Abdul-Aziz

iNow, There is no place for making vicious ad hominem attacks against others in the great halls of science. Either say something intelligent or don't say anything at all.

Why do women avoid men of high intelligence? I once asked the noted anthropologist Donald Symons (University of California in Santa Barbara), and the evolutionary psychologists David Buss (University of Texas) and David C. Geary (University of Missouri) this rather quite interesting question: The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: "Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius." A close personal acquaintance of mine seems to believe that most women are physically repelled by men of high intelligence because most women are seeking a man who can be easily manipulated mentally into handing over whatever natural resources he is capable of commanding. He has also informed me that the more highly intelligent a man is, the greater will be his risk of having to endure a lifetime of perpetual celibacy given the statistical rarity of female intellectuals and the fact that "likes generally tend to attract likes" (women, being generally average in intelligence, pursue men who are similarly average in mental capacity). Certain studies would seem to bear this out; for example, a study conducted by C.T. Halpern et al (2000) suggests that "higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity in adolescence and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor." A number of writers, such as Clifford Pickover (Strange Brains) and Cesare Lombroso (The Man of Genius) before him, have also suggested that both intellectual giftedness and especially genius are highly correlated with celibacy, even gynophobia. I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny? What do you think, Professor? Dr. Symons responded: Here are a few observations re your questions. Human intelligence increased dramatically over several million years of evolution, which wouldn't have happened if intelligent men were at a reproductive disadvantage. Studies of women's mating criteria consistently show that intelligence is valued by women (cf David Buss's books on human mating). Intelligence is near, but not at the top of the list, and there's no reason to suppose that high intelligence by iteself can compensate for other deficits. Furthermore, other female mating criteria, such as high status, economic prowess and being funny correlate positively (though, of course,imperfectly) with intelligence. I would guess that geniuses like Newton, who is not known to ever have had sex with a woman, were celibate by choice, because of odd character quirks, and not because they were too intelligent to be attractive. Einstein certainly did well with women, and it sure wasn't because of the remorseless precision of his profile. Studies of preliterate peoples have consistently shown that headmen and shamans, who tend to have more wives and children, are regularly described as unusually intelligent. These are the societies that most closely resemble those that obtained during most of human evolution. And in modern industrialized societies, which diverge in many ways from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, upper classes have fewer children because they choose to and have the means to (reliable contraceptives), not because upper class men can't find wives or other sexual partners. The anthropologist April Gorry analyzed the character traits of the heroes of 45 highly successful romance novels, written by and for women. Heroes were described as muscular (45/45), handsome (44), strong (42), large (35) and so forth, and no hero was described as the opposite of any of these things. Heroes also had various character traits, such as sexually bold (40), calm (39), confident (39), etc., and in 38 of the 45 novels he was explicitly described as intelligent. No hero was described as not having any of these traits or of being unintelligent. I find these data especially compelling, because women are voting for these books with their money, and the market will produce the kinds of romantic fantasies that women want to read. In sum, I think that intelligence is a highly valued trait in men, and always has been, though it may not be number one on the list, and certainly can't compensate, for most women, if other highly desirable traits are absent. Don Symons Here is Dr. Geary’s reply: Well, there are studies that suggest that women are attracted to these traits in men. But, there is a negative correlation between IQ and men’s reproductive success; positive correlation for income. My guess is that women do not want men who are too extreme on any trait; they want tall, but not too tall, e.g. This is probably true of IQ and for reasons you state. What is too extreme? I don’t know, but probably once you get passed the 145 range (3 standard deviations > mean), you’re probably getting there. Of course, someone this bright should be able to figure out how to cover this up, except when necessary. Dave David C. Geary, Ph.D. University of Missouri Here is the response of Dr. Buss: Interesting thoughts, but they are not supported by my data, nor the studies of others. Women are indeed attracted to intelligent men, and in fact marry men on average 4 IQ points higher than their own. At the tails of the distribution, of course, one runs into trouble; so yes, at the very high ends, both men and women have problems finding someone they can talk to. Still, women are drawn to men smarter than they are; men are more willing to settle for a woman less intelligent, since they prioritize looks and other qualities more. Thanks for the interesting questions. David Buss It has always been my personal experience that most women are frightened of men who are much more intellectual and more sophisticated than they are; all of the most intelligent/creative men I have ever known have always been year-round dateless wonders. Survey after survey seems to indicate that women value intelligence as a desirable personality characteristic to be found in a potential mate, however all of my friends have reliably informed me that discussing quantum mechanics, single nucleotide polymorphisms, or even the relative merits of Kantianist idealism over Hegelian dialectics is liable to have a woman quickly reaching for the front door than in any mood to take off her panties. In accordance with the foregoing, a large body of scientific research does suggest that there exists a sharp discrepancy between what a woman says she wants and what she actually does. After all, many women may verbalize a desire for intelligent male sex partners; unfortunately, I’ve even heard stories about harmless intellectuals (who are almost always men) driving away hordes of supposedly available women at parties simply by mentioning some esoterica concerning Einstein’s theory of special relativity or even something much more readily comprehensible as the novels of Thomas Hardy. So, I guess my question is, do women really avoid men who are highly intelligent? Why have generations of engineers, mathematicians, and more abstract philosophers always experienced considerable difficulties in attracting women (minus the expenditure of financial wealth)? Are women frightened of men who happen to be highly intelligent? Why do women find men of high intelligence to be so intimidating (and so repulsive as well)? Your responses and input would be highly appreciated.

No, my point is that a substantial percentage of women prefer "bad boys" (think the "Dark Triad" of Jonason et al) over "nice guys"; these women find "bad boys" much more attractive and more socially desirable than males who possess altruisic behaviour and personality characteristics. To everyone: Let's keep this thread open because this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed. Thank you.

