Mokele Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 In the study, Sex, Lies, and More Lies: Exploring the Intimate Relationships of Subclinical Psychopaths (2005), Williams et al. suggest that: The link between psychopathy and relationship violence may be gleaned from research involving batterers. Although scholars vary with respect to the labeling of batterer subgroups,there is fair consistency in the personality traits, pathology, and battering patterns that define these subgroups (see Dutton 1998; Tweed & Dutton, 1998; Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000, forreviews). One of these subgroups is known as the generally violent/antisocial. In light of the striking similarities between the generally violent/antisocial batterers and men with psychopathic personality disorder (Spidel et al., in press), it may be that psychopathy is a prime candidate as a correlate of relationship problems. You've comitted a primary logical error here, namely "what's in the other 3 cells"? All the above asserts is the unsurprising notion that psychopaths are more likely to be abusive. But what you really have is a 4 cell plot: psychopaths who abuse, psychopaths who don't, non-psychopaths who abuse, and non-psychopaths who don't. All the above study notes is that the majority of the psychopaths also abuse. However, psychopaths are a very small percentage of the population, while spousal abuse is a huge problem, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the vast majority of abusers are *not* psychopaths, and another explanation for their behavior must be found. I'd also like to see a serious, very high N study which shows a true general trend of women being attracted to 'bad boys', because I suspect it doesn't exist, and is instead a product of observer bias - you don't think to notice when a woman chooses another guy over you for a perfectly rational reason (he's brilliant, funny, hung, etc.), but *do* notice when you think it's irrational. You remember those cases and forget the less remarkable ones. Hollywood and media have committed the same error and reinforced it to the point that it's accepted cultural wisdom, like alligators in the sewers. Does this phenomenon even actually exist? Do "bad boys" truly enjoy greater success, or is it just observer bias that disappears upon rigorous statistical analysis? Mokele
iNow Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) I'd also like to see a serious, very high N study which shows a true general trend of women being attracted to 'bad boys', because I suspect it doesn't exist, and is instead a product of observer bias - you don't think to notice when a woman chooses another guy over you for a perfectly rational reason (he's brilliant, funny, hung, etc.), but *do* notice when you think it's irrational. You remember those cases and forget the less remarkable ones. This is a hugely important point which Mokele has raised. In psychological research, it's often termed as "perceptual salience." There was a lot of work done by a british fellow called Rupert Sheldrake on something called morphic fields. He is basically attempting to find physical reasons for telepathic experiences. He has researched on a phenomenon, and wrote a book about it called "The Sense of Being Stared At." However, when viewed critically and objectively, the primary challenge with this "sense of being stared at" phenomenon is exactly what Mokele described above. When we turn around and we see that someone was staring out us, we tend to remember it. It could be a danger situation, it could be an old friend, someone planning to rob or attack us. We remember those, and for good reason. However, when we turn around and people are NOT staring at us, we forget those quickly. There is no real reason to waste valuable memory resources on those and they bleed into the background noise in our mind. In short, we over-remember the one type of event because they are perceptually salient, and we under-remember the other because they are not. This causes our overall "population sample" of our personal reality (one might call it our personal worldview) to be skewed, and any speculations or understandings based on those skewed representations of reality will themselves be inaccurate. I bring this up because Sheldrake basically sought an explanation for the effect without first doing the required steps or studies to demonstrate the effect's existence beyond a mere anomoloy of human memory systems or statistical sampling error. As I stated earlier in this thread, it's easy to support the contention that certain traits in males tend to be found more attractive by a decent percentage of females in short-term mating (and other factors like relative hormone levels play a role here, too), and that these traits may exist in parallel among many of these criminals (again, though... not all of them... another point where too many generalizations are occuring in this thread). For these, and other, reasons it's pushing this data WAY too far in this thread, and many of the speculations/assertions are rather baseless (despite my appreciation for the fact that real references were shared... It's the interpretation/presentation that I am ultimately challenging). I second the call for a large N study about "bad boy attraction" across females, and look forward to a well parameterized definition of "bad boy," as that will likely call to attention the other variables at play in these short-term mating selection instances (i.e. It's about something other than the person being violent or sociopathic). A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were traveling through Scotland when they saw a black sheep through the window of the train. "Aha," says the engineer, "I see that Scottish sheep are black." "Hmm," says the physicist, "You mean that some Scottish sheep are black." "No," says the mathematician, "All we know is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland, and that at least one side of that one sheep is black!" Let's be more mathematical about this, shall we? Edited January 9, 2009 by iNow
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) You've comitted a primary logical error here, namely "what's in the other 3 cells"? All the above asserts is the unsurprising notion that psychopaths are more likely to be abusive. But what you really have is a 4 cell plot: psychopaths who abuse, psychopaths who don't, non-psychopaths who abuse, and non-psychopaths who don't. All the above study notes is that the majority of the psychopaths also abuse. However, psychopaths are a very small percentage of the population, while spousal abuse is a huge problem, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the vast majority of abusers are *not* psychopaths, and another explanation for their behavior must be found. Although psychopaths and other "dark triad" types (narcissists, Machiavellians) constitute a small percentage of the population, I think the amount of damage they cause (in terms of actual violence within interpersonal relationships) is disproportionate to their overall numbers, which is what the above-mentioned study seems to be hinting at. Further confirmation of this trend can be found in other studies, such as in the Identification of the psychopathic batterer: The clinical, legal, and policy implications (2000). In this paper, the researchers Huss and Langinrichsen-Rohling observe: A number of theoretical and empirical sources have proposed that a subgroup of domestically violent men exhibit more antisocial behavior, express more generalized violence, and are generally more resistant to mental health intervention than others. In a parallel literature, researchers have identified a subgroup of violent criminal offenders (i.e., psychopaths) that exhibit a number of similar characteristics to this more antisocial/generally violent group of batterers. Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH7-402K87Y-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=25b1fd5dec5a5e2b40d667aa3d05f3fd I'd also like to see a serious, very high N study which shows a true general trend of women being attracted to 'bad boys', because I suspect it doesn't exist, and is instead a product of observer bias - you don't think to notice when a woman chooses another guy over you for a perfectly rational reason (he's brilliant, funny, hung, etc.), but *do* notice when you think it's irrational. You remember those cases and forget the less remarkable ones. Hollywood and media have committed the same error and reinforced it to the point that it's accepted cultural wisdom, like alligators in the sewers. Does this phenomenon even actually exist? Do "bad boys" truly enjoy greater success, or is it just observer bias that disappears upon rigorous statistical analysis? Mokele Well, I'm not sure if you have been reading the thread, but I did mention a number of "high-brow" studies, published in legitimate academic journals specializing in both the fields of psychology and evolutionary biology, which strongly suggest that "bad boys" or dark triad personalities tend to have much greater success and more frequent relationships with women than other, more average men. In this regard, the peer-reviewed literature appears to be quite substantial. One study I mentioned, The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men (2008) by Jonason et al., demonstrates that men with dark triad personalities (consisting of such traits as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) tend to attract larger numbers of women, enter into more sexual relationships with women, and have much greater short-term mating success than ordinary men. In the abstract, Jonason et al. writes: This survey (N = 224) found that characteristics collectively known as the Dark Triad (i.e. narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism) were correlated with various dimensions of short-term mating but not long-term mating. The link between the Dark Triad and short-term mating was stronger for men than for women. The Dark Triad partially mediated the sex difference in short-term mating behaviour. Findings are consistent with a view that the Dark Triad facilitates an exploitative, short-term mating strategy in men. Possible implications, including that Dark Triad traits represent a bundle of individual differences that promote a reproductively adaptive strategy are discussed. Findings are discussed in the broad context of how an evolutionary approach to personality psychology can enhance our understanding of individual differences. Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121517849/abstract Another study, The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity (2003) by Schmitt, demonstrates that men who exhibit low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness, but high levels of extraversion (traits that are positively correlated with psychopathy), tend to be less faithful to their spouses and have larger numbers of sex partners/short-term relationships than regular men. Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109075976/abstract Still, in another study entitled Coercive And Precocious Sexuality As A Fundamental Aspect Of Psychopathy (2007), the researchers Harris et al. assert that not only is sexual promiscuity a central aspect of the psychopathic personality, but that psychopathy is a successful reproductive strategy. In their abstract, Harris et al. write: 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. Link: http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.1.1 Other studies suggest that the female attraction to "bad boys" is not only psychological, but possibly endocrinological in origin as well. These studies suggest that female preferences for testosterone-related male facial characteristics fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle, with women being attracted to more masculine phenotypes around the moment of conception, when female androgen production is at its maximum. According to a report by Penton-Voak and Perrett, Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence (2000): Female respondents in the follicular phase of their menstrual cycle (n = 55) were significantly more likely to choose a masculine face than those in menses and luteal phases (n = 84). This study provides further evidence that when conception is most likely, females prefer testosterone-related facial characteristics that may honestly advertise immunocompetence. Link: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513899000331 In addition, there is a large body of evidence which demonstrates that women are more attracted biologically to men who are both very dominant and aggressive, as opposed to more passive, regular men. Female sexual preference for certain types of male social behaviour has also been found to fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle, with women exhibiting a marked preference for displays of male aggression and male-male hierarchical dominance during the moment of ovulation. In the paper, Women's Preferences for Male Behavioral Displays Change Across the Menstrual Cycle (2003), the researchers Gangestad et al. write that: ... As predicted, women's preference for men who displayed social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness increased on high-fertility days relative to low-fertility days, but only in a short-term, not a long-term, mating context. These findings add to the growing literature indicating that women's mate preferences systematically vary across the reproductive cycle. Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120705560/abstract Based on the available peer-reviewed literature, it seems that there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence which seems to suggest that a substantial percentage of women are very attracted to aggressive, even brutally violent men ("bad boys"). Edited January 9, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
Mokele Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Based on the available peer-reviewed literature, it seems that there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence which seems to suggest that a substantial percentage of women are very attracted to aggressive, even brutally violent men ("bad boys"). I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the studies above. Jonason et al. 2008, Schmitt 2003, and Harris et al. 2007 all only indicate that this type of male has higher mating success in the short term, without addressing female preferences. It is entirely possible that women do NOT want these men as they really are, but rather as they present themselves to the world, and the short duration of their relationships is due to either their failure to 'keep up the act' or the female realizing who he is inside. Given that duplicity is a halmark of these individuals, we cannot use their success as a measure of female desires. Penton-Voak and Perrett 2000 only indicates a menstrual cycle based preference for males with high testosterone. It has nothing to do with this topic, as such features are *not* necessarily indicative or even correlated with the behaviors you describe. Gangestad et al. 2003 is close, but no cigar - it only addresses "social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness", which are NOT psychopathy, but rather simply high social status and status drive. This may explain why women like rock stars and sports icons, but not psychopaths. So far, none of your citations actually support the assertion that women like individuals who are psychopaths or nearly so. Remember, social dominance, status seeking, etc are not pscyhopathic traits. These can be expressed by simply being ambitious and having a good job, or being the informal 'alpha' of a group of friends. I'd argue that most males, and probably most females too, seek social status and social dominance, given the benefits such positions confer.
mooeypoo Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Abdul-Aziz, please stop phrasing yourself the way you don't want people to understand you. When you say "All available evidence suggests that women love "bad boys"", then the claim is that women love bad boys. All women (or the *absolute majority*). You said it's not your claim, and we've continously asked you to stop using that phrasing, then. This isn't a petty request - you are, to be honest, confusing me compeltely. I don't get what you're suggesting. Are you claiming that you can explain the specific group of women who seem to be attracted to "rough" men? Or are you claiming the majority of women prefer rough men? Or are you claiming ALL WOMEN, INHERENTLY, prefer rough men? Those above claims are extremely different. Please be clearer.
bob000555 Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Poor rhetorical skills or not I think Abdul-Aziz’s point is a good one, I further believe that it is being discounted simply because we live in a society where any perceived criticism of women no mater how valid it may be is deemed to be politically incorrect and somehow automatically wrong (granted Abdul’s claim that women love mass killers is a bit strange to say the least). It is a scientific fact that in almost every species on the planet aggression and strength are used as a proxy for male genetic fitness. We have all evolved to find things that provided an advantage in prehistoric time attractive, from men’s attraction to berthing hips to large breasts capable of properly nourishing a child. It should come as absolutely no surprise that women are attracted to men who would have been capable of defending their mates and offspring or fighting for sustenance. Simple anecdotal evidence( “I personally am not attracted to ‘bad boys’”) does not constitute an invalidation of this principal, of course attraction is a complicated thing and many factors play into it but that is not to say that aggressive masculinity is not one of them. And please stop the ad hominem attacks, saying that Abdul-Aziz is making his argument because he has been turned down in favor of “bad boys” is not only incredibly rude but completely irrelevant to the argument; his motives have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his argument.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the studies above. Jonason et al. 2008, Schmitt 2003, and Harris et al. 2007 all only indicate that this type of male has higher mating success in the short term, without addressing female preferences. It is entirely possible that women do NOT want these men as they really are, but rather as they present themselves to the world, and the short duration of their relationships is due to either their failure to 'keep up the act' or the female realizing who he is inside. Well, the fact that "dark triad" males have tremendous short-term mating success does demonstrate quite clearly that psychopaths, narcissists, and Machiavellians need only invest a minimal amount of effort in order to attract large volumes of female sex partners, as opposed to the vast majority of hapless males. Moreover, they are living out every adult male's fantasy of having large numbers of readily available women for no-strings' attached sex, so in a sense, the formation of long-term relationships is relatively unimportant in this regard. The fact that so many women are not only deeply attracted to such violent, brutal men, but willing to form intimate sexual relationships with such individuals, does reflect female sexual preference to a high degree, albeit indirectly. It is an established scientific fact that a substantial percentage of women are highly attracted to male aggressiveness and intrasexual competitiveness, or else why would these women freely choose to go out with such men and in such large numbers as well? Given that duplicity is a halmark of these individuals, we cannot use their success as a measure of female desires. This is a groundless assumption on your part. Are you saying that most women are stupid? Most women are just as capable of making individual choices and taking responsibility for their actions just like anyone else. Just because you do not prefer who some women choose to go out with does not mean that these women should not be held accountable for their actions. In none of these studies is it ever suggested that "dark triad" men necessarily deceive their partners in order to attract them, but that women are genuinely attracted to "dark triad" personality characteristics. In fact, many of these scholars describe the "dark triad" approach to attracting women as a reproductively viable strategy (after all, who attracts the greatest number of women and enjoys the highest rates of fertility?). Penton-Voak and Perrett 2000 only indicates a menstrual cycle based preference for males with high testosterone. It has nothing to do with this topic, as such features are *not* necessarily indicative or even correlated with the behaviors you describe. Most recent studies, including both primatological and human endocrinological investigations, suggest that higher levels of circulating testosterone correspondingly leads to higher levels of male physical strength and muscular development, aggressiveness, intrasexual competitiveness, and hierarchical dominance, a biochemical fact that is central to the expression of psychopathic/narcissistic behavioural characteristics in human beings. The fact that many women are