Now that we can clone people, isn't it a waste of time and effort to encourage talented applied mathematicians to learn seduction? I think we should just buy their dna off them and leave them to their scientific, existential risk minimizing pursuits.

Do these men actually have more children, though? The idea that you need to have the appeal of James Bond to reproduce in contemporary Western society is absurd. Fornification and procreation are no longer basically the same thing--the latter only occupies a small sliver of the former's terrain. Have all the conventional attractive attributes--Financial success, self-confidence, good personal hygiene (including dress), intelligence, being one standard deviation above the mean in height, a symetrical and handsome face, be somewhat older (in the range of 2-8 years), a toned upper body (the more athletic the better)--and producing as many children as you desire is not difficult. It does humanity a lot more good for these successful males to spend their energy managing people and making things, not trying to marginally increase their ability to pick up prole women at hip-hop clubs.

"If you can attract women by pretending to have these traits and then make babies you will displace the genes of psychopaths and narcissists from the human race."--Randall Parker

Randall,

Genes aren't the only things passed from generation to generation: behaviours and attitudes, too, can make that transition. If beta males are too busy feigning these traits to notice that they have become second nature, do they not risk passing their habits on to those who may regard them as role models? Thus would gains made by genetic displacement be offset by losses due to behavioural factors? Perhaps not in the long run, but still worthy of note.

On a different note, and somewhat oddly, the women I know tend to frown heavily upon alpha maleism until they encounter it in person. Anyone else notice that?

"Do these men actually have more children, though? The idea that you need to have the appeal of James Bond to reproduce in contemporary Western society is absurd."--Audacious Epigone

Audacious,

Good points.

To your second point, I doubt that Randall or anyone else would assume otherwise. The question, which I think the article touches on, is whether alpha males are outreproducing beta males. Probably not, since I'd guess the latter outnumber the former in the general population, not to mention that the prolific success rate of alphas in wooing females might not translate to more children. I don't know if there's any specifc evidence covering that?

What about the possibility that narcissistic people are even self-aggrandizing on surveys? Even surveying women about the personality traits of the men they had sex with might not help, as someone who's been dumped is likely to rate the dumper negatively on all traits.

My wife's ex is a narcissist. I don't think he's a psychopath though.

Two sets of twins, five years apart. Only one of them seems to be following his father's path.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM IV) for psychiatric disorders defines the narcissistic personality disorder by means of 9 criteria. The following web site summarizes the latter definition.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.htmlut

But such arrogant people probably have a certain excess of energy in life, which demonstrates that they can go beyond simple survival. For this reason, it is possible that genetically many women want to have an offspring for such people, instead of nice guys who can barely survive. By the way,

Randall
To men who do not have and not like these traits: Fake them for the sake of the human race.

Bad advice. That increases the odds of having daughters that find jerks attractive.

Will the frequency of these traits rise or fall once it becomes possible to intentionally pass on or avoid passing on these traits?

Fall. Being a Nice Guy is a scalable strategy (If Everyone's Nice, Everyone Wins) while being a Jerk is not (If Everyone's a Jerk, Everyone Loses). Also, the rational counter-response is for Nice Guys to be Nice to each other and to Girls, and to terminate Jerks with extreme prejudice. Being a Jerk is therefore risky, since it invites violent reprisal. Any Girl rational enough to choose genetic traits for her offspring will be educated as to this fundamental truth, and choose Nice.

Randall, you really should read more on practical game theory, complex systems and n-order effects.

Audacious Epigone
Do these men actually have more children, though? The idea that you need to have the appeal of James Bond to reproduce in contemporary Western society is absurd.

This is an excellent point. The "blind hand of evolution" has been losing its blindness for the last forty years; this trend will grow stronger.

"Women might claim they want caring, thoughtful types but scientists have discovered what they really want – self-obsessed, lying psychopaths." - They want someone just like them. If women have those traits, it's normal. But if a man has them, he's a self-obsessed, lying psychopath. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Vincent, you're either suffering from observation bias or you know only the wrong women.

In my life I have encountered this:
1. I am a nice guy who is very respectful of women.
2. I am a decently well off geek. I don't relate well to people so I have a hard time picking girls up.
3. Not all that attractive or in shape.

