Slashdot Mirror
Studies Confirm That Bad Boys Get More Girls
seattlle foodie sends along a New Scientist article outlining two recent studies that confirm what many have long suspected: bad boys get the most girls. "The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the 'dark triad' persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs. The traits are: the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking, and callous behavior of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators."
But it is not an excuse. Women who repeatedly get used in these types of relationships and then go cry to their geek friends deserve no sympathy. They should be smart enough to figure it out.
let me translate this... so their self-confident, exciting, and maybe appear to be rich
Its not really the "bad boy" like the article claims.
Girls are attracted to that guy who steps on everybody's toes for his own personal gains. A go getter, powerful person who aims high. These are people with leadership qualities, and in the "badboy" circle, they're "ring leaders."
Girls run after these guys because with such a mate, her offsprings would have a better chance of survival.
-Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
If you have a large enough population of players where nearly everyone plays co-operate, the 2 or 3 assholes who play to betray do quite well. They only pay the price if they play the same opponent a few times. Without paying the price, they will do quite well.
END COMMUNICATION
What may seem "obvious" does not necessarily make it so upon further testing. These studies are performed to confirm or deny such notions. If the study had found the opposite, you would not be having such a reaction. People used to think it was "obvious" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. Turns out that they were wrong.
Although this is common knowledge to most males, women constantly state that this is in fact false, and not only do they say it, they seem to truly believe it. Of course this "belief" seems to have no basis in reality as they talk to their "nice" guy friends about how they wish they could just find a "nice" guy, all the while ignoring him to chase the guys they constantly complain about...
yes... I've had that speech from women far too often "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?" (ummm... maybe you would consider dating the person you want your guys to be like???)
Precisely, I first figured this out to some extent in High School where my strategy at time time evolved to make fun of the girl I liked at the time the most to no end.
It turns out, women are so self-conscious in High School that, even seeming that you are at some point where you are able to display that you better than them, they immediately want to latch on.
I have since grown from this pattern, which works, for a select purpose.
Some women will never grow up, and if you want to have one like that, what worked in High School, will probably work now.
For the most part, however, women do mature to a point where a good provider is the best choice for her.
That's too bad--it sounds like all the data about sex life is self-reported, so if they did comment on whether the sex was consensual, I'm sure it would totally be a valid conclusion. After all, bad boys would never be inclined to lie about their sexual conquests and prowess on a study questionnaire.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
as they talk to their "nice" guy friends about how they wish they could just find a "nice" guy, all the while ignoring him to chase the guys they constantly complain about...
Speaking as someone who was a "nice guy" all through highschool, it's the fault of the nice guy as well. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? If a "nice guy" is going to be a "good friend" and supply emotional support/fulfillment then the cute girl doesn't have to have that need met by her conceited prick boyfriend. Girls who date pricks will always want to have a nice guy friend, because girls need emotional fulfillment in the same way that guys need sexual fulfillment. So all you nice guys out there stop giving it away for free, get your needs met as well or get out of that relationship. When they say "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?" point out that emotionally they are dating you, they just happen to be fucking someone else.
We are all just people.
Bullshit conclusion. I have not had many partners during the last couple of years, but it wasn't because nobody was attracted to me, rather it was because I was in a relationship that lasted more than 3 years. The findings in the study could just as well be explained by suggesting women don't stay in a relationship with an asshole, or that the assholes don't bother with long term relationships, resulting in "bad guys" having multiple short relationships while the "nice" guys have fewer longer ones. You really can't conclude much about women's preferences from this.
Most women do not consciously realize they select a mate on these criteria, but they do. So do men. There is a lot more compulsive, animal behavior in humans than we care to admit.
Women do sit around and discuss it, just not necessarily in terms of genetics. But when women think or say "he's so strong", "he has a big dick", "i can control him so he'll stick around and help with the baby", etc.. Think about what these ultimately mean to a female and why she may be attracted to them.
Whether you are aware of it or not, these cues tell you that your children with that mate "will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block"!
I could not put it better. Please...someone with mod point hit the parent up here.
The sad thing is....SO many guys don't learn this till much later in life. You blow it in your teen years when you can do your most and best serious fucking....
I wish to hell I'd learned this lesson early in life when I was 16+....I did pretty good, but, nowhere NEARLY as well as some of my friends, and I just never knew why back then. Thankfully I figured it out in my 20's.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not only will this make you less of an emotional bitch for her, but it will also show at least some of the qualities that she seems to like -- assertiveness, bluntness...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Also more generally instead of going into genetics and stuff women like guys who are confident and can take charge of situations. It's an attractive quality. This quality isn't found very often in "nice guys". Most nice guys are too afraid to cross any lines with others. From my experience girls really want nice guys but confidence takes priority and confidence is found easily in jerkfaces.
Balderdash!
I would like to point out that a woman's idea of how she wants to be treated might be different from yours.