attracted to high levels of testosterone-related masculinity and that this varies as a function of the ovulatory cycle does suggest a strong psycho-physiological predisposition to be attracted to dominant, even "dark triad" male personalities (who typically have higher levels of testosterone-related masculinity than others). Hence, the study of Penton-Voak and Perrett (2000) is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. Gangestad et al. 2003 is close, but no cigar - it only addresses "social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness", which are NOT psychopathy, but rather simply high social status and status drive. This may explain why women like rock stars and sports icons, but not psychopaths. However, this study is also very relevant to the discussion at hand because social presence (consisting of such traits as assertiveness and extraversion) and intrasexual competitiveness (such as promiscuity and aggressive mating tactics) are also core features of the psychopathic/narcissistic personality. Many "dark triad" men are not only violent criminals but can also be successful, although remorseless and unscrupulous, psychopaths driven by a ruthless ambition to succeed and crush all those who stand in their way, a trait most women find to be extremely attractive. So far, none of your citations actually support the assertion that women like individuals who are psychopaths or nearly so. Actually, all my citations clearly demonstrate that women are attracted to such men. The fact that women routinely avoid "nice guys", even when they are readily available, in order to be with such dangerous "bad boys" only further reinforces the assertion that women have a strong sexual preference for such men because of a primitive, evolutionary drive to be protected by physically dominant, aggressive males. Remember, social dominance, status seeking, etc are not pscyhopathic traits. These can be expressed by simply being ambitious and having a good job, or being the informal 'alpha' of a group of friends. Social dominance, status seeking etc. are not exclusively psychopathic traits, but they do overlap with "dark triad" personality characteristics. In addition, these characteristics are also taken to their extremes when expressed in their psychopathic/narcissistic form. Thus, someone can be ambitious, but a person who is ruthlessly ambitious (a trait positively correlated with psychopathy) will have more access to available females and more mating opportunities. I'd argue that most males, and probably most females too, seek social status and social dominance, given the benefits such positions confer. Your final statement is almost certainly incorrect. I don't know how familiar you are with the principles of evolutionary biology, but men are driven to attain positions of social dominance in a hierarchical setting as a means of gaining access to viable mating opportunities. Women evaluate men on the basis of their socio-economic status because of their greater parental investment in reproduction and corresponding need for greater material resources in order to facilitate this. Thus, women do not need to attain positions of social dominance in the same way that men do. On the other hand, because men compete, through social dominance, for sexual access to reproductively available women, traits such as youthfulness and fertility tend to be highly prized in women (because they indicate the capacity to bear children). I strongly suggest reading The Evolution of Desire by the evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDr. Liane J. Leedom M.D. and Sandra L. Brown M.A. are two researchers who have studied the phenomenon of female attraction to dangerous males on an in-depth level. In their book, Women Who Love Psychopaths (2008), they write about why women are attracted to violent, aggressive men: Interestingly, this is the only major trait that the psychopath’s woman shares with the psychopath—the issue of extraversion and excitement seeking. This is the attraction, the hook-up factor, and the issue upon which their dating relationship was based, the exciting extraverted life they both want to live! If you wondered what the first part of their attraction to each other was: here it is! But there is also more to what attracted her and kept them together. As wonderful as competitiveness is in regular life, her competitiveness however, is a downfall in the relationship with the psychopath. This is because as the relationship begins to become pathologically-driven and his crazy-making increases instead of running for the hills she is likely to stay and battle it out. Women who love psychopaths tested very high in relationship investment and positive sociability. These are the kinds of women psychopaths like to target. The psychopath uses positive rewards to establish his patterns of power, control, and dominance in a woman’s life. If a woman is ending a previous relationship in which she didn’t get much affection, hooking up with a psychopath can feel like she has hit the “Affection Lotto!” At least in the beginning many psychopaths know that to give affection is to increase her sense of attachment, and her corresponding loyalty. Psychopaths see affection as a way of exerting power and dominance over both the relationship and the emotions of their partners These cooperation traits are her drawing card to a psychopath. Her over-flowing empathy, tolerance, friendliness, compassion, supportiveness and her moral principles are what balance the lopsided scales of the relationship with him, since he lacks these qualities. This delicate balance helps to camouflage the glaring gaps of the character traits between them. Her cooperativeness helps to smooth out the character he doesn’t have and makes the relationship seem more normal. We think that very high cooperativeness is the most significant reason these specific women were targeted. Psychopaths instinctively know that women high in cooperativeness will stay in relationships with them longer. Sex also plays a role in helping to facilitate female bonding with aggressive, even violent males. According to Leedom and Brown: Sex kick-starts the premature bonding process. The touching and sexual stimulation seals the love bond. The stimulation of the vagina and cervix during sex causes the release of the hormones prolactin and oxytocin. These hormones travel to the bonding centers of the brain and produce an emotional and hormonal attachment to the man. The importance of these hormones in female attachment is these are the exact hormones produced in pregnancy and nursing. They are responsible for a woman’s ability to bond to babies! The more sex she has with the psychopath, the more these attachment hormones are released, and the more bonded she feels to the psychopath. This isn’t merely the cuddling of love making. This is a biochemical process occurring in her body and brain increasing her sense of attachment…but tragically, to a psychopath! These are the hormones of motherhood attachment. Just like motherly love is unconditional, a sexual bond is also unconditional. She will find out just what it will cost her to have this intense unconditional attachment and love bond to a psychopath. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Women-Love-Psychopaths-Sandra-L-Brown/dp/0977801322 Edited January 9, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
Mokele Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I further believe that it is being discounted simply because we live in a society where any perceived criticism of women no mater how valid it may be is deemed to be politically incorrect and somehow automatically wrong No, I'd say the same if it was a claim that women automatically love smart guys. There are several serious methodological flaws in the argument which have not been addressed and which undermine any conclusions. It is a scientific fact that in almost every species on the planet aggression and strength are used as a proxy for male genetic fitness. You are aware that almost every species of animal on the planet is either a beetle or a nematode, right? And that in both cases, 'scramble competition' (first come first served) is the dominant mating strategy, right? Even in vertebrates, direct competition is rare, with most species using complex displays, either to establish heirarchy among males or in display groups ("leks") that allow females to choose. We have all evolved to find things that provided an advantage in prehistoric time attractive, from men’s attraction to berthing hips to large breasts capable of properly nourishing a child. It should come as absolutely no surprise that women are attracted to men who would have been capable of defending their mates and offspring or fighting for sustenance. There's a difference between a socially dominant male and a psychopath, though. And please stop the ad hominem attacks, saying that Abdul-Aziz is making his argument because he has been turned down in favor of “bad boys” is not only incredibly rude but completely irrelevant to the argument; his motives have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his argument. Nobody has made that assertion, but rather claimed that the cumulative observer bias of *all* males has led to this phenomenon being accepted as fact without any rigorous testing. Well, the fact that "dark triad" males have tremendous short-term mating success does demonstrate quite clearly that psychopaths, narcissists, and Machiavellians need only invest a minimal amount of effort in order to attract large volumes of female sex partners, as opposed to the vast majority of hapless males. That does not rule out the use of deception in their attraction, though. This is a groundless assumption on your part. In none of these studies is it ever suggested that "dark triad" men necessarily deceive their partners in order to attract them, but that women are genuinely attracted to "dark triad" personality characteristics. In fact, many of these writers refer to the "dark triad" approach to attracting women as a reproductively viable strategy. The studies do not address the method of mate attraction at all. This means that you cannot rule out the use of deception, nor definitively conclude it is in play. Given that this is a black box, you cannot assume that either of us is right, and therefore cannot assume that these data accurately reflect female preferences, due to the *possibility* of deception. Most recent studies, including both primatological and human endocrinological investigations, suggest that higher levels of circulating testosterone correspondingly leads to higher levels of male physical strength and muscular