The concept of “top 20% of the male population”, is meaningless.
Peterson likes to point to stories like “Beauty and the Beast” and “Twilight,” to make the point that the male nature has an “inherently dark and destructive side” and women seek to harness the power of that darkness and transform it into a social good.
This seems to connect to the 80/20 rule in that women are attracted to “bad boys”, billionaires, and troubled artists, because they have “enormous reserves of destructive power for ladies to channel with their civilizing influence.”The implication is: deadbeats, “nice guys”, people with low testosterone, and cowards, lack “enormous reserves of destructive power” and therefore must content themselves with conciliating the unfortunate 20% of women who fall out of favor with Drake, Aubrey Marcus, the NBA.
The real 80/20 rule is that not lying and not smelling bad gets you 80% of the way towards finding a mate.
The other 20% involves being interested in things so that you can find common interests with others.
Is the search for compatibility a better explanatory model than the 80/20 rule?
In the 80/20 paradigm, there should be a way of combining a man’s salary, height, facial symmetry, IQ and hand size in order to create a higher order variable that would correlate with his desirability.
People seek out individuals they can form productive relationships with.
Once people have noticed mutual compatibility, they grow attached to each other as the relationship strengthens over time, or drift apart as the relationship decomposes.
Human Thoughts are expressible as sentences, whereas lists are instruments of emotion.
The 80/20 theory of gender relations is absurd because: Peterson’s theory of dominance based attraction and the concept of Love are contradictory. Whether in the case of friendship, business, or romance.
Women with advanced degrees marry men with advanced degrees because those are the guys that they have something to talk to about.