Speaker 1: Welcome to the Human Potential Lab, where I teach you
Speaker 1: the latest science of important psychological concepts that are important
Speaker 1: to everyday life. I'm doctor Scott Barry Kaufman, a cognitive
Speaker 1: scientist and explorer of human potential. I'll get to the
Speaker 1: topic at hand in a moment, but first I'd like
Speaker 1: to reflect on the fact that this is the tenth
Speaker 1: anniversary episode of the Psychology Podcast. It's crazy to even
Speaker 1: think about. There's nothing else in my life. I have
Speaker 1: done so consistently every single week for the past ten years.
Speaker 1: You know. My initial motivation for doing this podcast was
Speaker 1: simply to put a microphone on people in my field
Speaker 1: and shine a spotlight on their amazing research. I've learned
Speaker 1: so much about psychology over the years from these incredible guests,
Speaker 1: and I hope you've learned a lot as well. I
Speaker 1: truly hope this podcast has brought you a lot of
Speaker 1: value over the years. If it has, I'd really appreciate
Speaker 1: it if you could leave a positive comment on iTunes.
Speaker 1: Every comment means a lot to me. For this special
Speaker 1: tenth anniversary episode, I thought we'd do something a little
Speaker 1: different and a lot of fun. We'll be doing a
Speaker 1: deep scientific dive trying to answer the age old question
Speaker 1: do nice guys really finish last? At the core of
Speaker 1: this question is the so called nice guy paradox. The
Speaker 1: nice guy paradox can be stated like this. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, there is a common perception that in terms
Speaker 1: of sexual prowess and romantic relationships, nice guys finish last.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, although women often portray themselves as
Speaker 1: wanting to date kind, sensitive, and emotionally expressive men, when
Speaker 1: actually presented with a choice between this quote nice guy
Speaker 1: and an unkind, insensitive, emotionally closed, macho man or jerk,
Speaker 1: they almost always seem to reject the nice guy in
Speaker 1: favor of his more macho competitor. This paradox is everywhere
Speaker 1: in popular culture. For instance, here's the depiction of a
Speaker 1: reformed nice guy on Asque Men. He says, a wise
Speaker 1: man once told me, as a man, you have to
Speaker 1: die once in order to live. I never fully appreciated
Speaker 1: his advice, nor did I understand it until I experienced
Speaker 1: it firsthand. From that time on, I understood the origins
Speaker 1: of the jerk verse. Nice guy battle readers may be
Speaker 1: asking themselves, what in the world is this guy talking about? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm referring to the widely known fact that women habitually
Speaker 1: date men that are jerks. While the quote nice guys
Speaker 1: are often left twiddling their thumbs in solitaire, does this
Speaker 1: sound familiar to anyone? Figurely speaking, In order for a
Speaker 1: man to enjoy the company of women and be able
Speaker 1: to seduce them, his inner nice guy must die through heartache.
Speaker 1: It's at this point that his inner bad boy surfaces
Speaker 1: and goes on the prowl. That's from Curtis Smith. And
Speaker 1: here is the perspective of a woman in the popular
Speaker 1: magazine Mademoiselle. Quote. Not long ago, I watched my friend Laney,
Speaker 1: an assistant county prosecutor who spends her days putting criminals
Speaker 1: behind bars, try to choose between a sweet guy who
Speaker 1: sent her poems and flowers and petted her cats and
Speaker 1: a guy who wore sunglasses indoors and found a way
Speaker 1: to hit on every woman who came his way. Laney
Speaker 1: fell madly in love with the second guy. But the
Speaker 1: first guy adores you, I said, I don't even think
Speaker 1: the second guy even likes you very much. Sorry, she said,
Speaker 1: but the first guy is dull, ouch and honestly at
Speaker 1: first blush. The psychological literature kind of does seem to
Speaker 1: confirm that there really is a paradox going on here.
