imbewildered Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 A buddy of mine just called after he read an article in the latest New Scientist magazine on what attracts women to certain kinds of men . Apparently a credible study has found that women are "drawn like moths to a flame" to ,"impulsive, narcissistic, thrill seeking, deceitful men. " Listen up all you "nice guys" who like to be "open about their feelings" and put a woman on a pedestal. YOu might like to buy a copy urgently.
Bloodelf Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 I could have told you that immature girls like the "Bad boys" that is until they get burned enough to realize their mistake.
havoc Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Wow, New Scientist said that? And to think I used to read that rag on a regular basis. Now I have to check it out.
Cov Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Why are men and women pigeon-holed as to what they like and dislike? This magazine stereotypes all women as being the same. I take exception to the negative light that implusive, narcissism and thrill seeking are portrayed in the magazine. Apart from deceitful, the other three qualities are fantastic qualities to have in a person.
Adamagnet Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 The study surveyed individuals for their number of partners and discovered that individuals who scored high on the traits of the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism, tended to have more. Unfortunately, these types of people are more prone to deceit and delusions, so their reported number of partners could very well be inflated, so the study is flawed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826614.100-bad-guys-really-do-get-the-most-girls.html
D-Jam Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 "They still have to explain why it hasn't spread to everyone," says Matthew Keller of the University of Colorado in Boulder. "There must be some cost of the traits." One possibility, both Keller and Jonason suggest, is that the strategy is most successful when dark triad personalities are rare. Otherwise, others would become more wary and guarded. In my opinion, being "evil" has both a benefit and a cost in life...just as much as those who chase the evil. I think the rationale why some refuse to embrace the "dark triad" mostly has to do with what a person wants in their life in the long run. Do you see playas, bad boys, jerks, *******s, flakey women, spoiled princesses, and evil bitches happy in life with strong marriages to beautiful and wonderful people? I never do. I see many who end up in divorce, drama, or they are more working to stay single and uncommitted in life. Who do I see end up in the happy marriages? The nice people. Seriously. This to me is why many men and women will choose not to embrace that dark triad. They are the ones who believe that by embracing it, they'll only end up alone in life or in horrible relationships with terrible people. The people I've seen who fully embrace it are those who either never want a meaningful relationship, just sexual flings, or those who think they can put commitment on hold and just live it up. I noticed many who did that, but ended up having a terrible time finding a decent partner when they were ready. It sucks that many guys have to become lying *******s to get more attention from women than when they are gentlemen. It's worse that so many women need to get bashed around in their 20s, possibly knocked up, and now be 30 with a slight emotional mess and trust issues, now realizing they needed to be pursuing the "decent guys". For me, I don't embrace the dark triad simply because I've seen how it effects both sides. The guys who wake up and find their only options are trashy airheads with drama, and the women who endure all the pain of their bad decisions when they wanted some love. PLUS...I see it all as a test. If she needs me to be a lying jerk to her so she can feel attraction, then it screams loudly who this woman is and why she'll never make someone a good GF or even wife. I set standards for myself. Granted I don't get laid very often, but I do feel a sense of comfort in that I never had to throw out my integrity or dignity to get a girl into bed. The way I see it, if all the women want to resign themselves to chasing unrealistic fantasies, then I'll live a full and happy life never having to experience the drama and possibly divorce. I'd die knowing that there never was an ideal woman. That's just how I see it. I can be a decent man to women, but if I have to become an evil man to get their interest, then they're just not worth the effort at all.
havoc Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Newsflash! People not looking for attachment or commitment and lack empathy can put on a charming front and lure others into bed. Plus, they have no scruples and are not honest, so in all probability inflate their "achievements." (Thanks, Adamagnet.)
D-Jam Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Newsflash! People not looking for attachment or commitment and lack empathy can put on a charming front and lure others into bed. Plus, they have no scruples and are not honest, so in all probability inflate their "achievements." (Thanks, Adamagnet.) Pretty much. In the end, I don't blame the playas as much as I blame the men and women who think they can tame or change these people. Most people in my book can spot a playa, but they are so obsessed with the "alpha male" characteristics or the "trophy girl" characteristics that they'll forgive a lot, thinking they can change said person into the ideal mate. They bring their pain on themselves.
notgoodatthis Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Further proof how women are so ****ed in the head. This is why they always wonder where all the nice guys are. The truth is the nice guys are everywhere, just insignificant.
havoc Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Further proof how women are so ****ed in the head. This is why they always wonder where all the nice guys are. The truth is the nice guys are everywhere, just insignificant. Yes, because a flawed study in a popular, non-peer reviewed magazine points to the sweeping generalization that women are ****ed in the head. Thanks for enlightening me to my own ****ed-upness.
shadowplay Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 It's not clear from the study whether the "bad boys" have more partners because women prefer them or because they're more aggressive about getting mates, or both. I suspect it's largely the latter. Also the study suggests that bad boys prefer shorter term relationships, so that would also be a factor in their higher number of partners.
Storyrider Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 It's not clear from the study whether the "bad boys" have more partners because women prefer them or because they're more aggressive about getting mates, or both. I suspect it's largely the latter. Also the study suggests that bad boys prefer shorter term relationships, so that would also be a factor in their higher number of partners. I was just about to say the same thing, shadow. The men who have the most partners are those who are most aggressive about pursuing partners, and the most callous about throwing them off so they can go get more. In addition, it sounds like this was self-reporting, by a personality type almost guaranteed to embellish. People shouldn't be so gullible about studies. Especially psychological/behavioral studies, since they're not scientific in the strictest sense. In this one, the case could be made that more women break up with these types of men, therefore allowing them to rack up large numbers. This would point to the opposite of the conclusing being drawn.
shadowplay Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 I was just about to say the same thing, shadow. The men who have the most partners are those who are most aggressive about pursuing partners, and the most callous about throwing them off so they can go get more. In addition, it sounds like this was self-reporting, by a personality type almost guaranteed to embellish. People shouldn't be so gullible about studies. Especially psychological/behavioral studies, since they're not scientific in the strictest sense. In this one, the case could be made that more women break up with these types of men, therefore allowing them to rack up large numbers. This would point to the opposite of the conclusing being drawn. Exactly. It's just a correlational study and self-reporting at that, so it's impossible to draw any causal conclusions.
shadowplay Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 Yes, because a flawed study in a popular, non-peer reviewed magazine points to the sweeping generalization that women are ****ed in the head. Thanks for enlightening me to my own ****ed-upness. People with an ax to grind will jump on any evidence to support their theories, even very flimsy evidence. The one interesting observation produced by the authors of the study is that bad personality traits may "thrive" when they are rare. I remember Richard Dawkins saying something like this. The idea is that antisocial traits are detrimental when they are common in a population because antisocial people end up butting heads with one another. But antisocials can thrive on a small scale in a social society by taking advantage of the good will of others. It's a delicate equilibrium.
Trialbyfire Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 NEWSFLASH!! Aggressive men get more women by playing the numbers game. They don't sit at home waiting for women to knock on their doors and ask them out!
Recommended Posts