Dating Advice Has a Signal-to-Noise Ratio Problem

Dating advice from both the mainstream and the red pill is filled with low quality claptrap. How do you filter out the good stuff and ignore distraction?

Commenting on my recent article on good game vs. getting lucky, a reader asks:

Chase,

With dating being harder, what more can guys learning this stuff do differently now than before?

What would count as working harder today compared to when dating was easier?

For example: Let’s say in the past you’d say we’d have to approach 20 women a week, today would we have to talk to 40? For being in-shape, before we’d only have to be slim, but today we need to be muscular?

What exactly should we be striving for now compared to your earlier advice?

What are the basics to do well in the complex dating market today?

Thanks

The same reader commented again to ask:

Chase,

I wanted to add and ask, how much money is involved in this dating complexity thing?

I remember you saying after some point it’s pretty much going to be impossible to get women after a certain point as things reach its peak.

If I quoted wrong let me know. But of course reading that is extremely depressing even if you’re really good with women because imagining dating being that much harder is still a pretty depressing thing.

Anyway, in my mind, it seems that LMS and game are going to be a big part of making things impossible.

I’m wondering though because I know on here that you focus on game a lot more than lms, but it seems that lms would make dating harder like other people online have said.

So how important is lms when it comes to this whole dating complexity thing?

Is there any way to make the Impossible possible and still do good in a very hard dating market and not dropout?

I don’t really like the whole idea of being hopeless.

Thanks

He’s referring to my article on growing complexity in the mating market and its effect (present and future) on people’s mating success.

I’m not going to address our commenter’s question here, at least not directly. The direct answer is, “Do better at everything taught on this site.” Instead I want to focus on something else in his comment: its total obliviousness to what’s taught on this site and fixation on stuff that doesn’t really help you with girls.

Thoughts like the commenter’s are common – but also point to a profound misunderstanding of romantic attraction. Our commenter zeroes in on factors that have minimal impact on actual romantic success and worries he’ll need to compete even harder at these same things so many other guys are also competing on.

I’ve extensively debunked the role of big muscles in getting laid. GUYS like big, huge, steroid muscles. They are wowed by them. They’re intimidated and awed by men with colossal, bulging biceps. Women don’t like these kinds of muscles. They vastly prefer men with slimmer, athletic, natural physiques. There are actually more women attracted to ‘skinny-fat’ men (6.3% of women like this look) than there are attracted to veiny, bulging, steroid muscle men (2.1% of women find this look attractive).

Money is every bit the same as this. Go to any singles event in San Francisco. You will find loads and loads of men pulling down 7-10x+ the average national salary, and these guys can’t get dates. Many guys work hard to get rich, thinking that wealth will bring them babes, only to discover once they get there that rich guys still struggle to get girls. There are ways to use money to get laid, but these ways are not intuitive, and most guys with money never try them. They end up dating girls who are… well, just look at the girls the rich guys you know are dating. They’re rarely models.

All this goes back to the fundamental problem in dating advice: it’s huge, colossal, GARGANTUAN signal-to-noise ratio problem.