Have you ever considered sending an e-mail to faculty of psychiatry professors at a prestigious university? You would probably get more responses.

I don't think homosexuality is entirely biological in origin, neither do I believe that it is completely socially constructed. Homosexuality is not some monolithic entity, but exists along a homosexual continuum punctuated by readily distinguishable "homosexualities", with one form of homosexuality blending imperceptibly into another form of homosexuality. Although some "homosexualities" maybe purely biological in origin, others can involve aspects of both genetics and social constructionism, and still other "homosexualities" can be entirely socially constructed.

Animals, particularly mammalian species, are capable of forming close attachment bonds, however I don't think elephants and humans have the same capacity to love. Humans can provide, rear, and nurture dogs to maturity through the capacity of selfless love, whereas I'm not so sure elephants are capable of doing the same thing.

Well, there is some scientific research which suggests that canines can experience learned helplessness, which is a rudimentary form of depression.

In the distant evolutionary past, as well as in all pre-industrial, agricultural societies, men who possessed high levels of physical strength, athletic prowess, natural aggression, and dominance, were those deemed most capable of providing for and defending a woman and her children. In an age where might made right and tilling the land for sustenance involved an incredible amount of physical strength, it made perfect evolutionary sense for a woman to choose a warrior or a really tough "bad boy". A scholar, a poet, or a philosopher would stand no chance before a horde of wandering barbarians, unpaid soldiers, and merciless nomads, enabling the woman and her children to be slaughtered in cold blood. However, if a woman selected a man who was known for having an aggressive, violent, even murderous temperament, she was simply making a long-term investment in the eventual success of her future reproductive strategy. Secondly, it also made sense for women to choose "bad boys" over "nice guys" (unless they were members of the aristocracy) given the rudimentary technology and high levels of physical strength and aggression involved in providing for a family; accordingly, really tough "bad boys" were much more successful hunters, farmers, defenders, and killers. Even today, in a world where women are physically weaker and less aggressive than men and often subject to the greater violence and cruelty of dominant males, it still makes sense for a woman to select "tough guys" over "nice guys" (unless they happen to be financially well-off). Hundreds of thousands of women are often raped, tortured, mutilated, and even brutally killed each year, especially in Third World countries, making it necessary for a substantial percentage of women to follow their primitive evolutionary drives and value having physical strength and a violent temperament in a male sex partner, especially when financial wealth is very scarce. Furthermore, the 1979 "sexy sons" hypothesis developed by a team of evolutionary biologists named Weatherhead and Robertson, postulates that a man's ability to provide for his wife and children is irrelevant to his genetic value as a potential father of viable offspring. Women would select an "attractive" male (a "bad boy") on the basis of such testosterone-related features as physical strength, athletic prowess, bilateral symmetry, aggression, dominance, masculinity and social presence, as opposed to the weakness and kindness of "unattractive", more feminised males ("nice guys"). Thus, taking the laws of genetic transmission into account, selecting "bad boys" as potential mates would produce more "bad boys" who would be just as tough as their fathers and able to compete against other "bad boys" in the struggle for reproductive access to available females. From an evolutionary biological point of view, "nice guys" would not be considered attractive partners because they would be publicly humiliated, beaten up, and even killed by rival dominant males, making the woman unable to pursue a viable reproductive strategy. The "bad boy" construct has already been operationalized by a variety of researchers as representing macho, dominant, aggressive individuals with violent temperaments, the type of male sex partner that a significant percentage of women idolize in their romantic fantasies. The psychopath and the murderous criminal represent the "bad boy" construct in its extreme form. Please do not quote from textbooks as these do not prove anything. There is a substantial amount of current scientific research which suggests that women are attracted to both affluent males and "bad boys" as potential sex partners. Although the majority of women are largely attracted to such traits as male socio-economic status and financial wealth, a substantial percentage of women are also attracted to "bad boys", such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, individuals who would guarantee the woman large numbers of future grandchildren, who would in turn produce more "bad boys" and even greater numbers of offspring. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, and I posted a post debunking all of your objections, however you did not bother to take the time to read it. The research of Herold and Milhausen (1999) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2003) clearly demonstrates that a significant percentage of women are attracted to "bad boys", however this contention is refuted by McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006), who demonstrate conclusively that "bad boys" are preferred for both short-term and long-term relationships and that "nice guys" are both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable. The study of Jensen-Campbell et al (1995) demonstrates that women are attracted to a mixture of both "nice guy" and "bad boy" traits, but still provides conclusive proof that women find "nice guys" to be sexually unattractive. However, the research of Jensen-Campbell et al. has been superseded by McDaniel and even that has been superseded by the current 2006 research of Urbaniak and Kilman. No, I did not post my original theory again, what I did post was a further elaboration and clarification of my original theory, thoroughly debunking all of the previous claims made by you. All of your questions have been answered and your objections have been refuted. Excuse me, but I did not double post anything. I simply posted research that both clarified and totally refuted your objections. Stop dismissing my work as double-postage, especially when you obviously do not possess the ability to counter any of the arguments already presented (which are fairly obvious to begin with). I did, and on numerous occasions as a matter of fact; however, you chose to deliberately ignore it over and over again, because it pointed to conclusions that you found uncomfortable. And again, I did not repost my theory; I strongly suggest you sit down and read it from beginning to end, instead of dismissing it without giving it due consideration. Science is about uncovering fact, not reinforcing the cozy, Alice-in-Wonderland world you prefer to inhabit.

