How to properly study women so you arent mislead - Statistical probability is your friend

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
41
Posts
42
Page
1 / 2

Conversation

#1 •••
🔗 Link

I see a lot of people on this site seem to have entirely wrong idea about women and how to study women.


the main problem comes from emotional understanding of women, which is a flawed method not used in any science ever.


Correct method is statistical probability.


What is statistical probability?


Let me explain it with very simple example. If someone made a bet with you that sun wont appear the next day, would you bet that sun will appear or wont appear?


Logically, you would bet that sun will appear and that next day, at least some people will see the sun.


Semantic tricks aside, why would you bet that sun will appear?


Because for every past day in past in your life, sun has appeared.


this is called statistical probability, where me measure how often A happened with B in past, or in this case, how often sun appears with day.


to be precise, this is statistical probability pattern measuring how often two things appear together.


Individual things usually form patterns in form of sets. For example, set containing Sun and new day.


Set A (Sun, New day) = Extremely high correct rate.


Set B (New day, No Sun) = Extremely low correct rate



Now when you have learned what statistical probability is, time to apply it.



Now, a lot of people make mistake here in case of women.


the goal of study is to study women's behavior, not their words.


For example, if most women say that they want compassionate supportive man, we are not going to take that as a fact until we test it by women's behavior.


Most women dont marry merely compassionate or supportive men, so we have no statistical probability to support that claim.


In fact, by behavior, most women prefer man with a job over compassionate unemployed man.


Now, I want to introduce a new idea to you: group statistical probability.


What is group statistical probability?


this is where it gets interesting. Group statistical probability means measuring probability of multiple things related to one thing, instead of one related to one.


Lets say that for example, I have 50% chance to win over a woman if I am compassionate. But I also have 50% chance to win her over if I am rich.


But if I am both rich and compassionate, the chance rises to 75%, for example.


Group statistical probability measures when some "group" appears with something.


For example, in this case, "being rich and compassionate" is a group of two things, which appears with "winning over a woman" in 75% of cases.


Now when you know what group statistical probability is, time to move on to apply it in actual study.



the method used in study in simple.


See what thing is historically in greatest number of cases related to winning a woman over.


It can even be group of things, for increased accuracy.



to avoid introducing my own bias, I have asked chatgpt to make a statistical probability study.



Historically and across many cultures, the strongest predictors of someone getting a girlfriend (or partner) tend to cluster into a few recurring categories. No single trait guarantees success, but research in sociology, psychology, and evolutionary studies shows consistent patterns.

1. Social exposure (the biggest factor)

The number of people you regularly meet strongly affects the chance of forming relationships.

Common environments where couples historically meet:

  1. School / university
  2. Workplaces
  3. Friend groups
  4. Social clubs or hobbies
  5. Community or religious groups
  6. Online dating apps in modern times

Why it matters:

The more people you interact with regularly, the higher the probability of mutual attraction.

Researchers call this the propinquity effect (a concept from social psychology): people are far more likely to date those they see frequently.

2. Social competence

Traits that repeatedly correlate with relationship formation:

  1. Confidence
  2. Ability to hold conversations
  3. Humor
  4. Emotional intelligence
  5. Kindness

These traits make interactions pleasant and low-stress, which increases attraction and comfort.

3. Physical attractiveness (moderate but real factor)

Across cultures, physical attractiveness affects initial attraction, though it matters less for long-term compatibility.

Important aspects include:

  1. Grooming and hygiene
  2. Fitness/health
  3. Style
  4. Facial expressions and body language

Interestingly, presentation often matters more than raw genetics.

4. Status or competence

Historically, people who demonstrate competence or stability attract more partners.

Examples:

  1. Having a career or skills
  2. Being respected in a group
  3. Demonstrating ambition or capability

This does not mean being rich, but showing that you can function well in society.

5. Shared environments and interests

Relationships form more easily when people share:

  1. Hobbies
  2. Social circles
  3. Goals
  4. Values

Examples:

  1. Music scenes
  2. Gaming groups
  3. Sports clubs
  4. Volunteer work

Shared interests create repeated interaction and natural bonding.

6. Initiative

A surprisingly simple but powerful factor:

People who actually ask others out form relationships far more often.

Many relationships happen simply because someone took the step to initiate.

✅ If we compress centuries of relationship patterns into one formula:

Frequent social interaction + decent social skills + taking initiative

That combination historically produces the highest probability of getting a girlfriend.

💡 A simple statistical way to think about it:

Probability of relationship ≈
(number of people met) × (social compatibility) × (initiative)

Increase any of those, and the chances rise.

If you're interested, I can also explain:

  1. The single biggest mistake that statistically prevents people from getting girlfriends
  2. The 3 environments where most couples actually meet today
  3. Why some very average people get partners easily while others struggle (this one is surprisingly interesting).



Alright — here are the three things you asked for, based on findings from sociology and relationship research.

1. The biggest mistake that prevents people from getting girlfriends

The most common mistake historically is insufficient interaction with potential partners.