development, aggressiveness, intrasexual competitiveness, and hierarchical dominance, a biochemical fact that is central to the expression of psychopathic/narcissistic behavioural characteristics in human beings. False equivalence - not *all* men with high testosterone are psychopaths, and furthermore, the traits associated with testosterone aren't even the primary symptoms of psychopathy or narcissism, both of which are primarily characterized by a disregard for others and/or an elevation of the self so far above others that they are disregarded. Find me a reference that psychopaths/narcisists have higher levels of circulating testosterone. I don't know how familiar you are with the principles of evolutionary biology Enough that Ivy League faculty listen to my opinions on the subject. I strongly suggest reading The Evolution of Desire by the evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss. I've read it. I've spoken with him personally. I also think you're extrapolating *way* beyond the data and theories of that or any other book on evo psych. However, this study is very relevant to the discussion at hand because social presence (such as assertiveness and extraversion) and intrasexual competitiveness (such as promiscuity and aggressive mating tactics) are also core features of the psychopathic/narcissistic personality. A fever is the characteristic of both the flu and bacterial meningitis. You cannot just look at one symptom and conclude the cause. The fact that women routinely avoid "nice guys", even when they are readily available, to be with such dangerous "bad boys" only further reinforces the assertion that women have a strong sexual preference for such men because of a primitive, evolutionary drive to be protected by physically dominant, aggressive males. Which has nothing to do with psychopaths. Your argument, so far, is this: "Women like strong, muscular, hairy men when fertile, therefore all women secretly wish to have sex with a gorilla." You cannot equate run-of-the-mill socially dominant males with psychopaths, and the preference for one does NOT indicate preference for the other. Your core assumption seems to be that preference is linear and unimodal - if women prefer men with above average trait A, then the more extreme the trait, the more extreme the preference. This assumption has no basis, and can be seen as incorrect in other cases. Consider that most men prefer a woman who is shorter than them. By your logic, the most popular girl at the bar should always be the one with achondroplasic dwarfism who's only 3 feet tall. But that's not true - male preference peaks at the height below theirs, but then declines as the height does. Or consider thinness - males prefer females with below-average size, so by your logic, Ethiopia should be the choice destination of Spring Break. So far, you have failed to: 1) Find a direct study of female preferences which looks at the females themselves, rather than inferring behavior by proxy. 2) Demonstrate that the known preference for masculine and socially dominant males equates to preference for psychopaths 3) Demonstrate that psychopaths do not need to rely on deception in order to acquire mates. Unless you can come up with the above data, then your hypothesis has not garnered any substantial support for its validity. Step back and think about it. You have a hypothesis (Women prefer men with Dark Triad traits). Think of all the predictions that come from that, and find the one which is different from the alternative hypothesis (females prefer mildly socially dominant males but avoid extremes). Then test that prediction (or find a study that already has). Mokele P.S. - Don't cite books. They're not peer reviewed, lack actual data, and and generally unreliable compared to the scientific literature. Any yahoo can write anything they want in a book.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Abdul-Aziz, please stop phrasing yourself the way you don't want people to understand you. When you say "All available evidence suggests that women love "bad boys"", then the claim is that women love bad boys. All women (or the *absolute majority*). You said it's not your claim, and we've continously asked you to stop using that phrasing, then. This isn't a petty request - you are, to be honest, confusing me compeltely. I don't get what you're suggesting. Are you claiming that you can explain the specific group of women who seem to be attracted to "rough" men? Or are you claiming the majority of women prefer rough men? Or are you claiming ALL WOMEN, INHERENTLY, prefer rough men? Those above claims are extremely different. Please be clearer. As I have explained before in previous posts, I am not claiming that *all* women are attracted to "bad boys" or "dark triad" personalities, however, what I am trying to say is that a substantial percentage of women are attracted to dangerous, psychopathic men.
iNow Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Please quantify your use of the term "substantial percentage of women." Roughly 50% of the planet is populated by females. Of them, what percentage is "attracted to dangerious, psychpathic men?" BTW, Mokele. I can one-up you. While you've spoken personally with David Buss, I've had beers at his house, been involved in his research lab, worked on projects with peers of his on which he advised, met his father Arnie Buss, and took his class on EvoPsych at the University of Texas. Too bad appeal to authority or personal closeness to the reference doesn't matter much in these types of discussions.
padren Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 As I have explained before in previous posts, I am not claiming that *all* women are attracted to "bad boys" or "dark triad" personalities, however, what I am trying to say is that a substantial percentage of women are attracted to dangerous, psychopathic men. Mooey isn't saying you are claiming that all women are... she's mentioning that while you continue to correct yourself, you go on and continue to use wording in your posts that speaks in absolutes as if you are making that claim. She is recommending, for purposes of clarity in communication, that you choose your words well in every post so not to make generalizations that when taken at face value appear to contradict your corrections. It has been mentioned by others, and I also concur it is good advice.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) That does not rule out the use of deception in their attraction, though. Your objection is completely irrelevant to the studies at hand, and can be hurled as a libellous accusation against the formation of any relationship (after all, it can be argued that all relationships are established on the basis of deception), not to mention that such an accusation is a tangential observation made without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. With that in mind, what the studies do demonstrate, and conclusively I might add, is that men with "dark triad" personalities have greater success in attracting reproductively available women and establishing romantic partnerships. The studies do not address the method of mate attraction at all. This means that you cannot rule out the use of deception, nor definitively conclude it is in play. Given that this is a black box, you cannot assume that either of us is right, and therefore cannot assume that these data accurately reflect female preferences, due to the *possibility* of deception. Do you have any tangible evidence to substantiate your personal observations? I challenge you to find one reference in the published literature that asserts that "dark triad" men necessarily employ deception in order to attract a large number of sex partners. According to Jonason et al (2008), "dark triad" men are self-serving individuals who possess a strong motivation to seek out power and dominance, are very charming, personable, and extroverted. They are individuals who have extremely low levels of neuroticism and anxiety. Because female mate selection is based on the psychological evaluation of individual males within a hierarchy of social dominance, in which the desire for power and dominance are central to upward mobility, "dark triad" men tend to be much more attractive to women than regular males who occupy less prestigious rungs on the ladder of male-male intrasexual competition. Ah well, I guess there's no deception here. False equivalence - not *all* men with high testosterone are psychopaths, and furthermore, the traits associated with testosterone aren't even the primary symptoms of psychopathy or narcissism, both of which are primarily characterized by a disregard for others and/or an elevation of the self so far above others that they are disregarded. Are you deliberately quoting me out of context? I never said that men with high testosterone were psychopaths, but that the aggressiveness characteristic of the psychopathic/narcissistic personality was due to high levels of circulating testosterone, as with all other anti-social behaviours. Psychopathy, as defined by world-famous investigator Dr. Robert Hare, author of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, consists of a whole constellation of personality traits including lack of remorse, extraversion, superficial charm, sexual promiscuity, and having numerous short-term marital relationships. Find me a reference that psychopaths/narcisists have higher levels of circulating testosterone. I never said that psychopaths or narcissists have higher levels of circulating androgens, but that people who are more aggressive than others have higher levels of androgens (such as psychopaths and narcissists). This finding has been established as scientific fact by the research of James M. Dabbs et al. in a paper entitled Testosterone, crime, and misbehavior among 692 male prison inmates (1995). Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-3Y6PG24-T&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=30f9b5c9a10304ef9f2fe8c3956285dd I've read it. I've spoken with him personally. I also think you're extrapolating *way* beyond the data and theories of that or any other book on evo psych. That women are attracted to male social dominance and male access to socio-economic resources (traits which tend to be monopolized by psychopathic/narcissistic personalities) is at the core of Dr. David M. Buss’s theory of male-female reproductive strategies. I strongly suggest you read his book again. A fever is the characteristic of both the flu and bacterial meningitis. You cannot just look at one symptom and conclude the cause. But one can conclude a cause by systematically investigating the complex symptomatologies which underlie the disease itself, such as the way in which male social dominance is facilitated by individual possession of “dark triad” personality characteristics. Which has nothing to do with psychopaths. Which has everything to do with psychopaths. Women are attracted to dominant males and insomuch as a certain fraction of these males possess “dark triad” personalities, women are attracted to them as well. Your argument, so far, is this: "Women like strong, muscular, hairy men when fertile, therefore all women secretly wish to have sex with a gorilla." You cannot equate run-of-the-mill socially dominant males with psychopaths, and the preference for one does NOT indicate preference for the other. Not true. What I have said is that many traits characteristic of male social dominance overlap with psychopathy/narcissism. Your core assumption seems to be that preference is linear and unimodal - if women prefer men with above average trait A, then the more extreme the trait, the more extreme the preference. This assumption has no basis, and can be seen as incorrect in other cases. Consider that most men prefer a woman who is shorter than them. By your logic, the most popular girl at the bar should always be the one with achondroplasic dwarfism who's only 3 feet tall. But that's not true - male preference peaks at the height below theirs, but then declines as the height does. Or consider thinness - males prefer females with below-average size, so by your logic, Ethiopia should be the choice destination of Spring Break. That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. The pursuit of a successful reproductive strategy is going to facilitate the gradual, evolutionary development of certain mate preferences along sex-typical lines. These are primarily socio-economic for females, and largely physiological for males. The possession of the traits themselves are valuable insomuch as they promote an evolutionarily stable, successful reproductive strategy. For example, it is a well-established fact that women are attracted to male earning power; the more money a man earns, the more a woman will be able to procreate and nurture viable offspring, making her considerably more successful in the pursuit of her reproductive strategy. It is the same with men; the younger and more fertile a woman, the more likely it is for a man to produce viable offspring. From the male perspective, the best women, of course, are those who are the youngest and most fertile (around 18 or 20). So far, you have failed to:1) Find a direct study of female preferences which looks at the females themselves, rather than inferring behavior by proxy. Jonason et al. (2008) lists a number of traits, such as the intense motivation for power and socio-economic dominance, extraversion, and personal charm which make the psychopath or narcissist irresistible to women and helps facilitate a successful reproductive strategy. According to a 2003 report by Elina Haavio-Mannila et al., female mate preferences are described thus: Women are cross culturally on average relatively selective and favour partners with impressive fitness indicators such as social status, strength and bravery. Being rich and famous increases the attractiveness of both sexes, but is more highly valued in men than in women. (Campbell 2002, 103 and 179.) Furthermore, it has been established repeatedly by various scientific investigators, such as David M. Buss and Steven Pinker, that women are attracted to male dominance and power, and because the “dark triad” personality is characterized by fearlessness and a powerful motivation to seek out power and dominance through socio-economic status, women tend to find psychopaths/narcissists to be highly attractive. 2) Demonstrate that the known preference for masculine and socially dominant males equates to preference for psychopaths As I have explained many times before, the preference for dominant males is not equivalent to a preference for psychopaths, but widely overlaps with such a preference only because a certain fraction of socially/physically dominant males will possess “dark triad” personality characteristics 3) Demonstrate that psychopaths do not need to rely on deception in order to acquire mates. Your contention is entirely superfluous to the issue at hand. But if only to put things in perspective, let me ask you a question: a man deceives a woman, makes her fall in love with him, and manages to go out with her; another man tries to attract a woman through honesty, but succeeds only in arousing her disgust. Who is the more successful at attracting women? If the same man manages to deceive a hundred women into falling in love with him, and another man trying to attract women through honesty is rejected a hundred times over, then who is the more successful at attracting women? From both a strictly quantitative and qualitative point of view, it is obvious that the man who has managed to attract hundreds of women is the more successful, regardless of the technique employed, as opposed to the man who has attracted no one. In addition, I find the term “deception” to be a very ambiguous and subjective term of moral condemnation; after all, can one not successfully arouse female attraction through deception as well? Is it not possible that women wish to be deceived on a subconscious level? Is it not possible that the man who attracts large numbers of women has a greater sense of personal charm or gregariousness, characteristics that are central to the pathological expression of the psychopathic/narcissistic personality (as described by Jonason et al.) and therefore has no need of deception? The subject of “deception” raises all sorts of ethical implications that have no place in science, which is concerned with empirical observation and abstract quantitative analysis, not moral inquiry. Therefore, any mention of “deception” is tangential to the subject at hand and lies outside the scope of proper scientific investigation. Unless you can come up with the above data, then your hypothesis has not garnered any substantial support for its validity. Unless you can demonstrate, by citing valid studies published in reputable academic journals, that women are not attracted to men who possess “dark triad” personality traits, then nothing you have said has any validity whatsoever and should be immediately disregarded. I have adequately refuted all of your objections, whereas you have only bombarded me with a series of idle questions and presented me with absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Step back and think about it. You have a hypothesis (Women prefer men with Dark Triad traits). Think of all the predictions that come from that, and find the one which is different from the alternative hypothesis (females prefer mildly socially dominant males but avoid extremes). Then test that prediction (or find a study that already has). Evolutionary psychology has proven beyond a doubt that women are attracted to various indicators of male social dominance. Therefore, it should be common sense that the more dominant a male (depending on whether she prefers male physical or socio-economic dominance), the more likely she will be able to successfully pursue her reproductive strategy. In so much as “dark triad” personalities are overrepresented amongst dominant males, they will always be regarded as highly attractive by the opposite sex. Edited January 10, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
iNow Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Abdul, You seem to be missing the point that we are not objecting to the studies, but your interpretation of and assertions based on them. Also, since you seem to feel so strongly about evolutionary psych, perhaps you should read this recent article in SciAm about it: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies Key Concepts Among Charles Darwin’s lasting legacies is our knowledge that the human mind evolved by some adaptive process. A major, widely discussed branch of evolutionary psychology—Pop EP—holds that the human brain has many specialized mechanisms that evolved to solve the adaptive problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The author and several other scholars suggest that some assumptions of Pop EP are flawed: that we can know the psychology of our Stone Age ancestors, that we can thereby figure out how distinctively human traits evolved, that our minds have not evolved much since the Stone Age, and that standard psychological questionnaires yield clear evidence of the adaptations.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 Abdul, You seem to be missing the point that we are not objecting to the studies, but your interpretation of and assertions based on them. Also, since you seem to feel so strongly about evolutionary psych, perhaps you should read this recent article in SciAm about it: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies Key Concepts Among Charles Darwin’s lasting legacies is our knowledge that the human mind evolved by some adaptive process. A major, widely discussed branch of evolutionary psychology—Pop EP—holds that the human brain has many specialized mechanisms that evolved to solve the adaptive problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The author and several other scholars suggest that some assumptions of Pop EP are flawed: that we can know the psychology of our Stone Age ancestors, that we can thereby figure out how distinctively human traits evolved, that our minds have not evolved much since the Stone Age, and that standard psychological questionnaires yield clear evidence of the adaptations. Thanks for the article, iNow. But I'm not a zealous proponent of evolutionary psychology, I just believe that it offers some very worthwhile insights on certain aspects of human behaviour. I don't know why you guys find it so hard to accept the fact that a significant percentage of women are attracted to dangerous men. Dweebs knew it, nerds knew it, nice guys knew it, and now scientists know it. However, I am not claiming that all women are attracted to violent, aggressive men, because many women are also attracted to socio-economic status as well. What I am saying is that many women are attracted to dangerous men because they appeal to the more primitive evolutionary aspects of the female drive and as such, the attraction itself should be present universally throughout all cultures. Anyway, I think the studies I mentioned are pretty clear on the fact that women are attracted to "bad boys" (after all, they do go out with them in large numbers) and that "bad boys" tend to attract the largest number of women. Is there anyway we can come to a gentleman's agreement on this subject?