I get a tons of chicks who want to make me their kids father. Beta males raise better kids. Alpha males have more attractive genes.

Have a few kids with an alpha, have them raised by a well off beta. Women and kids win culturally and genetically. Alpha males genes get passed on and they don't have to raise em.
Sounds like a win win for everyone but me.

I would love to do the act like an alpha thing, but it feels a bit dishonest to me and frankly I would rather spend my time learning new stuff and writing intresting code.

So sounds like hookers for life(HFL).

Brock, I imagine you're a happily married man who hasn't been in the dating world for many, many years. But I digress. You are misinterpreting my statement. I am not saying *all* women possess these traits, just a disproportionate amount of them, enough to consider it, "normal." Just like it's considered normal for guys to desire a 2F1M sexual encounter, even though not all guys do, women tend to be self-obsessed liars, they're just a little bit more capable of hiding it from people, typically by doing more lying. I was recently listening to a girl talk to me about lying to her boss about something so silly as reading a book she didn't want to read. She didn't want to read the book, but her boss pressed it on her. To avoid the sort of relatively mild confrontation that men shrug off daily, she took the book and then planned to lie about reading it, even going so far as to read little bits of it so that she would have something to say to him/her when they asked. Her self-obsession caused her to lie. I asked her, "How often do you do this sort of thing?" She replied, "It's the story of my life!" We as men shrug off countless of these sorts of lies from women all the time. I think there's probably some kind of evolutionary mechanism responsible for the ubiquity of female lying and ignorance from males. Once I started attuning myself to these lies, I started realizing. It happens *all the time*.

In the end, I'm of course an incorrigible nerd, but I think a reasonable amount of effort can help keep things balanced. Watch some brutal UFC fights (1 min. vid), even if you have an initial revulsion. A home gym for weightlifting 15 min. per day can work wonders.

Brock,

You are advocating the killing of jerks as a rational course of action? This is the conclusion you reach from practical game theory?

As for faking traits: If you fake traits which women desire then you increase the frequency of your real traits. Fake some traits and marry a series of wives and get each pregnant. You will increase the frequency of your traits. Some men do exactly this.

Women don't want these men. These men trick them into thinking that they are the kind of man they want. I'd be willing to bet that the mean IQ of the many women these guys sleep with is lower than the mean IQ of women the nice guys get. Also, nacissistic psychopaths with bone anything, hence, more partners. Chicks don't dig jerks, they get duped by them.

"Bad boys, it seems, really do get all the girls. Women might claim they want caring, thoughtful types but scientists have discovered what they really want – self-obsessed, lying psychopaths."

Ha, that's pretty offensive science reporting. This is framed in a misleading manner. Just because men with profile X have more sex partners, it doesn't necessarily mean they are more desirable to women. More accurately, in this case, men with those personality traits seek out more sex partners, as part of their cad sexual strategy, which often (but not always) actually signifies lower status and opportunity. To put things in perspective, criminals in general have more sex partners than average. Rapists have more sex partners than average. Unemployed men have more sex partners than average. &c.

I could probably go out and have sex with 10 prostitutes and 11 trailer skanks this week, if that's what I really wanted to do. That certainly doesn't mean I'd be what lying women "really want" instead of, say, Barack Obama, just because he's chosen a committed monogamous relationship.

Yeah, and preferring liars is an interesting spin. I suppose if I buy a lemon from the shady used car dealer who twisted every fact, that means I prefer shady used car dealers over honest ones.

Although narcissists certainly exaggerate their personal importance by several orders of magnitude, they are often considerably more successful than the average person in most cases. Thus the success of narcissistic men makes them more attractive to women despite their bad qualities. In other words, the success (money, status, accomplishments, intelligence, etc) of narcissistic men, compensates for their arrogance and selfishness. Specifically, if an ordinary and unsuccessful man were arrogant and selfish the way the narcissists are, then women would find him clearly disgusting, and would avoid such a man, but somehow the success of a narcissist camouflages his arrogance and selfishness. In fact, many narcissists are so sophisticated that their arrogance and selfishness is often misconstrued as self-confidence and even modesty, and this can make them appear even more desirable by women. Some of the most monstrous hedge fund managers who may have done terrible things (such as engineering the sub-prime bubble) to attain "success", are admired.

