TRP quite often complains in here about the lack of alternative advice about dating/relationship from RP opposers. While I believe that you don't need to give an alternative theory to debate one, the burden of proof and all that, here's something that I've thought more than once while browsing /r/theredpill. And I guess we can debate this just as well as RP theories.

First I want to say that I judge TRP not from a moral point of view, I don't care about political correctness, feminism, social justice, etc. I think TRP is wrong in the context of their own success criteria, being successful with women, having a good love and sex life, etc.

A common faulty approach I see in TRP over and over again is indirection. Judging the value of a desired outcome based on some marker that TRP thinks correlates strongly with the outcome. I see major problems with this approach. Correlation is not causation, not gonna expand on this, plenty of discussion already available. Even if it would be causation, there is always more that just one factor that influences an outcome. Statistical relationships are useful on large numbers, on averages. You are not the average of all men dating the average of all women. And quite importantly this approach is appropriate when it's hard to measure the outcome directly but easy to measure the marker.

Let's ditch abstract discussion for a practical example. Let's take women's parter count. TRP theory states that is an important indicator of the women's value for LTR. A valid alternative theory would be that women who are bad at LTRs go faster through multiple relationships, so that the reverse causation is true. So one particular woman could have another reason for the high partner count and could be a perfectly fine LTR partner. What one should do instead is measure directly the value of said woman in a relationship. Does she take good care of you and the house? Does she have a positive constructive attitude? Is she trust worthy? Etc. You can evaluate directly the success criteria you are interested in, there's no need for indirection. Furthermore it's not easy counting a woman's previous partners. Because of these theories quite a lot of them hide these things. But by definition they can't hide how good they are to you as a partner. If they treat you good, even by faking it, they still treat you good. You get what you want.

Another example is the ex alpha cock carousel riding slut / party girl settling for beta bucks. I believe the only thing this theory accomplishes is to breed insecurities in men. Does she ride your cock with enthusiasm or would rather have you take her shopping? It couldn't be any easier to assess if she's settling for you or not. And this too breeds a defense mechanism in some women who won't do this or that in bed with you for fear of being judged.

Or never date single mothers. Why assume all try to shove the kid down your throat or that she won't have enough attention for you because it's all spent on kids? Go out with that particular single mom and see for yourself if she does so or not. Even if she does after a while, you can simply not do what it is that you don't want to do. Just tell her you don't like spending time with kids. Maybe she will get cold with you, maybe not, you don't know. If she does, break the dating/relationship then because of that reason. So instead of dismissing the possibility you at least get to have a few dates, at most it will work out long term, FWB or anything else that suits you.

And there are countless others. Search TRP for "red flag". You will find the most irrelevant stuff like "hot girl who doesn't have enough female friends". I'm not even sure if this isn't some kind of defense mechanism when people tell themselves that a missed opportunity is in fact a "dodged bullet".

Just put yourself out there with an open mind and see where things are going as they go, don't try to predict the future with some superstitious signs. It's so simple I'm ashamed to have written so much about it.

LE: to clear things up. Some people asked "what if I want to raise a family with a woman but don't want to raise another man's child?". That is a direct selection criteria. You reject some women directly based on what you want or don't want from them. That's not what I speak against here. Refuse single moms because you simply don't like single moms. Perfect. Again, direct criteria. But don't refuse single moms because RP theory says they're likely to do this or that. That's indirect. You still have every right to reject her, what I argue is that acting on an assumption may not be the best strategy when actually testing for direct criteria is usually cheap and easy.