Mokele Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 So, let me get this straight: When faced with the possibility of a confounding factor (deception), rather than actually address it, you just wave your hands and assume the answer is what you want it to be. How is this scientific? When faced with the possibility that preferences aren't linear and unimodal, you dismiss it and bury your head in the sand rather than considering a very real possibility. How is this scientific? When criticized for extending a theory beyond the known bounds, you simply ignore it and present no evidence that the extension is legitimate. How is this scientific? This entire thread is nothing but speculation without any direct empirical evidence. If you think this is harsh, you should see what happens at real scientific conferences. Evidence is what science is based on, not extrapolation.
padren Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Thanks for the article, iNow. But I'm not a zealous proponent of evolutionary psychology, I just believe that it offers some very worthwhile insights on certain aspects of human behaviour. I don't know why you guys find it so hard to accept the fact that a significant percentage of women are attracted to dangerous men. Dweebs knew it, nerds knew it, nice guys knew it, and now scientists know it. Dweebs perceived they knew it, nerds perceived they new it, but as I mentioned there are other reasons for that perception. I chased the cheerleaders in high school myself, and I got short of breath because they were busy chasing the jocks. There are many girls I didn't even notice because I already filtered them out - they weren't cheerleaders after all. Also please consider: You can't be dangerous if you are not confident. Confidence is considered to be attractive. Can you concede there is some room for correlation there, instead of causation? Also scientists don't know it, some of proposed theories suggesting it. There is a difference to be noted. However, I am not claiming that all women are attracted to violent, aggressive men, because many women are also attracted to socio-economic status as well. I assume you mean also because many women are attracted to other qualities too, not just aggressive or wealth. I only mention because your comment came across as rather tied to only those two, but I doubt that is what you meant. What I am saying is that many women are attracted to dangerous men because they appeal to the more primitive evolutionary aspects of the female drive and as such, the attraction itself should be present universally throughout all cultures. I have to disagree. Some women are attracted to dangerous men for the adrenaline kick, but the "dangerous" element is not advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. Other traits, that allow a man to get away with being dangerous may (overall health, strength, influence, mentality)... but again that is correlation, not causation. Danger is not "good" from an evolutionary standpoint. Anyway, I think the studies I mentioned are pretty clear on the fact that women are attracted to "bad boys" (after all, they do go out with them in large numbers) and that "bad boys" tend to attract the largest number of women. Is there anyway we can come to a gentleman's agreement on this subject? Like many previous posts, that is pretty generalized. Do you mean "women are" as in women are capable of being attracted to bad boys, or in that they all are, or a significant percentage are? I assume the last, because you've made previous clarifications, but please try to remain clear in your posts as you go. Also, if that is the case, please define "significant percentage" so we know what exactly we are being asked if we agree with. It may seem tedious at first, but this forum does have the habit of trying to qualify statements as completely and carefully as possible, to reduce ambiguity as much as possible. I find it is actually pretty helpful, and it's not meant to be a "grammer nazi" type correction. I personally agree a fair number of women are attracted to "bad boys" and I myself am often attracted to "bad girls" but I personally suspect that is the result of them being manipulative enough to push another's buttons. Secondarily, there are many ways towards confidence, and that can lead to risk taking and the "dangerous" appeal. And on top of that - please don't ignore the "low self esteem" factor either, as a lot of women that choose "bad boys" or men that seem to "talk down" to them, treat them poorly, is because they have such a low self esteem they actually think these guys are the only ones treating them honestly. My point is: 1) I don't see any strong logic that "dangerous" leading to evolutionary advantage (just other traits that may lead to dangerous behavior) 2) Due to the plethora of other factors that can cause the exact same statistical bubble (and it's perceptual exaggeration) - how can you really be sure it's evolutionary?
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) So, let me get this straight: When faced with the possibility of a confounding factor (deception), rather than actually address it, you just wave your hands and assume the answer is what you want it to be. How is this scientific? Must I always provide answers to your questions? A man who employs the art of seduction, attracting more women than another man who employs honesty as the best policy, is going to be more successful in attracting female partners and establishing romantic relationships with others. Regardless of whether that man employs deception as a means of attracting women or not has virtually no bearing on the fact that, from the perspective of elementary quantitative analysis, that man is going to be much more romantically successful than the man who uses honesty to get what he wants and attracts no one because of it. Objectively speaking, he is much more successful because he attracts more women and more women are attracted to him, as opposed to his unfortunate colleague. The fact that many women fall madly in love with our deceitful Casanova, whereas not a single one finds the honest man attractive, indicates that he is much more attractive to other women than this man is; in fact, the fact that women find this man attractive over the more honest individual is a clear and obvious indication of female sexual preference. Thus, you have not demonstrated how "deception" makes our Casanova somehow less successful with women than the man who chooses to be honest in his dealings with women. As a matter of fact, it has been demonstrated that "deception", however it is defined, does not operate as a confounding variable in this situation, unless you mean to say that our Casanova is unsuccessful in his romantic adventures because the pursuit of a sex partner should be based on a level playing field between fellow seekers. Unfortunately, this is an ethical implication which has no basis in science, because it is a branch of human endeavour based on empirical observation and quantitative analysis alone, not subjective interpretations of reality. When faced with the possibility that preferences aren't linear and unimodal, you dismiss it and bury your head in the sand rather than considering a very real possibility. How is this scientific? I never said preferences were linear or unimodal; you are putting words in my mouth. Clearly, our preferences exist along an unbroken continuum where one individual preference blends imperceptibly into the next. When criticized for extending a theory beyond the known bounds, you simply ignore it and present no evidence that the extension is legitimate. How is this scientific? I have cited a considerable amount of peer-reviewed literature, such as the studies of Jonason et al, Schmitt, Harris et al., and numerous others which offer solid empirical evidence that "bad boys" attract more women than most men. You, on the other hand, have not presented a single scrap of evidence supporting your criticisms. This entire thread is nothing but speculation without any direct empirical evidence. If you think this is harsh, you should see what happens at real scientific conferences. Evidence is what science is based on, not extrapolation. How can you say that? Just because I present uncomfortable findings about the nature of womankind means that somehow, all of a sudden, they are not automatically supported by the evidence at hand? I provided more direct empirical evidence to support my contention that women are attracted to "bad boys", than anyone else on this thread. If you want to prove me wrong, provide me with peer-reviewed literature that proves women are *not* attracted to "bad boys", something I doubt you're able to do. Anyway, I understand that science is based on evidence, but what evidence have you presented? Edited January 10, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
iNow Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 One need not provide peer-reviewed sources when challenging your interpretations of other peer-reviewed sources. Your logic is faulty, and you CONTINUE to speak in absolutes. Is it possible that your issue is that english is a second language? I really wonder, as you seem to grasp the language very well, yet your posts continue to miss basic subleties and caveats. Further, you have yet to respond to this inquiry: Please quantify your use of the term "substantial percentage of women." Roughly 50% of the planet is populated by females. Of them, what percentage is "attracted to dangerious, psychpathic men?"
