Video: Why Chinese Beautiful Women Ignore Good Men and Are Attracted to the 'Wrong' Ones?

[LuckyR]

If dudes have it all figured out, why does the incel thing exist?

There are lots of dudes who are complete failures at life.

In fact, dudes liberally admit this.

Absolutely no man will feel attacked if you say that lots of men are completely unsuitable for anything serious. In fact, men are the first ones to point out that there are lots of men that they would not like to see with their sister or with their daughter.

What is new in modern times, is the incredibly large number of women that I would not want to see with my brother or with my son.

Concerning incels, there are large numbers of men who fail in the sexual marketplace, because they can't get hold of sex.

There are also large numbers of women who fail in the sexual marketplace, because they cannot hold of commitment from a man.

Men and women chase different things in the sexual marketplace. Men want sex while women want a ring. Lots of men are not getting sex and lots of women are not getting a ring. In the West, the current level of failure is around 50% already, rapidly getting worse.

According to your theory are more more men interested in rings vs women who just want sex?

[godelian]

According to your theory are more more men interested in rings vs women who just want sex?

In modern times, men do not benefit from marriage. According to the modern laws for marriage and divorce, all obligations accrue to the husband and none to the wife. So, no, men are generally not interested in putting a ring on it.

For women, on the other hand, the typical plan of trying to get a ring from a highly attractive and wealthy man while she is already somewhere in her late twenties or early thirties is incredibly unrealistic. It's not that women don't want a ring. It's much more that they simply cannot get one from a man that they want it from.

Women often try to use sex to entice a man into committing but that does not work on a man with lots of options. So, it's not that modern women just want sex. They want the ring while sex is just a tool to try to get that coveted ring.

What the average man wants, does not matter, because he is mostly invisible to women.

Outside the West, however, things are a bit different. There are other dynamics at play.

[Eodnhoj7]

Don't be so hard on her...there is nothing in her of value to be hard on.

Creepy, degenerate, misogynistic muslim man can't attract women so assumes it's because he's 'too good'
How unattractive would someone need to be that they have to leave their own country just to find a sexual partner?

Am I hard on her? She has an utmost detestable mouth. That is why no man can suffer her for longer than the time it takes to figure that out. There is indeed nothing in her of value.

Fair enough.

[LuckyR]

According to your theory are more more men interested in rings vs women who just want sex?

In modern times, men do not benefit from marriage. According to the modern laws for marriage and divorce, all obligations accrue to the husband and none to the wife. So, no, men are generally not interested in putting a ring on it.

For women, on the other hand, the typical plan of trying to get a ring from a highly attractive and wealthy man while she is already somewhere in her late twenties or early thirties is incredibly unrealistic. It's not that women don't want a ring. It's much more that they simply cannot get one from a man that they want it from.

Women often try to use sex to entice a man into committing but that does not work on a man with lots of options. So, it's not that modern women just want sex. They want the ring while sex is just a tool to try to get that coveted ring.

What the average man wants, does not matter, because he is mostly invisible to women.

Outside the West, however, things are a bit different. There are other dynamics at play.

I'm not asking for another rehash of your standard theory (we've seen it several times). Rather I'm asking for your guess as to whether there are more exceptions to your theory among men or women.

[godelian]

I'm not asking for another rehash of your standard theory (we've seen it several times).

Well, it's not "my" theory. It's a set of stubborn observable patterns known as the "red pill".

Rather I'm asking for your guess as to whether there are more exceptions to your theory among men or women.

Well, how "stubborn" is a stubborn pattern in human behavior? Human behavior is always full of exceptions.

Furthermore, human behavior cannot even be tested. There will never be a legitimate science about human behavior for exactly the same reason as why there ultimately cannot be a science about computers. Alan Turing's halting problem guarantees that. The term "computer science" is therefore an oxymoron.

There are two programs involved in the setup, Pathological and Oracle. Oracle claims that it can determine from the source code of any arbitrary program along with any arbitrary input, if such program will halt or run forever. Pathological is a program that is programmed as following. First, Pathological asks Oracle if it believes that Pathological will stop on a particular input. Next, if Oracle says that Pathological will stop, then Pathological runs forever. If Oracle says that Pathological will run forever, then Pathological stops. Hence, whatever Oracle predicts about Pathological, its prediction will always be wrong.

This is Alan Turing's proof for the fact that the halting problem cannot be solved. No Oracle program can ever be constructed that can predict if all other programs will stop or run forever for a particular input. This problem is obviously only worse when trying to predict people's behavior than when trying to predict program behavior. The term "Human behavioral science" is therefore also an oxymoron.

[LuckyR]

I'm not asking for another rehash of your standard theory (we've seen it several times).

Well, it's not "my" theory. It's a set of stubborn observable patterns known as the "red pill".

Rather I'm asking for your guess as to whether there are more exceptions to your theory among men or women.

Well, how "stubborn" is a stubborn pattern in human behavior? Human behavior is always full of exceptions.

Furthermore, human behavior cannot even be tested. There will never be a legitimate science about human behavior for exactly the same reason as why there ultimately cannot be a science about computers. Alan Turing's halting problem guarantees that. The term "computer science" is therefore an oxymoron.

There are two programs involved in the setup, Pathological and Oracle. Oracle claims that it can determine from the source code of any arbitrary program along with any arbitrary input, if such program will halt or run forever. Pathological is a program that is programmed as following. First, Pathological asks Oracle if it believes that Pathological will stop on a particular input. Next, if Oracle says that Pathological will stop, then Pathological runs forever. If Oracle says that Pathological will run forever, then Pathological stops. Hence, whatever Oracle predicts about Pathological, its prediction will always be wrong.

This is Alan Turing's proof for the fact that the halting problem cannot be solved. No Oracle program can ever be constructed that can predict if all other programs will stop or run forever for a particular input. This problem is obviously only worse when trying to predict people's behavior than when trying to predict program behavior. The term "Human behavioral science" is therefore also an oxymoron.

Nice obfuscation. But to be clear is it that you can't or won't answer my (relatively) simple question?

[godelian]

Nice obfuscation. But to be clear is it that you can't or won't answer my (relatively) simple question?

About exceptions to a stubborn social pattern? As I have clarified already, they always exist.

[LuckyR]

Nice obfuscation. But to be clear is it that you can't or won't answer my (relatively) simple question?

About exceptions to a stubborn social pattern? As I have clarified already, they always exist.

I'm going to to give you credit for intelligence and say: won't.