Too many self-described "nice guys" seem to believe that a woman should be put on a pedestal and treated like a delicate flower. The man in her life should hold doors for her, give her gifts, and obey her every whim. He should listen to her, support her no matter what, and never let slip the slightest criticism or contrary opinion.
The problem is... a lot of us don't actually want to be treated like that -- to be quite frank, it's annoying as hell. Yes, we want a man who's nice, helpful, respectful, etc., but we'd rather have someone who pays attention to what we really want than some guy who thinks that acting like a puppy dog will get him laid.
I like guys who aren't always there for me because it means they have lives of their own. I like guys who are not afraid to express their opinions -- criticism can be useful, and I love a good argument. And I like guys who don't pretend that I'm a flawless godly being, but instead acknowledge that I'm a regular human with as many faults as anyone else.
Does this mean I like assholes? Perhaps, if you define an asshole as someone who treats me the way I want to be treated rather than the way guys like you think I should be treated, but I certainly have no desire to date a "nice guy."
Naaah, you're wrong.
Well, you're kinda close. What you mean is girls like guys who are nice to them. Telling off everybody else as the mood takes you is just fine. If there's any woman who isn't attracted to you for her being the only one you bother being polite to, I haven't met her yet.
Of course, if you *really* want to attract them, the correct approach is to treat most everybody with barely restrained contempt, her with casual indifference, and another prettier girl with impeccably debonair politeness. Once you get those competitive instincts going, whatever qualities you may or may not possess become all but utterly irrelevant. Funny how that works...
My problem with the article is that it doesn't directly examine females' attraction. The study merely looks at how many sexual partners "bad boys" v. "good boys" have. Not surprisingly, the "bad boys," who desire more relationships of shorter duration, have more relationships than the "good boys," who do not desire such promiscuity. So yes, people who seek more sexual relationships have more sexual relationships. That's the duh factor of the article. It's up to future studies to determine whether these bad boys are actually more attractive or desirable to girls.
Whatever... IMHO younger partners are quite frankly not as good in bed. Yeah there are some limits to be sure, but in general it just gets better. There is nothing special about being young.
You got that right. And your entire post is interesting when compared to the actual article which I don't think many people have read (surprise, surprise). The study concluded that people with certain negative traits had more partners in a given time. Conclusion: They can't or wont keep a relationship going. We can presume that people without these traits are more capable or simply happier being with one person. All your suggestions are about how to find such a person. The "bad boys" in this study are seemingly after casual sex.
The headline is a little less inflammatory when you translate it as "self-centred people are more likely to bounce from partner to partner than to have one particular partner."
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I think one problem is that women are a lot worse at sending hints to men than they think they are, and another is that a lot of women, for all the talk of empowerment and taking charge actually enjoy sitting back and having guys do all the work since it gives them an advantage in that they're the ones who are making the decisions, it also makes rejection easier to handle...
If you go up to someone and talk to that person and get rejected then the defeat is obvious, but if you just sit back, blink a little, smile and maybe twirl your hair between your fingers then you can always tell yourself that "Maybe he just didn't notice...".
And then there's this weird perception some women have that just because a man isn't screaming like Tarzan and starting fights with people for stepping on his shadow then this must translate into him being bad in bed, sexual prowess doesn't decrease just because a man has a brain and manners enough not to act like a loud idiot.
Final point, a lot of the guys women see as "leaders" and "alpha males" aren't. A hint to the female slashdot readers, next time some guy looks like a "leader" to you by "taking control" and all that bullshit, don't stare at him and drool, observe his friends, do they actually follow his lead? or do they shake their heads and look like they're considering ditching him and going somewhere else?
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
i think a big part of it is nice guys try to be nice, whereas "bad boys" are just themselves without reservation, for good or bad. so the bad boys seem more honest.
being honest will get you laid. it will also get you scoffed at, laughed at, rejected, etc. but it will find you what you're looking for. it's hard to be honest and considerate. just get lots of practice flirting.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Yes, because fucking in the elevator is exactly what mentally stable people do all the time.
So you're a self-destructive masochist? I don't see why any normal person would deliberately seek out a relationship that will harm him. Are you perhaps into "strong women" who manifest their alleged "strength" by being bi-polar or sociopathic?
And here comes the obligatory "get a life just like mine" speech, because obviously you're the one who defines what constitutes a life, and obviously anyone who wants a nice girl is some nerd who does nothing but play WoW.
Please punch your friend in the face, because that's stupid advice. It's not going to help someone who effectively has a phobia towards approaching women. Everyone rationally knows that approaching a women and getting turned down doesn't really matter, but phobias are by definition irrational. Your friend's advice is about as useful as telling a depressed person to cheer up.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Many women in the U.S. claim to want "equality" when what they really want is to offload any responsibility for their own existence onto their partners of the moment. Oh sure, that's a generalization of Biblical proportions, I know. But there is more than a little truth to it, I think.
... and I'm not looking back.