I believe that, to a certain degree, mammalian species of animal and human beings share very similar emotions. For example, all of the more primitive emotions that we as human beings feel, such as pain, pleasure, loss, anger, animal attachment, fear, lust etc, are almost certainly experienced by animals, particularly by those belonging to mammalian species. However, more complex emotions such as empathy, compassion, sorrow, guilt, love, conscientiousness etc, seem to be found only in humans. Although a controversial field of inquiry, there is some evidence that certain species of animal, such as canines and even chimpanzees, are capable of such emotions as learned helplessness and mournful behaviour. The primatologist Jane Goodall observed that chimpanzees formed strong attachments with their young and were capable of exhibiting certain signs that resembled the emotion of sadness. Unfortunately, one difficulty with postulating the existence of animal emotionality is being able to differentiate between an emotive response that is really a genetically pre-programmed, physiological response to external stimuli and one that is based on genuine individual self-awareness (is the creature actually conscious of the pain it suffers?).

I have been trying to answer everybody's questions on this thread. However, I'm only human; I can't answer 20 people at once. I did not repost all of my arguments verbatim; I have also provided a considerable amount of clarification/elaboration on certain issues. All of the research I have cited definitively proves each one of my 3 contentions. The only sources that you criticized were either deliberately misinterpreted by you or not crucial in any way to my theory. However, I am open to suggestions and willing to listen to input that may prove to be invaluable sometime in the near future. As such, I am all ears. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHey, just a question: is that avatar really a pic of you? (I hope I don't sound invasive)

The term "evolutionist" is an ideological, not a scientific construct. It is an obscurantist word used by creationists and other nonscientists to smear their opponents and silence rational dissent. The world of empirical research has no place for ad hominem attacks on others.

No. What I did was elaborate on certain issues in order to provide sufficient clarification to first-time viewers of this thread. I just want people to be well aware of the issues at stake and what supporting information is available. Not only have I provided a tremendous amount of empirical research which supports all of the contentions I have made, but I have been actively participating in this debate since day one. Sometimes I cannot continue debating because of real world issues that need to be taken care of, but those are external factors of which I have no control. Otherwise, when I am here, I am always prepared to debate the issues. Are you serious? I presented a large amount of research which you not only failed to refute, but completely ignored, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, I'm wondering if we can find some common ground. Is it even possible? I realize that having open lines of communication is the only way to do this and I am prepared to go head to head on this issue. All I am looking for is answers; all I wish to do is understand why certain phenomena occur in the external world which lie beyond my control. All I really desire is sympathetic companions to aid me in my quest to find answers and not be presented with more and more questions.