Vincent said:
Brock, I imagine you're a happily married man who hasn't been in the dating world for many, many years. But I digress.

Touché.

Randall said:
Brock,

You are advocating the killing of jerks as a rational course of action? This is the conclusion you reach from practical game theory?

Did you read Bryan Price's and LoneSheep's posts? Bryan is raising four (or more) kids that aren't his and LoneSheep has opted out of evolution. Do you consider those optimal responses to the situation?

The fact is that Jerks are using a Cuckoo strategy to trick women into raising kids alone or trick other males into raising their kids for them. The Nice Guy either loses once (like LoneSheep, by losing a mating opportunity) or loses twice (like Bryan, by losing the mating opportunity AND raising someone else's offspring).  No thanks.

I pick the third option. I'll out-compete the Jerks for the opportunities and the children. I have done this. To women and children, I'm a Saint. To Nice Guys, I'm a good friend. To Jerks, I'm a really bad day.  I don't help Jerks or the women who choose to breed with them; I won't be responsible for destructive behaviors being continued in the species.  And in all cases the ball's in their court; I just explain the rules and react to their move.

Randall said:
As for faking traits: If you fake traits which women desire then you increase the frequency of your real traits. Fake some traits and marry a series of wives and get each pregnant. You will increase the frequency of your traits. Some men do exactly this.

The mother counts too. Faking traits continues the cycle of women who find those traits attractive.
 

RD if chicks didn't want these kinds of men, why do they cheat on their husbands with them?

Jason,

Maybe a lot of women prefer liars without knowing that they do.

While my own rhetoric was more circumspect I find the reporting on this one hilarious. Were they going further in explaining why this happens than is warranted by the evidence? Sure. But, hey, the ladies really are doing the narcissists more than the non-narcissists.

Part of the evolutionary explanation is probably cads versus dads. But are psychopathy, narcissism, and some of these other qualities only the result of selection for the cad genes? Or did these traits get selected for because the people who had them found ways to manipulate others to get things besides sex?

I have one word to prove at least part of Randall's thesis....HOUSE. Obviously the phenomenal popularity of the show is the main character so vividly created by Hugh Laurie and his writers. Laurie proves by his craft that the required traits can be acted. The blue eyes don't hurt either. Obviously brains and an acid wit rather than sheer brute force should be in the mix. Winston Churchill and Noel Coward fit the bill. I believe that Winston had several children, Noel not so much. Gays have degenerated since the most attractive ones were wiped out early in the Aids epidemic. Now we women are left with the girlie gays we now see lining up to marry each other. All of this bodes badly for women since few straight men will want to be associated with this new marriage craze. We also lose our accessory gays as witty friends and a man who will notice what we are wearing. There has been a huge degridation in hot men in general. Just compare Brad Pit and Steve Macqueen. I doubt that Steve would have spent his time following Ali Magraw around third world orphanages instead of riding his motorcycle. Don't know how this jives with the position that alpha males are reproducing at a higher rate. Perhaps cloning is the answer, but you would have to go back several generations for the right stuff.

Guys, I'm here to tell ya that Vincent is pretty much right on the money. And there is a pun in my statement which I'll address in a moment. I think many of you guys have some Victorian Age image of women and have them on some sort of pedestal. I, and apparently Vincent too, have come to recognize that the vast majority of women are predatory. Once you recognize that and take off the rose colored glasses, then you can learn to deal with them on firmer ground.

A quick aside here - intelligence and being an alpha male are not mutually exclusive. I may not rate as high as some of the brainiacs on this blog, but I'm smarter than the average bear. I could probably qualify for Mensa but most, not all, of the people I know who belong to Mensa are ... well ... let's just say strange. I'm also athletic. I sometimes refer to myself as a geek with muscles. However, I'm usually the informal, if not the formal, leader (alpha male) in group settings.