Mokele Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Must I always provide answers to your questions? This is a science forum, so yes. If you want unquestioning acceptance, try religion forums. Thus, you have not demonstrated how "deception" makes our Casanova somehow less successful with women than the man who chooses to be honest in his dealings with women. As a matter of fact, it has been demonstrated that "deception", however it is defined, does not operate as a confounding variable in this situation, unless you mean to say that our Casanova is unsuccessful in his romantic adventures because the pursuit of a sex partner should be based on a level playing field between fellow seekers. You have completely missed the point. You claimed that psychopaths gain lots of sexual partners, and inferred from this that women are attracted to them. I pointed out they use deception, and thus you cannot infer anything about female preferences. Consider it like this - I'm a nerd. But, desiring sex, I pretend to be a rocker. I learn to play guitar badly, and even join a cover band, and sex results. Does this mean women are attracted to nerds, since I got sex? No, because I had to conceal my undesirable aspects behind a facade that women *do* desire. Women are evaluating the psycho by what he presents, by his mask, and he can make that mask as desirable as he wants. The success of the Phantom of The Opera does not prove that girls dig burn victims. I never said preferences were linear or unimodal; you are putting words in my mouth. Clearly, our preferences exist along an unbroken continuum where one individual preference blends imperceptibly into the next. Yet you continually insist that, because women like guys who express normal levels of social dominance, they will also like those who express traits to the extreme. Clearly this is not the case with many other personality traits (a clean guy vs. one with OCD, a funny guy vs. an unrelenting joker, a sensitive guy vs. one who cries at the drop of a hat, etc.), so why do you assume that you can extrapolate a desire for slightly bad guys into a desire for psychos? If your theory were true, this month's Playgirl would have a double centerfold of Hannibal the Cannibal and The Joker (Heath Ledger's version, of course). I have cited a considerable amount of peer-reviewed literature, such as the studies of Jonason et al, Schmitt, Harris et al., and numerous others which offer solid empirical evidence that "bad boys" attract more women than most men. You, on the other hand, have not presented a single scrap of evidence supporting your criticisms. Yes, I have. Here's the list: Jonason et al, Schmitt, Harris et al., and numerous others Because NONE of those support your claim - that girls like true psychopaths. This is all based on a false equivalence. You cite research on "bad boys", but then equate it with psychopaths. Psychopaths are NOT the same thing as 'bad boys'. The 'bad boy' girls want is the biker dude who gets in fights and maybe once had a knife pulled on him. The Psycho is the guy who stabs someone else in the eye with a broken beer bottle for looking at him funny. The 'bad boy' is the rough cowboy from the outskirts of town. The psycho is Ed Gein, who decided to re-upholster his living room using human skin. These are not even remotely the same thing. My contentions are simple: 1) Women only like 'bad boys' up until a point, and beyond that, interest declines. 2) As a result of 1, psychopaths hide their true nature, and those women who do fall for them are only attracted because they cannot see what's inside; they fall for an illusion, a lighter version of what's actually there. Both of these completely explain all of the results you mentioned, and you have yet to provide evidence that there is true, widespread desire for honest-to-god psychopaths. The next GQ cover model?
mooeypoo Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Consider this claim: Men are bastards. It is a known fact that women date more than one man in their lifetime before committing to a long-term relationships. Also, this explains the high rate of divorces in the world, as well as the common belief among recently-hurt women that my initial premise in this paragraph is true. I attach many books by whoever. so. A few obvious problems arise here, no matter how many books I give: (1) I made a huge generalization. The main problem with that is that it's impossible to check the validity of the sources (and see if they support my premise) because the premise is so generalized. The way it is written, it is enough to bring 1 non-bastard man, and my premise is out the window. (2) My claim is a non sequitor. So what, about divorces? So what, about 'recently-hurt' women? Nothing in my claims shows or proves that they are directly related to my premise, other than my own assumption that they are. Abdul-Aziz, you keep moving the goal post (and I suspect it is because you REFUSE to refine your phrasing). You started at the OP with a huge generalization, that women are attracted to bad boys. That, the way it is written, says *all women*, *or* it says that women (as a gender) *inherently* are attracted to bad boys. Those two claims were shown to be false. You then stated that some women are attracted to bad boys. That might be true, but some women are also attracted to hairy bold guys. So what. Then you phrased yourself AGAIN with the same generalization and you keep reverting back and forth - using a generalized quote of yourself to show your point, but claiming that's not what you meant when confronted by contrary refutations. Please phrase yourself clearly, or we can't judge the validity of your theory. The way it is phrased now, it was *shown* to be false. If it's not what you mean, then please devise a *SINGLE CLAIM* that summarizes your *actual* claim. "All women are.." "Most women are.." "Some women are.." "Biologically, women are.." "Sociologically, women are.." Choose one, stick to it. You're being very confusing. ~moo Edited January 10, 2009 by mooeypoo I expected the censor to kick in, since it didn't, I rewrite my "term"
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) One need not provide peer-reviewed sources when challenging your interpretations of other peer-reviewed sources. Your logic is faulty, and you CONTINUE to speak in absolutes. Is it possible that your issue is that english is a second language? I really wonder, as you seem to grasp the language very well, yet your posts continue to miss basic subleties and caveats. Well, you guys have an unconventional, even very strange, interpretation of what the empirical evidence is pointing at. To see what I mean, just look at the way the recent studies on women and their attraction for bad boys is being interpreted at this major news media outlet: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5197531&page=2 or even here, at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Triad As a point of clarification: Although, it may seem that I am making absolute statements, it should be understood that I am referring to a large segment of women within the female population itself, not to all of womankind. Further, you have yet to respond to this inquiry: According to a recent 2005 Harlequin poll of a thousand women, it was found that 21% of women (35+) prefer having a bad boy as a sex partner and that 31% of women with children under 18 would date a bad boy. Link: http://www.articlealley.com/article_27778_35.html As this poll was conducted by Harlequin, I am not sure of its veracity; it was all that I could find at the moment, but I know there are others. My opinion on the matter, based on a careful examination of the work of David M. Buss and others, is that female mate preference should be understood as existing along a continuum of various other female mate preferences, with all women possessing a desire for both socio-economic status and dark triad personality characteristics, albeit in varying degrees of intensity. These should be statistically represented as existing along a Gaussian distribution or a continuous probability distribution curve. I would suspect that maybe 50% of women would be predominantly attracted to such things as socio-economic status, male-male hierarchical dominance, and male intrasexual competitiveness, whereas another 50% would be attracted to testosterone-related aspects of phenotypical masculinity, athletic prowess, physical strength, naked aggression, "dark triad" personalities etc. If I were to draw a curve, the 50% of women who are attracted to such things as male socio-economic status would be located in the centre of that curve. Those women who find testosterone-related aspects of phenotypical masculinity attractive (high testosterone females and other women of precocious sexuality, representing 25% of all women) would be placed at the left of the bell curve; women who prefer dark triad personality characteristics, representing the other 25% of women, would be placed to the right of the curve. However, as I stated before, I feel that most women are capable of feeling the entire gamut of female sexual preference, just some more than others. Edited January 10, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
mooeypoo Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 Wikipedia and ABC News are not the best sources to cite as good representatives of "Scientific Interpretations". To say the LEAST. You are again moving the goal post. Insisting we give peer-review refutations but giving an example of a news outlet and a collaborative internet database. Please be consistent. Moreover, the burden of proof is on YOU as the one making the claim. Your claim needs refining. Then you need to answer our refutations. Because you're the one making this claim. On top of that, You *AGAIN* ignored the request to refine your claim. Please, Abdul-Aziz, help me out here: What, exactly, is it that you're claiming? We can't handle any opinions, peer reviewed evidence or gaussian distributions until we know what EXACTLY it is we're examining. ~moo
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 Wikipedia and ABC News are not the best sources to cite as good representatives of "Scientific Interpretations". To say the LEAST. You are again moving the goal post. Insisting we give peer-review refutations but giving an example of a news outlet and a collaborative internet database. Please be consistent. All I was trying to demonstrate was that conventional news media interpretations of the research of Dr. Jonason and others are very different from how they were being interpreted here. I was not citing Wiki or ABC News as legitimate sources of information. Moreover, the burden of proof is on YOU as the one making the claim. Your claim needs refining. Then you need to answer our refutations. Because you're the one making this claim. On top of that, You *AGAIN* ignored the request to refine your claim. Please, Abdul-Aziz, help me out here: What, exactly, is it that you're claiming? We can't handle any opinions, peer reviewed evidence or gaussian distributions until we know what EXACTLY it is we're examining. ~moo My claim is that a substantial percentage of women are attracted to a cluster of personality traits known as the "dark triad", which consists of such individual characteristics as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism or the so-called "bad boy" mentality. As a point of clarification, I want to explain how psychopath is defined within this body of literature. A psychopath should not be understood as an Ed Gein-type figure (Ed Gein was actually psychotic), but as a normal human being, just like us. The only difference between him and us is that the psychopath is callous, remorseless, fearless, ruthless, charming, promiscuous, risk-taking, aggressive, has had innumerable short-term relationships with large numbers of women etc. Remember that, according to current research, psychopaths need not be dangerous criminals; they can also be ruthless Wall Street bankers and grasping corporate executives, unscrupulous lawyers and fearless daredevils.
