very unattractive couples who are raising kids. Of course, in the US, having no tolerance of at least some degree of obesity substantially limits one's dating choices.

the question may have been answered already but this is specifically relevant to those young men in the manosphere. the prevalent numbers used by manosphere spokespersons is 90/10 which were sourced from the manosphere guru Jordan Petersen.

So for young men unable to find a g/f and listening to the fresh and fit podcast or Andrew tate or any other pro-man dude on the internet it's 90% of single women are only attracted to the top 10% of men. Infact I've heard Myron Gaines even use 5% of men getting 95% of women to swipe right.

Debating the veracity of these numbers is pointless as the intended audience (young men who can't get a date or whom constantly meet the same "type" of woman on dates) hold fast onto these odds quoted in the manosphere.