All Recent Evidence Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” In the abstract of McDaniel’s paper, Why/Why not date a nice guy? (2005), it states: The results of the present study suggest that reasons for dating (i.e., not wanting physical contact, wanting stimulating conversation, and wanting an exclusive relationship) and perceived personality traits (i.e., sweet/nice and physically attractive) influence a young woman's desire to date a nice guy, and that perceived personality traits are better predictors of her choice of a man to date than are reasons for dating. However, what the author clearly states is that it is because women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys” that there is a sharp disconnect between a young woman’s reasons for dating and her spatio-temporal perception of which traits are attractive/unattractive in either a “nice guy” or a “bad boy”, creating a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance over the process of female reproductive choice. Although women claim to want “nice guys”, both stepwise and multiple regression analysis, as well as factor analysis, of the frequency tables generated by the collected statistical data demonstrated that being sweet/nice could neither be classified as an attractive or unattractive trait; instead, the statistical data revealed that women considered physical attractiveness to be a much more important consideration in their selection of a male sex partner than being sweet/nice, which was not even considered at all. McDaniel postulates that the “fatal attraction” hypothesis, in which a woman’s initial favourable impression of “nice guy” personality characteristics, such as being sweet/nice, can become negative perceptions of those characteristics, probably contributes to the female preference of “bad boys” over “nice guys”. McDaniel writes: The "fatal attraction" hypothesis may explain subsequent rejection of a nice guy because his sweet/nice guy caution may be read as loser/nice guy passivity. McDaniel provides further evidence that a woman’s reasons for dating are not as substantial as her perception of those personality traits which are characteristic of the target male by demonstrating that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Popular culture, as well as some academic researchers, have suggested that women prefer “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships, but “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships. However, multiple regression analysis of the data revealed that a woman’s desire for high commitment dating had almost nothing to do with whether she selected a “nice guy” or a “bad boy”; however, her desire for low commitment dating was positively correlated with her willingness to date a “bad boy”. McDaniel writes: Popular and academic texts claim that young women report wanting nice guys for committed relationships. However, regression analysis of the reasons for dating factors indicated that the high commitment reason for dating accounts very little for a young woman's desire to date a nice guy or a not-so-nice fun/sexy guy, and the low commitment dating factor was related only to an increase in the likelihood of dating a fun/sexy guy a second time. Given the centrality of low commitment dating as a mechanism which facilitates the intensification of a budding relationship into “coupledom”, the “bad boy” is ideally situated; because women find “nice guys” to be both socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, “nice guys” are not desired for low commitment dating and therefore cannot progress onwards to more long-term, stable relationships. McDaniel further observes: First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy's likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage. Thus, the 2005 research of McDaniel offers powerful evidence that women prefer “bad boys”, such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, over “nice guys”. The most recent social scientific research on the “nice guy” stereotype also suggests that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Urbaniak and Kilman, in their 2006 paper Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype, not only demolish the previous studies of Jensen-Campbell et al (1995), Herold and Milhausen (1999) and their own 2003 research, but also supersede the previous research of McDaniel. Urbaniak and Kilman found that women prefer “bad boys” or “jerks” for both short-term, casual dating and long-term, committed relationships, directly contradicting the findings of Herold and Milhausen (1999), as well as those of their own 2003 research, which suggested that “jerks” may be highly sought after for low-commitment dating, but that “nice guys” would be preferred for longer, more stable relationships. In this study, empirical observation of actual female socio-sexual behaviour was substituted for female self-reportage, constituting a significant methodological improvement over previous studies. Instead, overall male dating success, actual female selection of males on the basis of physical attractiveness and other variables, as well as objective measures of male niceness/agreeableness are employed as independent factors whose subsequent interrelationship and covariation are determined by sequential multiple regression analysis and other modes of statistical quantification. Thus, Urbaniak and Kilman found that women regarded such characteristics as being “nice” or possessing high levels of niceness/agreeableness as a major hindrance to establishing a committed, romantic relationship, whether of the casual or long-term variety. In their 2006 study, Urbaniak and Kilman test four hypotheses: 1. Within shorter-term, less-committed relationship contexts (i.e., casual-dating relationships, one-time sexual encounters, and casual-sex relationships), men's physical attractiveness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men's niceness/agreeableness. Women have been shown to place more emphasis on niceness/agreeableness in the context of long-term, romantic relationships (e.g., Regan, 1998a). Therefore, our second hypothesis: 2. Men's niceness/agreeableness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men's physical attractiveness in the committed/romantic relationship context. Women have rated men's niceness/agreeableness as a desirable characteristic in all relationship contexts (and not, in fact, as a hindrance; e.g., Regan et al., 2000). Thus, our third hypothesis: 3. In contrast to the nice guy stereotype, men's niceness/agreeableness would be a positive predictor of dating success across all four relationship contexts.As noted earlier, media references to the nice guy stereotype often reflect a categorical distinction in describing the "dating success" of archetypal "homely nice guys" versus "cute, macho guys". Our fourth hypothesis was formed to test the validity of this popular or "media-based" distinction by contrasting two subgroups of men: 4. Men rated relatively high in niceness/agreeableness but relatively low in physical attractiveness (i.e., "homely nice guys") would report greater long-term dating success than men rated relatively low in niceness but high in physical attractiveness ("cute, macho guys"). The reverse pattern was predicted regarding short-term sexual success. The results obtained by Urbaniak and Kilman for the first hypothesis, through bivariate correlation matrices and multiple regression analysis of the data obtained, was that low niceness/agreeableness and high physical attractiveness ensured success for “bad boys” in both short-term relationships and casual dating. Results generated for the second hypothesis suggested that men who lack niceness/agreeableness have much greater success in committed, romantic relationships than “nice guys”, who would have almost zero success in terms of establishing committed relationships. For the third hypothesis, it was found that men who possessed high levels of niceness/agreeableness fared badly across all relationship contexts. Not only was being nice/agreeable described as a socially undesirable trait by women in terms of casual dating, but it was also found that being nice, sweet, kind, or any of a number of other altruistic personality characteristics associated with niceness/agreeableness could be a major hindrance to the establishment of committed, long-term relationships with heterosexual females. Concerning the results generated for the fourth hypothesis, it was found that “cute, macho guys” had more success with both casual dating and