Many men find the manosphere after searching for solutions to a specific problem, in many cases how to make themselves an offer their one-itis cannot refuse. This is the equivalent of asking someone "How do I design a product that represents an offer of value that my one targeted customer cannot refuse". While it is possible to do so in very generic terms, for instance everyone would accept an offer of value in exchange for nothing, this does not represent a realistic offer, there is simply no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps the best example is that companies such as Facebook and Google that offer "free" infrastructure monetize the data they gather from their "users". If a company offers something for free, then you are the product.

This is in many ways what men offer women when they agree to a "lets just be friends" proposition from the woman. The woman is stating "I'm not going to offer a return, but you are free to invest in me". The man front-loads investment in the woman, expecting a return that will never come.

The various characteristics that I covered in this essay, from the various applicable definitions of value, that we often use interchangeable in daily dialogue. For instance, if one were to say that a woman is a 10, does one mean "She is in the top 10% of women worldwide based on the following criteria" which would be an objective valuation, or is one saying "She is in the top 10% of women worldwide for me, based on my subjective choice criteria", which is a subjective valuation.

The major problem faced by the engineer minded man is that he is seeking an objective solution to a subjective problem. In order to reduce the probability of rejection to zero, every woman would have to have identical choice criteria, weighted in the exact same manner, be in the same context, think in the exact same manner, be at the same stage of her ovulatory cycle, have the same tangible and intangible asset preferences and so on. This is obviously an impossibility. While science has been able to identify some preferences that women have for qualities in men, these differ based factors among others intent (Short term vs long-term mating). Thus, a man who is a perfect fit when the woman is in the follicular phase may not be in the lutheal phase.

The eternal downside of positivist research, one can arrive conclusively at an answer, but that answer is merely a fact based on a large sample size. From this answer one can derive a probability, but depending on the probability itself it may not guarantee an outcome. One can state that "90% of women want a man with a sense of humor", but this is no guarantee that the specific oneitis of a man wants a man with a sense of humor. General advice can be offered, be in shape, in control of your emotions and your psychology, climb a dominance hierarchy, and many others, but this merely increases the probability that someone in your intended market will find your offer enticing, not that everyone in your target market will, or that they'll accept the offer.

This search for an objective solution to a subjective problem is in essence the attempt to eliminate probability of failure, and thus risk. One could theorize that this is perhaps due to catastrophizing the consequences of rejection, as Mystery once put it, hitting on a wrong woman in a stone age tribe could get you kicked out of the tribe or killed. Alternatively, it could be due to viewing the world on a binary scale, where there is no step between novice and master.

Read the full essay here:http://blacklabellogic.com/2017/11/03/gendernomics-on-value-part-5/