For my part, I finally found someone that truly understands what "for better or worse" means and is in it for the long haul. More to the point, she is totally focused on making life better for both of us, not just herself. In turn, that frees me to give without reservation. I've been trying for a couple of decades to find someone like her, and it's a remarkable experience and I don't want it to ever end. Honestly, it took some time for me to realize just how different she is from all her predecessors, but once I did I realized I had to do whatever it took to keep her. That meant making some big changes, but they were all worth it.
Unlike yours truly, she wasn't born here, but you know what? I couldn't be happier
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Okay, there is a little stuff in there I'm uncomfortable about, but let me talk about what I agree with:
If you're looking for a wife, get out of the US. Our angry, second-wave-feminist, crybaby boomer mothers raised our generation for men to hate themselves and women to hate men. For no good reason. Find me a man who says "women should stay home, barefoot and pregnant!" or "women make great secretaries, but that's about it." No. One. Thinks. That. But we all have to grovel and supplicate to prove we're not one of those sexist straw men our mothers made up.
As a result, American, and most Western, women have become, in my opinion, untenable as life partners. I want equality in my marriage. By that I mean social equality. I don't want to be the bad guy. I just want to be someone's husband. Partner.
Why do American guys flip over Asian women? Just as the parent says, it's because it's the first time most guys have ever had a woman treat him kindly. On the other hand, why do Asian women often flip for Western guys? Because for them, it's often the first time a guy has treated them kindly. This is why you see so many successful married couples with Western guy and Asian woman. The cultures' gender roles, in the current generation, are complementary.
BUT...
And this is where the parent has kind of fallen down...
Don't expect it to stay like that forever. It won't. It can't. It shouldn't.
East Asian households are basically run by the women. They expect to control the finances. However, in my experience (my wonderful wife is Japanese), and that of my friends, they're pretty damned good at it. It bothered me at first, but then I had to admit we were living very comfortably, I had plenty of money for toys, and we were saving over a third of our income! So I let that go. YMMV.
In the West, we've been programmed to think that a housewife or stay-at-home-mom is a slave. She's not. My wife doesn't work, and even though we could get more money otherwise, and it would of course be fine if she wanted to, it's awesome. I now see why that's been the dominant model in every society since the beginning of time. I work outside of the house, she makes sure the house is operating correctly. We get to spend a lot more leisure time together that way. We don't have to spend our weekends cleaning the house and doing laundry. We eat healthy, home-cooked food that bonds us socially. She's not a slave, she's my best friend and partner. I gladly work my ass off to make sure she's comfortable, and she gladly works her ass off to make sure I am. That, my friends, is a partnership. Just because I'm the one making the money doesn't mean I'm in a higher position. I'm in an equal position. We're taking the entire job of life and splitting it up and assigning roles.
For the record, if she could make more than me, I'd be delighted to stay at home and do the housework.
I guess what I'm saying is this:
Most nice guys are used as intellectual whores. Basically this means that whenever a girl gets in an argument with their boyfriend, they will go complain to their intellectual whore, who thinks by listening to her whine will get him in bed with her, when he is sadly mistaken. "An Intellectual Whore is a man who a woman keeps around for intellectual purposes. She is uninterested in him sexually and considers him a friend. He probably wants to sleep with her, so he pretends to be her friend in the hope of one day getting sex." Link Here, it appears to be down at the moment.
But generalizations are generally true.
That's why they call them generalizations.
They don't disallow variation within them; in fact, they expect it. Of course people are different. My wife happens to be good with finances. One of my friends' Japanese wives is abysmal. So he takes care of it. But generally speaking, when you're raised in a culture that says "women will be in charge of the finances," women learn how to handle finances.
I made generalizations about people in certain cultures. If you don't think people can be grouped, generally speaking by culture, then... Well, maybe you need to get out and see the world a bit.
What I was specifically talking about was gender roles within cultures. I was specifically addressing the "ladies first" culture of the West and the "men first" culture of much of East Asia. I was pointing out that this is why you see so many successful pairings of these people. The gender roles go together nicely and lead to two people being nicer to each other than they expect.
Of course individual people are different.
But that doesn't mean they aren't also kinda the same.
Finally, after 7 years with my wife, I think I have a pretty good idea what she's like. I also think I have a pretty good idea what my sister-in-law is like. And my father-in-law. And even though I never got to meet her, I even have a pretty good idea what my late mother-in-law was like. I know what my friends are like. I know what my coworkers are like. I know what my students are like. I am fluent in Japanese and have lived here for the better part of the last decade. I have a degree in Asian Studies. I teach international communication and comparative religions at a university. Believe me, I know what Japanese culture is like, and I know what individuals are like.
In fact, I'm pretty offended that you would imply that I see my family as generalizations. As stereotypes. They're my family. Just because they fall under rather broad cultural trends does not mean they aren't individuals.
Get that through your head, and you'll find it a lot easier to understand other cultures.