long-term committed relationships than men who were high in measures of niceness/agreeableness. Taken together, the 2006 results of Urbaniak and Kilman suggest that women actually do prefer bad boys over nice guys after all. Being nice, kind, sweet, considerate, generous, compassionate, sympathetic, helpful etc, were actually perceived of by the vast majority of women as being highly disadvantageous, even being of negative consequence, when found in a potential male sex partner. These results both strongly reinforce and nicely complement the findings of Schmitt (2003) who, in The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity, found that low agreeableness/conscientiousness and high levels of gregariousness or extraversion, were strongly associated with sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with large volumes of available females, constituting a reproductively viable and evolutionarily sustainable life history strategy. In addition, these traits are also associated with such psycho-pathological conditions as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Schmitt writes: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16 362 participants from 52 nations responded to measures of the Big Five and risky sexuality. It was expected that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would be universally associated with relationship infidelity. Sexual promiscuity, in contrast, was expected to positively relate to extraversion and neuroticism. Analyses across 10 world regions revealed relationship infidelity was universally associated with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Sexual promiscuity was somewhat related to these traits as well, but was more highly related to extraversion across many, but not all, world regions. Both forms of risky sexual behaviour were generally unrelated to neuroticism and openness across cultures. Discussion focuses on possible explanations of regional differences in personality-sexuality linkages. In the conclusion to their 2006 research, Urbaniak and Kilman observe: Although variability in the importance of niceness/agreeableness across different relationship types was expected, the fact that low agreeableness, generally speaking, was more related to success across all the relationship contexts than high agreeableness was somewhat surprising. Previous studies have shown that women highly value niceness in committed/romantic partners (and still value niceness, if less-so, in more sexual contexts; e.g., Regan et al., 2000; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003). The present results, however, failed to show any clear advantage for the men who were highly nice/agreeable, even in the romantic context. As such, results from the present study actually are more consistent with the nice guy stereotype, overall, than were the results of our earlier study, which had suggested that the stereotype might be a myth. This contradictory finding suggests a discrepancy between which men women will say they prefer, or will choose in a (experimentally-manipulated) hypothetical scenario, and which men actually are successful--at least, by the men's own accounts. Hence, the current research of both McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) conclusively demonstrates that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Interestingly enough, the research of Bogaert and Fisher (1995) and Harris et al (2007) strongly reinforces the conclusions reached by both McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006). The fact that women are attracted to “bad boys”, such as violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, narcissists, wife batterers etc, is nicely complemented by research which suggests that psychopaths and men high in aggression, dominance, and testosterone attract large numbers of sex partners and easily form multiple short-term committed relationships. In Predictors of University Men’s Number of Sexual Partners, a study conducted by A.F. Bogaert and W.A. Fisher in 1995, it was found that the within-gender variation of differential reproductive success was heavily influenced by such things as normal individual differences in personality and psycho-physiological constitution. Significant correlational associations were found between such traits as hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, extraversion, levels of circulating androgens, physical attractiveness, and “Eysenck psychoticism”, with men who rated high on these measures having the greatest number of sex partners and greater overall reproductive success, in comparison to more normal, less pathological men. Bogaert and Fisher write: We examined the role of personality (e.g., hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking) and physical individual differences (testosterone, physical attractiveness) in predicting university men’s (N = 215) number of sexual partners. Significant zero-order correlations occurred between number of sexual partners and sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone. In addition, multiple regression analysis revealed significant increases in prediction with an additive combination of these individual differences, and some of these individual differences (e.g., sensation seeking) contributed unique variation to the prediction of the number of sexual partners. Finally, principal components analysis revealed a common personality factor labelled Disinhibition that may partly underlie the relationship between some of these individual differences and the number of sexual partners. ... In a study by Harris et al (2007), COERCIVE AND PRECOCIOUS SEXUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHY, it was revealed that the male psychopath is the quintessential Casanova, attracting large numbers of female sex partners and having numerous short-term relationships with women, a life history course routinely described by evolutionary psychologists and others of a socio-biological orientation as, in its more essential aspects, a reproductively adaptive strategy. According to Harris et al: Sexual behavior is closely associated with delinquency and crime. Although psychopaths, by definition, have many short-term sexual relationships, it has not been shown that sexuality is a core aspect of psychopathy. A Darwinian view of psychopathy led to the hypothesis that psychopaths have a unique sexuality involving early, frequent, and coercive sex. Our subjects were 512 sex offenders assessed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Five variables reflecting early, frequent, and coercive sex loaded on the same principal component in exploratory factor analysis on a subset of the sample, whereas PCL-R items pertaining to adult sexual behavior did not. Confirmatory factor analysis of the remaining subjects yielded a measurement model containingthree inter-correlated factors – the traditional two PCL-R factors, and coercive and precocious sexuality. Taxometric analyses gave evidence of a natural discontinuity underlying coercive and precocious sexuality. Coercive and precocious sexuality yielded statistically significant associations with other study variables predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. The present findings are consistent with prior empirical findings and support the hypothesis that psychopathy has been a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy. In addition, my previous three contentions are supported by a tremendous amount of scientific evidence. 1. Women, in general, are not attracted to “nice guys”, operationalized as altruistic male personality and behavioural characteristics. (Jensen-Campbell et al, 1995; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2006) 2. Socially dominant, aggressive, and violent men, such as psychopaths, narcissists, and other dangerous criminal types, have much greater success in establishing committed romantic relationships and attracting large numbers of female sex partners than men who are less pathological in both personality and behaviour. (Bogaert and Fisher, 1995; Seto, 1995; Schmitt, 2003; Harris et al, 2007; Peters et al, 2008; Jonason et al, 2008) 3. A significant percentage of women are attracted to aggressive, socially dominant males. (Sadalla et al, 1987; Herold and Milhausen, 1999; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003, 2006) Women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Current research in evolutionary psychology suggests that this indidvidual is the ideal sex/relationship partner for a substantial percentage of women.

