I've been interested in chaos theory for quite a while now. It's this theory that tries to find patterns and deterministic laws of dynamic systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Examples of this includes the double pendulum, Lorenz' Attractor and the Sierpinski Triangle. What becomes immediately noticeable is that, after several iterations, chaotic systems eventually create recognizable patterns (shapes) without returning to its original state.

Now, what does this say for dating? Well, people are unpredictable when it comes to what they want in a partner. So if you take a bunch of people willing to find a partner, the choices they make to do so radically differ from each other. Eventually, a pattern will start to emerge: the average.

Now, what do we mean by average? What one would think of the average in this context (red/blackpill) tends to be what the average woman desires in a man. Except, this is an existential fallacy. Why? Because the "average woman" does not exist. Instead, the "average" is just a parameter of human behaviour.

Furthermore, when we talk about average, we are talking about the baseline of what women like in men (good hygiene, smells nice, dresses nice, etc). This is also why the "nice guys finish last" mantra is kind of relevant, and it's that the NiceGuyTM is only doing the bare minimum. You have to do what is expected of you AND MORE. Appealing to the status quo doesn't attract most people; in fact, it's impossible to attract most people, as individual ppl are unpredictable, whereas a collective group of people all create a recognizable pattern. If anything, there should be an even distribution about what physical features attract a girl to a guy.

Please tell me what I get right and/or wrong about this analysis. I think chaos theory is a great way to understand how dating actually works.