Skip to comments.Yes, Chicks Dig Jerks
Posted on 03/02/2012 7:23:06 PM PST by MetaThought
The most frequently cited (and probably the most controversial) research on the Chicks Dig Jerks thesis is the Dark Triad work of Professor Peter Jonason of the University of South Alabama. The Dark Triad is a combination of psychological traits subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism, and what Professor Jonason calls Machiavellianism that are, he believes, in fact a unitary phenomenon associated with a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners. The correlation of the Dark Triad with larger numbers of sexual partners holds true for both men and women, but the effect is much more pronounced in men. This is unsurprising, inasmuch as mens relative preference for larger numbers of short-term sexual relationships and womens relative preference for long-term relationships is, as Professor Jonason notes, one of the most consistent and strongest sex differences in the ﬁeld.
So: Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathology, subclinical narcissism: not exactly the stuff of a Jane Austen romance, but apparently the stuff of sexual success. Professor Jonason concludes: Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness (I warned you this was depressing stuff) such traits may facilitate especially for men the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.
But you knew that already, if you are a homo even half sapiens and went to high school.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
It is sad they define sexual success as the most partners.
God defines it differently.
Or Ladies Love Oulaws
Stupidly, but so.
The world according to the materialist world view. Treat them like mud, they’ll stick like dirt.
Being a D!ckhead works, for the short term. Hence, many partners. In my experience, women want a confident guy they can’t break. Duh. An ahole is a wuss acting confident.
My own knowledge of too many women further underscores this finding. Unfortunately, my heart hurt was hurt too many times as I witnessed prior “nice” girls hook up with such lowlifes.
And back in my youth, I always loved getting the last laugh when some "bad boy" tries to make himself look tough at my expense.
Imagine you were a woman in primeval times. There is no law and order. There are some nice guys and some jerks. Unfortunately, the nice guys can’t reliably protect you from the jerks. Your best strategy is to ally yourself with one of the biggest jerks because he can sucessfully intimidate the lesser jerks. Repeat this over thousands of generations, and you have established a reliable trait of seeking out and submitting to jerks.
Or, imagine you were a young (cute) woman alone in Washington, DC during the 1990’s. Where would you go for safety and protection? Bubba’s Big Ol’ Man Cave, that’s where, baby! Wooohoooo!;)
And now they vote.
“He goes on to point out that in studies of polygamous societies, men who have killed tend to have more wives, and that even in the 21st century, testosterone levels correlate with status in organizations such as the U.S. Army. (But not in the U.S. job force: High levels of testosterone correlate negatively with career success in the United States. Corporate America really is full of girly-men. But you knew that.)”
LOL. Good one. :)
This is The Bent One, William Jefferson Clinton, to the T.
Even in Darwinist terms, sexual success ought to be measured by the number of offspring you have, not by the number of partners.
The Amish and the ultra-Orthodox Jews are not exactly famous for screwing around.
Civilization is the triumph of nice guys over the jerks. At least within the civilization - they might be conquering bastards to the rest of the world.
Let me testify.
Probably the same guy that got the one you wanted before she settle down.
Did you just ping me to my own topic? lol
In my experience, women want a confident guy they cant break.
***So 95% of the women out there proceed to attempt to break their guy. Great set up.
You must be an asshole
“Even in Darwinist terms, sexual success ought to be measured by the number of offspring you have, not by the number of partners.”
Good point, for example, all that promiscuity results in a lot of disease and messed up/fatherless/abandoned kids.
Chicks dig jerks and deny that they do!
Nice guys are confusing to a woman’s ego. The nice guy treats her extremely well but because he is a nice guy he treats everyone extremely well. Woman observes this and her not getting “special” treatment eventually burns through her dopamine load and she jettisons Mr Nice. In comes Mr Ahole and he treats everyone like garbage except for his woman. Her “I am Special” meter kicks in with it ability to keep the dopamine flowing.
Women love nice guys, they go apeshite over Aholes.
“Unfortunately, my heart hurt was hurt too many times as I witnessed prior nice girls hook up with such lowlifes.”
Don’t feel bad; at this point they’ll hook up with whoever may be stupid enough to knock ‘em up (”marriage” isn’t even on the table - it has already been successfully destroyed by the left. Look around if you don’t believe that.)
The old school counted offspring (which even our permanent underclass could belch out); now they know it is VIABLE GRANDCHILDREN that measure Darwinian “fitness” (this eliminates welfare queens from the equation).
Once the ants were feeding the grasshoppers’ children, they realized they had to adjust the formula...
See # 29
” Civilization is the triumph of nice guys over the jerks.”
Exactly. Prior to civilization, rape and looting were the best strategies to get ahead in life. Civilization rests on the willingness of third parties to bear the burden of suppressing such behavior, allowing more benign and productive life strategies to have a chance.
Alabama tax $$$ at work, again.
True. But a pretty good description of the hero of most modern romance novels, at least in the early stage of their relationship, before she "tames" him.
The Comments for this article pretty much proves the author's point. Many people violently reject the findings of research in this area. They don't show where the research is inaccurate, they just dislike the results.
Famous underground cartoonist Robert Crumb (keep on truckin’) had a huge rant about this subject in one of his comic books. Crumb was a self-described skinny nerd who no matter how good his artistic talents, was always being brushed aside for the obnoxious, strutting tough guys who treated their women awful. He was contemptuous of females who publicly stated they wanted a tender, understanding male, but constantly went for the insensitive cruds. But then Crumb became famous, and everything changed for him. Then he began treating women like disposable sex objects.
“...sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners.”
An odd definition.
Consequences and outcomes in a person’s body and mind and their lives define success differently, too.
Americans define success as whatever the elite say it is in the pop culture and education. Today, heterosexual relationships, honor and dignity is looked down upon while being a caculating psychopath and pervert is “success.”
LOL My bad. It was late.