Your wife's therapist sounds like a Freudian psycho-analyst to me. Your discussion of "parts" seems to correspond to Freud's notion of id, ego, and superego. Have you ever considered regular psychotherapy instead?

I remember reading somewhere that the police, such as the FBI or New Scotland Yard, find that catching serial killers is often very difficult because the serial murderers themselves are normally people of very high intelligence and creativity. Some serial killers, such as the so-called Zodiac Killer or Jack the Ripper, are never caught because they are able to outwit the authorities for decades, if not forever.

All Recent Empirical Research Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” Sources - As I have explained many times before on this thread, there is a considerable amount of empirical research which provides evidentiary substantiation for all three of my main contentions: (1.) women, in general, are not attracted to “nice guys”, operationalized as altruistic male personality and behavioural characteristics; (2.) socially dominant, aggressive, and violent men, such as psychopaths, narcissists, and other dangerous criminal types, have much greater success in establishing committed romantic relationships and attracting large numbers of female sex partners than men who are less pathological; and (3.) a significant percentage of women are attracted to aggressive, socially dominant males. Here is a brief bibliography, complete with accompanying links, of some of the sources for my actual claims: The 1995 study of Jensen-Campbell et al operationalized both “nice guy” and “bad boy” stereotypes as male prosocial orientation and male social dominance, respectively. They found that female heterosexual attraction was elicited by males who possessed both “nice guy” and “bad boy” characteristics and personality traits: Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid «personalism» but still affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: do nice guys really finish last? by Jensen-Campbell, 1995 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3466392 The study of Herold and Milhausen found that women preferred “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships and “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships. The researchers also produce statistical evidence that less than one-half of all women would prefer dating a “bad boy” over a “nice guy”, corroborating my previous contention that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to and willing to establish committed romantic relationships with so-called “bad boys”: Many researchers have attempted to discover what types of men women consider most desirable for relationship partners. This study investigated university women's (N = 165) perceptions of "nice guys," specifically whether women perceived nice guys to be more or less sexually successful than guys who are considered not nice. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used. The qualitative analysis was useful in understanding women's differing interpretations of the nice guy label. More than one half of the women agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners. However, more than one half also reported a preference for a nice guy over a bad boy as a date. As hypothesized, women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners were more likely to choose the nice guy as a dating partner. The findings indicate that nice guys are likely to have fewer sexual partners but are more desired for committed relationships. In the paper, they argue that while nice guys may not be competitive in terms of numbers of sexual partners, they tend to be more successful with respect to longer-term, committed relationships. Dating Preferences of University Women: An Analysis of the Nice Guy Stereotype by Herold and Milhausen, 1999 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10546171 The initial 2003 findings of Urbaniak and Kilman provided strong support for the 1999 Herold and Milhausen thesis, that women prefer “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships and “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships: It may be that the nice guy stereotype is more accurate in relation to relatively casual, physical relationships than to more serious relationships. This finding is generally consistent with results of previous studies which suggest that women place more emphasis on physical attractiveness when considering more short-term relationships (e.g., Herold & Milhausen, 1999; Regan, 1998a; 1998b; Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Physical attractiveness and the "nice guy paradox": do nice guys really finish last? by Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003 Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4m411pnj8601541/ The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes: First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy's likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage. Young women's dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? by McDaniel, 2005 Link: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/sers/2005/00000053/F0020005/00006758 Urbaniak and Kilman observe that women find “nice guys” undesirable for either short-term or long-term relationships: Although variability in the importance of niceness/agreeableness across different relationship types was expected, the fact that low agreeableness, generally speaking, was more related to success across all the relationship contexts than high agreeableness was somewhat surprising. Previous studies have shown that women highly value niceness in committed/romantic partners (and still value niceness, if less-so, in more sexual contexts; e.g., Regan et al., 2000; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003). The present results, however, failed to show any clear advantage for the men who were highly nice/agreeable, even in the romantic context. As such, results from the present study actually are more consistent with the nice guy stereotype, overall, than were the results of our earlier study, which had suggested that the stereotype might be a myth. This contradictory finding suggests a discrepancy between which men women will say they prefer, or will choose in a (experimentally-manipulated) hypothetical scenario, and which men actually are successful--at least, by the men's own accounts. Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype by Urbaniak and Kilman, 2006 Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v3x86pn64106v555/ The research of Sadalla et al demonstrates that visible displays of dominance behaviour increases male sexual attractiveness and female heterosexual attraction. Dominance is a core feature of the “bad boy” construct: Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male's sexual attractiveness and not his general likeability. Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction by Sadalla et al, 1987 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=7478464 Botwin et al argues for the existence of substantial sexual dimorphism in terms of mate preferences for dominance or surgency: Across both samples of participants, women consistently were more exacting on the Surgency and Intellect-Openness factors. An analysis of the individual adjective scales composing Surgency was particularly revealing. Significant sex differences were found in preferences for mates who were dominant (t = -4.33, p < .0001; f = -3.46, p < .001, for dating couples and newlywed couples, respectively). In contrast, no significant differences were found at the item level for sociable, talkative, or proud. These results suggest that the power, ascendance, or dominance theme of Surgency was especially valued by women, whereas the sociable theme showed no sex difference (see Wiggins, 1991). These findings support the hypothesis that the sexes differ on personality attributes known to be linked with resource acquisition. Personality and Mate Preferences: Five Factors In Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction by Botwin et al, 1997 Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119167902/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 The research of Berenbaum and Resnick suggest that higher levels of androgen exposure during human embryological development lead to higher levels of aggression in both children and adults: Males are more likely than females to show aggressive behavior across species, ages, and situations, and these differences may be partly influenced by early hormones. We studied aggression in three samples of subjects with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who were exposed to high levels of androgen in the prenatal and early postnatal periods. Controls were siblings and first cousins similar in age. In Sample 1, adolescents and adults completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), which includes an Aggression scale. In Sample 2, adolescents and adults completed the MPQ and a paper-and-pencil version of Reinisch's Aggression Inventory. In Sample 3, parents rated the aggression of children aged 3–12, using a modification of Reinisch's Inventory. In all three samples, control males had higher aggression scores than control females. Further, as predicted, females with CAH had higher aggression than control females, but the difference was significant only in adolescents and adults. These results suggest that early androgens contribute to variability in human aggression. Early androgen effects on aggression in children and adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia by Berenbaum and Resnick, 1997 Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-3RYCJYB-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=73e994b8116ca1379ad089ee5e606f72 Mazur and Booth argue that high levels of circulating androgens elicit dominance behaviour in males: In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate – to enhance one’s status over – other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man’s basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other. We contrast a reciprocal model, in which T level is variable, acting as both a cause and effect of behavior, with a basal model, in which T level is assumed to be a persistent trait that influences behavior. An unusual data set on Air Force veterans, in which data were collected four times over a decade, enables us to compare the basal and reciprocal models as explanations for the relationship between T and divorce. We discuss sociological implications of these models. Testosterone and dominance in men by Mazur and Booth, 1998 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10097017 “Bad boys” are more dominant, more aggressive, and even more violent than “nice guys”, but because they have higher levels of circulating androgens they also have greater reproductive success than “nice guys”, suggesting that the ability of the “bad boy” to attract women and establish short-term/long-term relationships is largely endocrinological in origin. The studies of Berenbaum and Resnick, Mazur and Booth, and Peters et al suggest a tripartite relationship between dominance, aggression, and mating success and a direct causal relationship between these three constructs and levels of circulating androgens in the bloodstream. According to Peters et al, men with higher levels of testosterone are not only more dominant and aggressive, but also have much greater success with attracting large numbers of heterosexual females and establishing numerous short-term/long-term sexual relationships: We suggest two mechanisms that may facilitate an association between T and mating success via male behaviour and/or female preferences. First, mating success and T may come to be associated through the demonstration of dominant physical behaviours, and male contest competition. The hypothesis that T is associated with dominant behaviour is one that has been tested often (see Mazur & Booth, 1998; Hirschenhauser & Oliveira, 2006 for reviews). In many 344 non-human animals, T is associated with aggressive or dominant behaviours, for example, increased territory size and mate guarding (see Wingfield et al., 2001 for a review). A meta-analysis of human studies found broad support for an association between T and various measures of dominance (Archer, 2006). Thus, mating success may be associated with higher T, because T is associated with male contest competition, either via mate seeking behaviour, or through overt aggressive competition. Testosterone is associated with mating success but not attractiveness or masculinity in human males by Peters et al, 2008 Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-4SK59GN-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9e7da635da7fc5e0178ae92e61ac1152 The research of Havlicek reveals that female heterosexual attraction to dominant males or “bad boys” has a definite biological basis, with women being able to detect levels of male dominance through body odour: Body odour may provide significant cues about a potential sexual partner’s genetic quality, reproductive status and health. In animals, a key trait in a female’s choice of sexual partner is male dominance but, to date, this has not been examined in humans. Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odour of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women. Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status by Havlicek et al, 2005 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17148181 Female attraction to displays of male dominance and social presence varies considerably throughout the menstrual cycle, with women being especially attracted to dominant males around the period of ovulation. Gangestad et al write: Recent research has indicated that women’s mate preferences are not constant across the ovulatory cycle. The characteristics of men that normally cycling women find attractive when they are most fertile (just prior to ovulation) differ from those they find attractive when they are not. Several converging lines of evidence support this claim. During fertile relative to infertile days of their cycles women (a) particularly prefer the scent of men who have higher developmental stability (measured by fluctuating asymmetry) and are more socially dominant (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Havlicek, Roberts, & Flegr, 2005; Rikowski & Grammer, 1999; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999; Thornhill et al., 2003), (b) prefer more masculine male faces (Johnston, Hagel, Franklin, Fink, & Grammer, 2001; Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton-Voak et al.,1999), © find men who display greater social presence and dominance more attractive (Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, & Christensen, 2004), (d) prefer deeper male voices (Puts,2005), and (e) prefer creativity over wealth (Haselton & Miller,2006). Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle by Gangestad et al, 2007 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13651500 Bogaert and Fisher demonstrate that such core “bad boy” (read psychopathic) traits as sensation-seeking, hypermasculinity, high testosterone levels, “Eysenck psychoticism” (low agreeableness/conscientiousness), and impulsivity (disinhibition) are positively correlated with having large numbers of sex partners and short-term sexual relationships. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of that study: We examined the role of personality (e.g., hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking) and physical individual differences (testosterone, physical attractiveness) in predicting university men’s (N = 215) number of sexual partners. Significant zero-order correlations occurred between number of sexual partners and sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone. In addition, multiple regression analysis revealed significant increases in prediction with an additive combination of these individual differences, and some of these individual differences (e.g., sensation seeking) contributed unique variation to the prediction of the number of sexual partners. Finally, principal components analysis revealed a common personality factor labelled Disinhibition that may partly underlie the relationship between some of these individual differences and the number of sexual partners. ... Predictors of University Men’s Number of Sexual Partners by Bogaert and Fisher, 1995 Link: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812964 The study of Jonason et al suggest that men who are psychopathic, narcissistic, or Machiavellian in personality and behaviour (the “Dark Triad”) tend to establish multiple sexual relationships with ease and attract large numbers of available heterosexual females, pursuing a reproductively adaptive life strategy. In the study, Jonason et al writes: The personality traits that compose the Dark Triad have typically been considered abnormal, pathological, and inherently maladaptive (e.g., Kowalski, 2001). Although individuals with these traits inflict costs to others and themselves, the Dark Triad traits are also associated with some qualities, including a drive for power (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Foster et al., 2006), low neuroticism (Taylor & Armor, 1996), and extraversion (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), that may be beneficial. Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness (Paulhus, 2001), such traits may facilitate – especially for men – the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy. The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men by Jonason, 2008 Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121517849/abstract Sensation-seeking or lack of adequate stimulation is a core feature of psychopathy and other anti-social personality disorders. According to the research of Seto et al, it is also associated with both the ability to attract large volumes of available heterosexual females and the ability to establish numerous short-term committed relationships: We examined the relationship between sensation seeking and the self-reports of both sexual interests and behaviours of 162 heterosexual male students and 60 heterosexual males recruited from the community. Because parental investment theory and previous research suggest that males' interest in sexual partner variety is constrained by females' preference for committed sexual relationships, we predicted that participants would desire to have more partners in the future than they have had in the past. Because evolutionary theory and previous research also suggests that personality dispositions are related to mating strategies, we further predicted that sensation seeking would be positively correlated with lifetime number of sexual partners, mean number of partners per sexually active year, shortest time a partner was known before having sex, the percentage of previous relationships that were short-term, number of partners desired in the next year, and variety of sexual activities participants had experienced or would like to experience, and negatively correlated with age at first intercourse. The predictions were supported. Sensation seeking and males' sexual strategy by M. C. Seto et al, 1995 Link: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01918869/1995/00000019/00000005/art00101 Harris et al describe the ability to attract large numbers of heterosexual females and have numerous short-term sexual relationships as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy: Sexual behavior is closely associated with delinquency and crime. Although psychopaths, by definition, have many short-term sexual relationships, it has not been shown that sexuality is a core aspect of psychopathy. A Darwinian view of psychopathy led to the hypothesis that psychopaths have a unique sexuality involving early, frequent, and coercive sex. Our subjects were 512 sex offenders assessed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Five variables reflecting early, frequent, and coercive sex loaded on the same principal component in exploratory factor analysis on a subset of the sample, whereas PCL-R items pertaining to adult sexual behavior did not. Confirmatory factor analysis of the remaining subjects yielded a measurement model containing three inter-correlated factors – the traditional two PCL-R factors, and coercive and precocious sexuality. Taxometric analyses gave evidence of a natural discontinuity underlying coercive and precocious sexuality. Coercive and precocious sexuality yielded statistically significant associations with other study variables predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. The present findings are consistent with prior empirical findings and support the hypothesis that psychopathy has been a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy. COERCIVE AND PRECOCIOUS SEXUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHY by Harris et al, 2007 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17373887 The PCL-R, the standard diagnostic tool for the assessment of psychopathy, lists “many short-term relationships” and “promiscuous sexual behaviour” as fundamental characteristics of the psychopathic personality. According to the research of Dr. Robert Hare, who devised the PCL-R, romantic success or being able to date and establish numerous sexual relationships with heterosexual females can also be strongly indicative of psychopathy or other forms of anti-social criminality: Glibness / superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Conning / manipulative Lack of remorse or guilt Shallow affect Callous / lack of empathy Lack of realistic long-term goals Impulsivity Irresponsibility Failure to accept responsibility... Early behavioral problems Many short-term relationships --- Poor behavioral controls Juvenile delinquency Parasitic lifestyle Revocation of conditional release Criminal versatility Promiscuous sexual behaviour --- Need for stimulation Hare, RD. The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised: manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, 1991. According to Schmitt, “Eysenck psychoticism” or low agreeableness/conscientiousness and extraversion was related to both relationship infidelity and sexual promiscuity: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16 362 participants from 52 nations responded to measures of the Big Five and risky sexuality. It was expected that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would be universally associated with relationship infidelity. Sexual promiscuity, in contrast, was expected to positively relate to extraversion and neuroticism. Analyses across 10 world regions revealed relationship infidelity was universally associated with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Sexual promiscuity was somewhat related to these traits as well, but was more highly related to extraversion across many, but not all, world regions. Both forms of risky sexual behaviour were generally unrelated to neuroticism and openness across cultures. Discussion focuses on possible explanations of regional differences in personality-sexuality linkages. The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity by Schmitt, 2003 Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109075976/abstract As for statistically quantifying the substantial percentage of women who prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”, I would probably side with the data of Herold and Milhausen (1999), who suggested that less than one-half of all women prefer “macho men” or “bad boys” as sex/dating partners.

