Just How Universal Is the 80/20 Rule?

Deep Strength had a post up a few weeks ago where he looked at how Tinder reaffirmed the 80/20 rule. The post is short, so go there to read it in full. I was not surprised by this result, in fact I would have predicted it if asked given the OKCupid numbers.  What led me to create this separate post is the following comment by Deep Strength:

The ‘most attractive’ men have a disproportionate amount of female attention and can pretty much pick and choose who to bang (if secular) or to marry (if Christian).

I happen to agree with that statement. But it got me thinking about the assumptions involved in it. What I would like to know is this:

Is the 80/20 rule truly universal? That is, does it apply to every “market?”

Tinder and OKCupid are specific markets. They cater to specific (and somewhat different) crowds. Those crows would be secular in nature, and with Tinder especially, focused on those looking for casual sex. So I would expect people to argue that the numbers apply only to those markets.

But my own experiences back up the 80/20 rule. I see which men in Christian (specifically Catholic) circles the women crush on. And it is the same handful of men. I hear this same thing from other Christian men- especially here on the sphere.

Everything leads me to believe that the rule is universal one, and doesn’t depend on the particular market in question. I invite my readers to offer their own take on this. Am a right? Wrong? Somewhere in between?

 

Advertisements

57 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Marriage Market Place, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Women

57 responses to “Just How Universal Is the 80/20 Rule?

  1. His point is that this isn’t hard to do because of how awfully unattractive most people are today

    If “people” includes women here, it means women are becoming more and more unattractive as well. In other words, there’s a continuing decline of average female quality. Which indeed seems to be the case. That’s a big problem, because it erodes the average man’s will to try elbowing his way into the top 20%. It surely offsets any potential advantage to be gained by trying to rise to the top of a group (i.e. men) that is declining in quality as well. We can see this around us.

    if you get your BMI in order, get tailored clothes and proper shoes, and stay physically fit

    Realistically speaking, the large majority of men with bad BMI are in no position to sort themselves out. It’s just a simple fact. They lack the free time, the endurance, the incentives.

  2. stmichaelkozaki

    Holl: [poor quality women is] a big problem, because it erodes the average man’s will to try elbowing his way into the top 20%.

    This is absolutely true. But it works the other way too; most women have given up as well. I agree women are worse, at least in the US. But men can lead in a way women cannot and restart the cycle. Most men are screwed, but nearly all women are screwed unless dealt a god hand.

    Realistically speaking, the large majority of men with bad BMI are in no position to sort themselves out. It’s just a simple fact. They lack the time, endurance, incentives.

    Again, this is true. We’ve inherited a bad deal, and ideas have consequences generation to generation. Life is suffering; anyone who claims different is selling something. BUT: any guy who has access to the internet is already in an elite worldwide status. Many (like myself) merely lacked the needed information, and I think most folk here are bright and willed enough to push through.

    By the way, the way I (finally) fixed my BMI was eliminating processed food, seed oils, & wheat replacing with eating meats/vegs/fruit. I went from 180# to 150#. Sadly I was considered “in shape” at 180# by US standards.

  3. I don’t discount aesthetics to be physically attractive to the opposite sex…but it is probably just as important to have an interesting personality to go with it. I also think a lot of this 80% of men are unattractive mentality women have is because they have unattractive personalities to begin with.

  4. stmichaelkozaki

    earl, I agree. Would go even further: male power and dominance are far more important than looks. The problem is people are holistic and physicality/looks/attire will eventually become his personality. Diet/weights are more important for the hormonal/lifestyle/confidence changes that are a man’s true personality. Just like a guy can spot a hot chick at 50 yards, most women can spot “that guy” in the reflection of a glass building. How he walks, stands, dresses, stares out at the world. I gotta repeat: I see men all day and am unimpressed. Would not wish to be a woman (or a man) in the xMP today. Not at church, not on tinder. Which is an opportunity IMO. We gotta be at the bottom a very deep bear SSM.

  5. But it works the other way too; most women have given up as well.

    Yes, that seems to be the case. The general behaviors of the sexes evole in a tandem, so to speak, because the attitudes of men and women affect one another. I don’t think there’s much symmetry there, though. The bottom 30-40% of the female sexual hierarchy has marginal effect on men, or none at all. The bottom 60-70% of the male hierarchy has marginal effect on women, or none at all.

    But men can lead in a way women cannot and restart the cycle.

    That only applies to the top men, I think. Today, most of them have no incentives whatsoever to change the mating market. That’s not to say other men have no effect at all, but that effect is different in nature, and smaller as well. I think it generally goes like this: when the top men change, women adjust, and when women adjust, average men do too.

  6. stmichaelkozaki

    Holl: That only applies to the top men [who] have no incentive to change the mating market…top men change, women adjust, and when women adjust, average men do too.

    True in theory. In practice it may underestimate how desperate women are today. They drool over the top 20% but the MMP competition is flat-out furious for those men (marry, are you kidding with women swarming you daily??) so women must explore that grey area from 20-40%. And this is very accessible to 80% of men, merely because most other men have (rightfully) tossed in the towel on marriage and family. Also as families are destroyed many/most men are raised by women and thus damaged goods as partners (unless they wake up). And finally men can reinvent themselves at practically any age. Women? Not so much, who are followers by nature w/ a very short shelf life. Hence, an opportunity for men to dip into the younger female set who must grab something fast if they want to play in the MMP at all. But it starts with diet, BMI, weights, self-discipline, attire, and telling 95% of women hey it was NTKU but please find somebody else I’d rather live an active, social, single life unless I find something of quality.

  7. Pingback: 80/20 rule followup, masculine attractiveness analysis, and how to fix a dysfunctional marriage | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s