I've been a bachelor most of my adult life so I've had lots of experience dealing with the opposite sex. In my young and stupid years, I actually bought into the propaganda of the times that women didn't want the handsome, strong man but wanted the caring, sensitive, Alan Alda types. So I tried to be the nice guy ... all it got me was to be put into the dreaded "you're my friend" category and to be blunt, I didn't get laid much. When I was a young man, I actually whined that I wasn't getting my fair share of the ladies.

As I matured and grew wiser, I learned to ignore the propaganda and learned how to play the game. I learned the modus operandi of the Predatory Female, I became much more successful. There isn't enough space here to put all the lessons and caveats that I've learned the hard way. But as the short version is that single women tend to seek security and married women (who already have the security) tend to seek assurance.

RD, you're so wrong. I don't date stupid women ... at least not for more than one night! lol ... Seriously tho, to be honest, most women ... as you put it, of lower IQs, are more work and more of pain than intelligent women. And, my observation has been that it is the women of lower IQs who tend to attempt to trap a man with a pregnancy. And, as arrogant as this may sound, I don't like the thought of breeding with one of the women of lower IQs.

Brock, I can't speak for Vincent, but I can tell you that my "observation bias" comes from many years of experience. As for your statement, "The fact is that Jerks are using a Cuckoo strategy to trick women into raising kids alone or trick other males into raising their kids for them." I'll turn that around ... Why blame the guy? Do you think that guys actually "trick" women into having their babies???

It's the woman who can control her fertility, not the guy. If there is any tricking here, it's the women who are doing it. Obviously you've never been put thru the ringer of our legal system (don't call it a justice system, because rarely is there justice). For anyone above poverty level, child support has nothing to do with the costs of raising a child ... it's about mommy support, not child support. Most guys don't have a problem with paying his SHARE of costs for the kids. But child support, for most cases above poverty, is really hidden alimony. So why in the world would a guy want to trick a woman into having a child and then be forced to pay for that "trickery"??? Unfortunately you're not alone in the "blame the guy" thinking. But it's that kind of thinking that has led to our current system which tears kids away from their fathers and makes him nothing more than a visitor (if he is lucky) and paycheck ... To be blunt, it is, at best, indentured servitude with a pretty face ... but I'll call it what it is, slavery.

What to do Allan, if one is looking to date? Stoop to their level and take advantage of their insecurities and whatnot? I've been told to go out with a marriage ring on my finger, it draws women like flies. Haven't tried it yet, but I just might. It is a question I have been pondering ever since I started to realize just how bad Western men fool themselves when it comes to women, and how foolish women are in general. I just try to believe that there's a decent enough woman for me, and learn about all the different tricks they play to avoid getting trapped. So far I've been successful at avoiding the traps, but not so much with women in general. It's hard for me to be enthusiastic about a girl if I'm always looking for how she's going to try to screw me, or marveling at all the stupid crap she says. How does one date ethically when they have very little respect for the women they encounter? Pretend to respect them? Pretend to enjoy listening to their pratter?

Evolution is only concerned with the survival of a species, so the individual is irrelevant. For us the individual is relevant, so there is now a conflict of interest between what we want and what evolution wants. The idea of meeting someone, so we can pass on our genes, is unlikely to continue for much longer.

Vincent,

You just gotta learn to play the game. I learned more than a few hard lessons.

I´m at the point that while in the US I won´t get married again without a pre-nupt. I´m not putting all my assets at risk. If she´s not willing to do a pre-nupt, she´s not for me.

Currently I´m in a live-in situation. In my state, there is no common law marriage, so it doesn´t matter how long she lives with me. If she decides to move out, she goes with what is hers but not with what is mine. If she does, I may sell everything and take an early retirement to Central America. The women have always been pleasant there.

Allan, Vincent,

Just to be clear, I'm not wearing any kind of rose-tinted glasses. Fundamentally we're all selfish, including me. But, that doesn't mean there isn't a fair ruleset where everyone comes out ahead (if everyone plays by the rules).

