I find the criticism of nice guys idea to be somewhat of a misrepresentation. On the one hand, identifying the label "nice guy" as a title that's shown, not self-imposed, is understandable; being a "nice guy" should reveal itself through one's conduct. However, the way that the material on this site portrays the average nice guy would both make it seem as if those who are truly kind are simply being underhanded and therefore don't deserve to "get the girl," and those who are in fact using "niceness" as a facade to get girls are somehow more reprehensible than those females who manipulate men and are cheered on for it. Conversely, those who have no regard for the feelings of women, and no respect for women, that is to say, "jerks," are seen as real men and truly genuine, because men apparently only act like sub-human neanderthals, thus any man who does not act this way is automatically trying to get into bed with a woman. Or he's gay
And then if you do somehow make it past all the testing, you virtually get no green light to go ahead. Unless the girl really wants to jump your bones, she makes no show of attraction, and since the nicer guys tend to respect a girl's feelings and don't want to go further than they are allowed, they end up with nothing. It's no longer just a fear of rejection; it's a fear of being arrested. However, women continue to believe that the half-hearted, intentionally deceptive "signals" they give are good enough, since any guy who likes them enough will ask them out regardless of possible consequences. However, even though guys are required to do this, it never seems to cross a girl's mind to show similar respect and maybe throw him a bone or two
I don't see why it's necessarily the case that nice guys lack novelty. The novelty of the jerk (to use your phrase) is that he is, in some way, a challenge. The woman wants his attention, and this gives the relationship momentum. However, I don't think that momentum need come from challenge, nor that "jerks" are the only ones capable of providing novelty.
Then that only seems to say that women aren't interested in stable relationships, or at the very least have a chronic appreciation for dysfunctional traits some of the time, if they go for jerks at all. It shouldn't be an issue. It would be like ignoring the nice girl at the bookstore in favor of a hooker, because at least the hooker knows how to shake her ass. No one should gravitate to such an extreme to begin with, in the case of long-term relationships, when women go to such trouble to change jerks.
I can't find it, but it's been scientifically proven though that most women seek out the jerk initially as an evolutionary trait. There was an article I read that basically stated women seek out the alpha male to mate with and have a child with the best genes, of course, but then leave him and seek out a beta, because he's more stable and a more reliable father to her child. It really threw me for a loop that this kind of devious evolutionary psychology has been programmed into women since the dawn of time.
That's an interesting theory but it doesn't account for how that evolutionary trait appeared (I'd like to read that article if you don't mind finding it). I imagine, entertaining this theory somewhat, that early experiences, like prenatal experiences. The stability of the family, whether the father or mother died before adulthood, among some things - these things affect personality in general though so it might not seem like a definitive explanation in this case... but it definitely affects who the woman will partner up with later on, and it may bring forward a unfortunate environmental conditions for the child who is going to be reared in a dysfunctional family.