T Nation

Be Bad

Now that there is scientific proof for what has been common sense for decades, will the dweebs finally get with the program:

Or will they ignore the evidence as a way of rationalizing their own cowardice.

Can they get with it? Either you’re born with those traits or you aren’t. There’s nothing lamer than a nice guy trying to be the bad boy.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Now that there is scientific proof for what has been common sense for decades, will the dweebs finally get with the program:

Or will they ignore the evidence as a way of rationalizing their own cowardice.[/quote]

Yes, the dweebs are too “cowardly” to evidence:

the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism,

The weakhearted fools! Who WOULDN’T want to make like a psychopath to get some action??

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Now that there is scientific proof for what has been common sense for decades, will the dweebs finally get with the program:

Or will they ignore the evidence as a way of rationalizing their own cowardice.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m sure these guys get plenty of sex,…in prison.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

The weakhearted fools! Who WOULDN’T want to make like a psychopath to get some action??[/quote]

Hell I would. haha

Look at the comments below. Good ole internet drama.

I have a big problem when scientists’ studies include using movie and book characters as a basis for explanations.

Every morning I eat a dark triad personnality guy for breakfast (I eat them raw just like eggs)

Unrepresentative population sample!,

Preliminary results!!!

SUBJECTIVE

INSECURE

I’m so bad I eat babies for breakfast.

It is a waste of time even starting to explain how deeply flawed this study is, if it is accurately portrayed in the article. Yeesh.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
It is a waste of time even starting to explain how deeply flawed this study is, if it is accurately portrayed in the article. Yeesh.[/quote]

The fact that they made a James Bond analogy should tell you a lot.

Keep talking about why the study is wrong while the “bad boys” are getting laid.

Great life strategy.

It seemed to me like there was nothing wrong (scientifically) with either of the studies. One was a survey of 35000 people, the other included putting 200 people through a battery of tests to see if there was a correlation between their personality and their success at getting laid.

They found (drum roll) people displaying machiavellan traits
a) Have more partners
b) Prefer shorter relationships
c) Are more willing to try and steal your girl
d) Have these characteristics across cultures.

What of this is surprising? The intelligent person will compare this to their personal experience… and find it meshes completely.

The James Bond analogy was probably made to allow the common reader to better grasp the point. I see no reason to disbelieve the study.

I’ll admit though, that people can and will lie on a survey of questions and through a battery of personality tests. ESPECIALLY if I have a ‘machiavellan’ personality.

[quote]Otep wrote:
It seemed to me like there was nothing wrong (scientifically) with either of the studies. One was a survey of 35000 people, the other included putting 200 people through a battery of tests to see if there was a correlation between their personality and their success at getting laid.[/quote]

The problem is the interpretation that people with these characteristics are more attractive as a result. Correlation is not causation. A person with these personality traits is more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as sleeping with promiscuous partners, etcetera. A male can be attractive to women without actually getting laid by them (because, for instance, he is monogamous). As you point out, someone with these characteristics may also be more likely to over-report his numbers.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Keep talking about why the study is wrong while the “bad boys” are getting laid.

Great life strategy. [/quote]

OK… but then I think to the “How Curvy?” thread, and how you stated that men were apparently gay for having a preference in the size of their women. So if the key to getting laid is being indiscriminate, I think I’ll pass.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Keep talking about why the study is wrong while the “bad boys” are getting laid.

Great life strategy. [/quote]

Why, thank you… I think.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m so bad I eat babies for breakfast.[/quote]

I’m so bad I eat guys who eat babies for breakfast.

[quote]Master Nate wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:

The weakhearted fools! Who WOULDN’T want to make like a psychopath to get some action??

Hell I would. haha[/quote]

Upon further thought, I have decided I would not do anything suggesting psychopathy.

[quote]ahzaz wrote:
I’m so bad I eat guys who eat babies for breakfast.[/quote]

I’m so bad I eat breakfast for breakfast. With a cup of nails.