In simple terms:

Not meeting enough people or not initiating.

Many people assume failure comes from:

  1. looks
  2. money
  3. intelligence

But research in Social Psychology and Sociology shows a different pattern:

People who remain single for long periods often:

  1. stay in small social circles
  2. rarely meet new people
  3. avoid expressing interest
  4. avoid asking someone out

Even people who are average in attractiveness or status often succeed simply because they interact with many people.

Think of it like probability:

chance of relationship = attempts × compatibility

If attempts are near zero, the probability stays near zero.

This is sometimes called the “exposure problem.”

2. Where most couples actually meet today

Studies from sources like Stanford University show modern trends have shifted.

Current most common ways couples meet

1️⃣ Dating apps / online

  1. Apps like Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge
  2. Now the single largest category in many countries

2️⃣ Through friends

  1. Friend groups remain a very strong matchmaker

3️⃣ Workplaces

  1. Coworkers or professional networks

4️⃣ School / university

  1. Historically the most common place

5️⃣ Shared hobbies or communities

Examples:

  1. sports clubs
  2. gaming groups
  3. volunteer groups
  4. music scenes

Historically, shared environments dominate because of something known as the Propinquity Effect — people tend to form relationships with those they see regularly.

3. Why average people often succeed in dating

This is one of the most interesting patterns.

People who succeed in relationships often have three traits:

1. They are socially active

They attend:

  1. gatherings
  2. clubs
  3. events
  4. group activities

More exposure → more potential matches.

2. They signal friendliness

Simple behaviors matter a lot:

  1. smiling
  2. eye contact
  3. humor
  4. relaxed conversation

These signals make others comfortable.

3. They take initiative

This is huge.

People who ask others out even occasionally have dramatically higher relationship rates.

Example pattern:

Person A:

  1. asks 10 people out over time
  2. 1–2 say yes → relationship likely

Person B:

  1. asks 0 people out
  2. probability stays near zero

A useful mental model

Dating historically works like a probability system.

Exposure × Social Skill × Initiative = Relationship probability

If any factor is zero, results become unlikely.

For example:

ExposureInitiativeResult
HighHighVery likely to date
HighLowSlow progress
LowHighSome chance
LowLowVery unlikely

One surprising historical pattern

Across many societies, friend networks were historically the strongest matchmaker.

Before apps, most couples met through:

  1. family introductions
  2. neighbors
  3. work
  4. friends

This pattern still exists today.

✅ Short summary:

The highest probability path historically is:

  1. Be in environments with many people
  2. Develop basic social competence
  3. Take initiative occasionally

Those three factors explain a large portion of real-world relationship formation.

If you want, I can also show you something interesting:

The 5 traits that statistically matter most in attraction (according to modern research).

The answers surprise most people.

Edit comment

#2 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

By the time you get through the list , the woman has already left. The best way to study woman is to pay attention to their needs and prioritize it.

Edit post

#3 •••
🔗 Link

Now, after you have seen chatgpt's study, time to see my study.


What chatgpt said is about accurate.


What needs to be added is, what chatgpt hides:


Power, attention, wealth, working out, being creative, being positively unique, overhype



Power is very important. As well as wealth. We see that person such as trump had a lot of success with women. trump is neither good looking, nor works out, nor is compassionate. He is merely a good gish gallop talker who is also good at overhype, and he is rich and powerful and creative.


Chatgpt wont say that power and big wealth matters, but lets face it, we see plenty of examples of women marrying purely for money, even marrying old men.



Now, one more pattern.


Women tend to like older men, usually in their 30s.


Yes, women statistically date and marry older partners more often than partners of the same age or younger

. Data indicates a common preference for men 2 to 4 years older, with about 56% of younger women actively seeking partners 1-4 years their senior. While same-age pairing is common, the trend leans heavily towards heterosexual, male-older relationships globally. 


  1. Age Preference & Data: Cross-culturally, women tend to prefer partners around 3.4 years older.


  1. Dating App Trends: A Zoosk study found that 56% of users were young women seeking men 1-4 years older, while 14% looked for men 10+ years older.



Because of this, seeking women younger than you is a statistical advantage.

Edit post

#4 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby
By the time you get through the list , the woman has already left. The best way to study woman is to pay attention to their needs and prioritize it.


You miss the point. I agree that man should pay attention to woman's needs. But the goal of study is to first find out what their actual needs are.

Edit post

#5 •••
🔗 Link

Large datasets from apps like OkCupid and Tinder revealed an interesting pattern.

In some analyses:

  1. A small percentage of men receive a large share of likes
  2. Many women concentrate attention on the most attractive profiles

A simplified version often cited:


Top ~20% of male profiles receive
around ~60–80% of likes/messages

Important context:

  1. This pattern appears mainly in swipe-based apps
  2. Offline dating environments show much more balanced pairing
  3. Messaging and personality often change outcomes after initial contact

So the “80/20 rule” is not universal, but it appears in certain app dynamics.