Women (and men) are what they are. There's no advantage is hiding from that or ignoring it. But you can choose how you respond to the facts on the ground. Different strategies will get different results. Given the same inputs as Allan, Bryan and everyone else (because people are the same the world over) I've been able to find happiness. Anyone can, and (IMO) you don't have to resettle in Costa Rica to do it.

Is it actually the traits that attract women or are these guys just really good liars and therefore able to "charm" more women with their lies?

A woman checking in here. Married a good guy with a heart of gold but not much ambition or passion. Stayed married for 17 yrs with one affair on my part at year 15 with a bad boy. Would Never have married the bad boy, just needed to feel alive and wanted again. Now a year after an equitable divorced have found the man I was wishing my husband had been... A good guy with a brilliant mind and a passion for love and life that matches and perhaps even exceeds mine. Do women want bad boys? I have a number of very smart gf's who have chosen them again and again to their hearts' detriment. Talked with a sex therapist a few years back who threw out a line that still runs through my head... Women choose playmates for very different reasons than they choose nestmates. And then somewhere along the way, often women ask their nestmates to BE playmates... unfair, but we, like you, crave excitement and variety! My take: Safe/secure/loving + Passionate/adventurous is the best recipe! I don't think it's "bad" we want so much as it is "fun" and a little unpredictable.

The great advantage of having children from a intrustable, promiscuous adventurer seeding out his genes without any consideration, and leaving all the work of raising a child to the mother,
is offcourse that the sons those mothers will get, have a higher probability to be men who are narcissistic, self-obsessed, liars, psychopaths, Machiavellian, and thrill-seekers WHO WILL GET LAID MORE.

And hence spread around their mother's genes with a higher probability.

Until effective methods of anti conception become available and the number of children a woman gets becomes independent from the amount of 'genetic communication' she chooses to indulge.

As someone who has been "diagnosed" as a psychopath on more than one occasion, by different medical professionals, I will state from experience that women (overall, in my biased experience) are exceedingly "willing" to be manipulated.

"Nice" guys trying to play the role of a "bad" guy seems exceedingly ridiculous to me. I can con/charm girls because I've had to charm/con everyone my entire life to a degree. It isn't "I'm a psychopath, so let the ladies pour in." I can only speak for myself, but I just want to feel "good", "happy". I just want certain chemicals in my brain to release so that I find something "pleasant".

I think labeling people like myself as "jerks" and whatnot, is funny, in that there is generally no intent to harm. I'm not trying to put others in physically or emotionally distressing situations, I just happen to view the world in how things affect me (the best way I can put it). I'll lie because it helps me out. I'll charm because it helps me out. And I don't truly see anything wrong with that. I've been told lying, etc. is wrong since I was 3 years old. I just never "got it", I guess. Can you tell me what's wrong with not telling the truth? Like really tell me. Try. I don't think anyone can explain it. It's all bullsh*t. How does a lie hurt anyone? Does it not attempt to (generally) comfort someone. Telling them what they want to hear... Saying "I love you", not because you its true, but because there's an awkward silence or somthing, and you know she will smile to herself for a moment perhaps? And that's "wrong"?

It's like the movie American Pie, where Tara Reid just wanted the guy to say he loves her. Why not do it? Its merely a phrase.

On the subject of whether women, if they could choose, would prefer "normal" or "psychopathic" children, is entirely a case by case basis. Yes, there are benefits to being of my mold. I am very sucessful financially, I am of very high intelligence, I have always gotten women (and male hanger-ons/sidekicks/friends), the list goes on. But I've also been the eternal bane of anybody who has been in my way, or interfered. There's still the part of me that questions whether or not I've ever truly been "happy" as everyone else describes it, even for a moment. My greatest "happiness" comes from my own achievements, and from succesfully "duping" people. It's fun. It's godd@mn hilarious. Maybe I don't distinguish "Happy" and "Fun". Becasue they've always been identical to me. I am now rambling and off topic.

To clarify after reading my post, I realize that:

"Saying "I love you", not because you its true, but because there's an awkward silence or somthing, and you know she will smile to herself for a moment perhaps? And that's "wrong"?"

Does make it sound as though I would say "I love you" just so that she would smile to herself. That is not the case it more of a "how is this action going to benefit me in the future" mindset.