mooeypoo Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 All I was trying to demonstrate was that conventional news media interpretations of the research of Dr. Jonason and others are very different from how they were being interpreted here. I was not citing Wiki or ABC News as legitimate sources of information. Yes, I got that. My point was that it's irrelevant. The media is not a credentialed source for *interpretations* either.. On the contrary, they are usually the example of MISINTERPRETING science. My claim is that a substantial percentage of women are attracted to a cluster of personality traits known as the "dark triad", which consists of such individual characteristics as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism or the so-called "bad boy" mentality. Thank you. Now we can move on. Please try to be consistent when you make your claims to phrase yourself with this specific claim, and not any other generalized, unclear one. Please. As a point of clarification, I want to explain how psychopath is defined within this body of literature. A psychopath should not be understood as an Ed Gein-type figure (Ed Gein was actually psychotic), but as a normal human being, just like us. The only difference between him and us is that the psychopath is callous, remorseless, fearless, ruthless, charming, promiscuous, risk-taking, aggressive, has had innumerable short-term relationships with large numbers of women etc. Remember that, according to current research, psychopaths need not be dangerous criminals; they can also be ruthless Wall Street bankers and grasping corporate executives, unscrupulous lawyers and fearless daredevils. Well, uh, this isn't the way the DSM and the scientific community seems to mean when the term "Psychopath" is used, which might also contribute to the confusion as to what you're claiming. look here: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/psy430s2001/Hare%20RD%20Psychopathy%20JAP%201991.pdf Beyond that, my previous points stand (and I haven't seen a direct response from you to these), that you need to *compare* your claim to other similar-positioned hunky men that are NOT psychopaths. You should answer at the very least the following questions: 1. Do non psychopaths in the equivalent positions and social stance of those alleged psychopaths get significantly fewer women? 2. What percentage are you refering to when you say "substantial percentage". 50%? 80%? 2%?
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) You claimed that psychopaths gain lots of sexual partners, and inferred from this that women are attracted to them. I pointed out they use deception, and thus you cannot infer anything about female preferences. Consider it like this - I'm a nerd. But, desiring sex, I pretend to be a rocker. I learn to play guitar badly, and even join a cover band, and sex results. Does this mean women are attracted to nerds, since I got sex? No, because I had to conceal my undesirable aspects behind a facade that women *do* desire. Women are evaluating the psycho by what he presents, by his mask, and he can make that mask as desirable as he wants. The success of the Phantom of The Opera does not prove that girls dig burn victims. First of all, nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is it ever mentioned that "dark triad" men use deception to attract women. That was simply a groundless assumption on your part. Secondly, even if they did use deception to attract women, the fact that women are capable of being attracted to these men demonstrates that these men are capable of successfully generating a certain level of female sexual attraction, which also happens to be a very strong indicator of individual female preference as well. In addition, whether the man uses deception or not is immaterial to the point in question. After all, is it not possible that being able to assume multiple personae is an integral part of a "bad boy" routine that women both know and are deeply attracted to? From an empirical, quantitative perspective (the scientific point of view), the fact that the man is capable of attracting large numbers of women and that many women are attracted to him, more so than the average man as a matter of fact, strongly indicates that the "bad boy" (who is not only a psychopath, but a narcissist and a Machiavellian as well) both attracts and is found attractive by women. Yet you continually insist that, because women like guys who express normal levels of social dominance, they will also like those who express traits to the extreme. Clearly this is not the case with many other personality traits (a clean guy vs. one with OCD, a funny guy vs. an unrelenting joker, a sensitive guy vs. one who cries at the drop of a hat, etc.), so why do you assume that you can extrapolate a desire for slightly bad guys into a desire for psychos? If your theory were true, this month's Playgirl would have a double centerfold of Hannibal the Cannibal and The Joker (Heath Ledger's version, of course). Women are not simply attracted to psychopaths, but they are attracted to a cluster of personality characteristics known as the "dark triad". You seem to have a view of the psychopath as a "Hannibal the Cannibal" sort of character, which is a Hollywood creation that is simply inaccurate. Read the description of a psychopath from the book Without Conscience, by the world-renowned expert on psychopathy, Dr. Robert Hare: Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought. These often charming—but always deadly—individuals have a clinical name: psychopaths. Their hallmark is a stunning lack of conscience; their game is self-gratification at the other person's expense. Many spend time in prison, but many do not. All take far more than they give. ... The most obvious expressions of psychopathy —but by no means the only ones—involve flagrant criminal violation of society's rules. Not surprisingly, many psychopaths are criminals, but many remain out of prison, using their charm and chamaleonlike abilities to cut a wide swath though society and leaving a wake of ruined lives behind them. ... Psychopaths are like regular, seemingly normal people, but they are often callous, remorseless, superficial, charming, sexually promiscuous, fearless, gregarious, extraverted etc. They are not only violent criminals, but ruthless Wall Street brokers, ambitious CEOs, and fearless daredevils that many legions of women find extremely attractive. Yes, I have. Here's the list: Jonason et al, Schmitt, Harris et al., and numerous others Because NONE of those support your claim - that girls like true psychopaths. Unfortunately, none of these sources support whatever you are trying to claim, but they do support what I am claiming, which is that women are very attracted to the "dark triad" cluster of personality characteristics. In fact, Jonason et al. (2008) describe the dark triad personality as a "reproductively adaptive strategy" that "facilitates short-term mating success" amongst men. This is all based on a false equivalence. You cite research on "bad boys", but then equate it with psychopaths. Psychopaths are NOT the same thing as 'bad boys'. The 'bad boy' girls want is the biker dude who gets in fights and maybe once had a knife pulled on him. The Psycho is the guy who stabs someone else in the eye with a broken beer bottle for looking at him funny. The 'bad boy' is the rough cowboy from the outskirts of town. The psycho is Ed Gein, who decided to re-upholster his living room using human skin. These are not even remotely the same thing. You have a wildly inaccurate, even distorted conception of what a psychopath actually is. See above. For the record, Ed Gein was not a psychopath, he was psychotic. Big difference. Both of these completely explain all of the results you mentioned, and you have yet to provide evidence that there is true, widespread desire for honest-to-god psychopaths. As I explained before, women are not only attracted to psychopaths, but to men with "dark triad" personality traits (including narcissists and Machiavellians). There is an abundance of peer-reviewed literature substantiating this point, whether you choose to accept it or not. Edited January 10, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
Recommended Posts