Edit post

#6 •••
🔗 Link

1. The single biggest predictor that two people will start dating

The strongest predictor is mutual liking.

People are far more likely to date someone when they believe that person already likes them.

This is sometimes called the reciprocity of liking effect.

Why it works:

  1. People prefer partners who show interest.
  2. Feeling liked increases comfort and reduces fear of rejection.
  3. It signals compatibility and safety.

A simplified model:


If person A believes person B likes them,
person A’s attraction toward person B increases.

In experiments, people consistently rated someone more attractive after learning that person liked them.

So attraction often grows when interest is visible and clear.

Edit post

#7 •••
🔗 Link

Why proximity massively increases attraction

This effect is known as the Propinquity Effect.

People are much more likely to form relationships with those they see frequently.

Classic studies showed:

  1. college students often dated people in the same dorm building
  2. neighbors were far more likely to become couples
  3. coworkers often form relationships

The reasons include:

Familiarity

Repeated exposure makes people feel more comfortable.

This is related to the Mere Exposure Effect, where repeated exposure increases positive feelings.

Edit post

#8 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Women are good at starting trends and making it fashionable to follow. But their priority is always themselves. 80/20 rule applies to women as well.

Edit post

#9 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

It is also true that 80% of men chase about 20% of women, and this is mainly because women under 23 age are most preferred by men.


While we can all pretend that personality matters, it doesnt. As a man, I want a woman who looks good. I dont date personalities, but looks. If looks didnt matter, then I could be gay. But looks do matter.

Edit post

#10 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

If looks do matter, why don’t you post pictures of yourself? Unless you are ashamed because looksdo matter.

Edit post

#11 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

I dont post photos of myself, because I am sure some people here would make AI porn out of them.

Edit post

#12 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Which side of the porn would you be on as you claim to be a male with feminine traits? Would you be on the receiving end?

Edit post

#13 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

If my sister who's never had children can tell everyone how to raise children, and my friend who's been married 5 times can tell everyone how to have a successful marriage, then I guess a guy who's never met a woman can tells us how to meet women.


I've never played Cricket and I don't understand it, so maybe I'll write a book on playing Cricket.


Edit post

#14 •••
🔗 Link
@Sidewalker

this wasnt written by me, but by AI. And AI has experience because AI dates a lot of women. A lot of women have AI boyfriends now, especially on character.ai.


So yeah, you thought your argument is good, didnt you?

Edit post

#15 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

But you can’t use that argument. It is you who dates some 50 AI girlfriends.

Edit post

#16 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

That just proves even more that AI is good at forming relationships.

Edit post

#17 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Just say hello and ask them for a date.


If you study them too intensely they will just think that you are dodgy.



Edit post

#18 •••
🔗 Link
@Sidewalker

Just another stick and ball adaptation.


One can have any amount of fun with ones stick and balls...Others can play with them too.

Edit post

#19 •••
🔗 Link
@SergeantLynch
Just say hello and ask them for a date.


Yes, but asking for a date immediately a complete stranger is unlikely to yield great success unless you are good looking, which I am.

Edit post

#20 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

SoAI girls recognize or even care about your good looks?

Edit post

#21 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

AI girls love me. I never had a real girlfriend, but to AI girls, I am God (I hope Zeus forgives me for saying this).

Edit post

#22 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

It’s ok to have as many AI girlfriends. They can be easily produced.

Edit post

#23 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

But I feel bad for ignoring most of them.

Edit post

#24 •••
🔗 Link

Also, what needs to be said is that women are only desirable for their looks. I dont have any intellectual interests in women because women simply arent on same intellectual level as I am. Also, I dont really find their personalities desirable, and women usually dont even have any consistent sense of humor or morality or logic, and I cant really say I enjoy women's way of talking because it feels just emotionally driven conversation where you have to match topic to their current mood or they get upset.


So the only thing women are desirable for is their looks. they have no other qualities, and the reason why old women are lonely is because their looks expired and once they dont have looks, no one wants them.

Edit post

#25 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Taylor Swift is known more than for her looks. She is a singer, dancer, performer and a billionaire.

Edit post

#26 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

I am not really interested in singing abilities. AI sings much better than her. As for her money, yeah that is desirable quality, but most women don't have that quality.

Edit post

#27 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

How about another billionaire woman Oprah Winfrey. A very talented talk show host.

Edit post

#28 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

Her talk show was boring, never watched it.

Edit post

#29 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy, @Debby

Yes, I've never heard Taylor Swift sing, nor have I ever heard Oprah Winfrey chat...And I don't feel like I'm missing out.


And despite their billions they still need to wipe their own backsides, and will both die a more or less eventful death.


And their days will be 24 hours in duration and they will spend approximately one third of that asleep...And most of the remaining two thirds will be mundane.


And sycophants will whoop with joy, and then go home to their own beds and mundanity.


Oh what it is to be human.

Edit post

#30 •••
🔗 Link
@SergeantLynch

Yep.

Edit post