Well, you can either accept the findings of modern scientific investigation or you can reject it. After all, wasn't Galileo viciously mocked by his contemporaries for debunking the concept of a geocentric universe? The fact of the matter is that all current empirical research suggests that (1.) the MAJORITY of women find altruistic (i.e. sweet, kind) men to be both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable, that (2.) violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths establish short-term/long-term committed relationships and attract large numbers of female sex partners at a rate that is significantly higher than men who are less pathological (according to the standard diagnostic tool by which psychopathy is measured, the PCL-R, sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with numerous heterosexual females is a core feature of the psychopathic personality), and that (3.) a SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE of women, for both purely psychological and evolutionary biological reasons, find men who possess such traits as aggression, low niceness/agreeableness, hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, low empathy, narcissistic etc, to be very sexually attractive. These are the most recent findings of modern empirical research on the matter and, unless we can provide contradictory evidence, we must eventually learn to accept and come to grips with it.

I disagree. Most of the available evidence suggests that women (as a general tendency of course) are not attracted to men who are sweet, nice, sensitive, kind, or compassionate (or even too intelligent for that matter); it is this thesis which serves as the current thread topic. That women are attracted to violent, aggressive males or "bad boys" is a tangential, yet interrelated subject.

Who said anything was wrong with the empirical sociological/psychological research on female mate preference? Certainly, not I. The recent findings suggest that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to violent, aggressive, and even dangerous men. However, the MAJORITY of women would be largely attracted to male socio-economic status and earning capacity.

Actually, male socio-economic status is the dominant female sexual preference, as unearthed by such recent scientific investigators as D.M. Buss (1990), and hypothesized by such evolutionary biologists as R. Trivers (1972). However, on the basis of modern empirical research, it is likely that a SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of women are physically attracted to men who display such character traits as low niceness/agreeableness, extraversion, sensation-seeking, hypermasculinity, low empathy, aggressiveness etc.

Not true. If you read the actual report itself, you will find that my conclusions are relative and based exclusively on the available evidence at hand. I have said nothing about female mate preference that was not solidly grounded in the empirical research of established, peer-reviewed literature produced by well-known psychologists, evolutionary biologists, and sociological researchers.

No, the subject under consideration here is that women find the "nice guy" construct to be both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable. You need to sit down and read the actual research, instead of quickly jumping to random conclusions. Nowhere within the essay is a false dichotomy established between masculinity and "niceness", however, according to the 1995 research of Bogaert and Fisher, the trait of hypermasculinity is strongly associated with individual-level male psychopathology. The actual point of the essay was that when both "nice guy" and "bad boy" stereotypes were operationalized as empirical, definitely quantifiable constructs, actual observation of female socio-sexual behaviour revealed a preference for males low in measures of niceness/agreeableness, and high in measures of extraversion, psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Women had very little or no interest in such personality traits as being kind or friendly, and desired men who were extraverted, hypermasculine, even psychopathic in behaviour. Moreover, I find your accusations of "overgeneralization" and "fringe psychology" to be bizarre. First, there is no logical objection to the construction of a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession within a given population demographic, provided the calculation of such is based on legitimate empirical research and mathematical techniques like Bayesian statistical formulae, multiple regression analysis, ANOVA/MANOVA (covariation research) etc. In fact, the chief function of experimental social scientific work is the systematic determination of how falsifiable or empirically well-founded a statistical generalization extracted from the available data really is. Second, you are obviously not a student of psychology or any other behavioural science for that matter, because you would know that all of the research cited is university/government funded, produced by well-known social scientists, and published in prestigious academic journals, such as The Journal of Sex Research.

"Weed", or marijuana as it is actually called, does possess a number of medicinal properties as well. Who hasn't heard of medicinal marijuana?

"Nice guys" need to toughen up, or atleast start saving money, if they desire eventual dating success with heterosexual females.

Well, much of the sociological/evolutionary biological/psychological literature seems to suggest that female sexual preference often gravitates towards the selection of dominant alpha males for committed relationships and/or reproductive purposes. Alpha males represent a select group of individuals which not only includes males of high socio-economic status, but also the most violent, aggressive, and testosterone-fuelled males of the human species. Current operationalizations of the "the nice guy stereotype" really do reflect actual empirical findings as revealed by a plethora of sociological/psychological research: Women prefer "bad boys" over men who have the reproductive misfortune of being kind, sweet, considerate, friendly, generous, sensitive, compassionate, loving etc.