Speaker 1: Considered one of the most prominent research paradigms for examining
Speaker 1: nate preferences. In a seminal nineteen eighty six research paper,
Speaker 1: David Buss and Michael Barnes asked ninety two married couples
Speaker 1: which factors they considered most desirable in a mate. As
Speaker 1: you can see in this table, the most important fact
Speaker 1: was whether the partner was kind and considerate. Many studies
Speaker 1: since then have reported kindness as one of the top
Speaker 1: features reported by participants in their rankings of preferred characteristics
Speaker 1: in a meet. Yet research shows over and over again
Speaker 1: that those who score high in dark personality characteristics have
Speaker 1: many more sexual partners. And heck, the media loves these
Speaker 1: kinds of headlines, immediately translating correlations into causation. For instance,
Speaker 1: consider this article from The Independent, reporting on a correlation
Speaker 1: between being bad and number of sexual partners. The headline
Speaker 1: boldly proclaims why women really do love self obsessed psychopaths?
Speaker 1: But is this really true? Do most women really love
Speaker 1: self obsessed psychopaths? Well, looks like we may finally have
Speaker 1: some answers. In recent years, a good bit of scientific
Speaker 1: research has been conducted on this topic, both directly and indirectly.
Speaker 1: In this episode of the Human Potential Lab, we will
Speaker 1: explore this fascinating topic in a number of ways, drawing
Speaker 1: on many different literatures. Here's a high level outline of
Speaker 1: today's episode. First, I will pinpoint exactly what women mean
Speaker 1: when they use terms such as quote bad boy and
Speaker 1: quote nice guy. Then I will discuss the psychology of
Speaker 1: individuals who are primarily driven by selfish desires and how
Speaker 1: they go about obtaining their mating goals. Then we will
Speaker 1: look at what women actually want, including what some women
Speaker 1: want and what some women want some of the time. Finally,
Speaker 1: I will present what I think are the most reasonable
Speaker 1: conclusions based on all of the current evidence, and I'll
Speaker 1: give my advice and recommendations. I want to acknowledge upfront
Speaker 1: that this episode focuses on heterosexual men and heterosexual women.
Speaker 1: That's because that's what the research sample has been based on,
Speaker 1: and that's the area I personally know most about. However,
Speaker 1: I would definitely like to see more research on this
Speaker 1: topic among different sexual orientations, and I suspect since we're
Speaker 1: all human a lot of this research still applies in
Speaker 1: many ways to other sexual orientations. I highly recommend that
Speaker 1: you watch this episode on the Psychology Podcast YouTube channel
Speaker 1: so that you can see the slides un presenting. All Right,
Speaker 1: ladies and gents, roll up your sleeves and men, put
Speaker 1: on that leather jacket and jel up your hair, because
Speaker 1: it's time to finally get to the bottom of this
Speaker 1: age old mystery. All right, let's start with a review
Speaker 1: of how bad boys and nice guys are perceived. What
Speaker 1: does it even mean to be perceived as a bad
Speaker 1: boy or a nice guy. In a study from nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety nine, Edward Harold and Robin Millhausen asked one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy four female undergraduates enrolled in a first year
Speaker 1: course on couple in Family relations why they think nice
Speaker 1: guys are more likely'd have fewer sexual partners. The researchers
Speaker 1: found that there were a number of different explanations for
Speaker 1: why nice guys are perceived as sexually inexperienced. One reason
Speaker 1: some women suggested was that nice guys are simply less
Speaker 1: forward with women. One wrote to me, nice guys aren't
Speaker 1: as persistent or agressive, and don't use sleazy tactics to
Speaker 1: add another notch to their bedposts. Another reason was that
Speaker 1: nice guys want serious relationships and value commitment. Some women
Speaker 1: wrote that they desired nice guys as friends instead of lovers.
Speaker 1: As one woman wrote, nice guys are the ones we
Speaker 1: always see as just friends and generally aren't seen as
Speaker 1: potential partners. In general, nice guys are overlooked when it
Speaker 1: comes to sexual relationships. Out to the nice guy. Some
Speaker 1: women in their sample conceptualized nice guys as needy, weak, predictable, boring, inexperienced,
Speaker 1: and unattractive. One woman wrote, nice guys often don't provide
Speaker 1: the drama and adventure women think they want, Thankfully. Other
Speaker 1: women were more flattering in their description of nice guys,
Speaker 1: viewing them as having positive traits such as a good personality,
Speaker 1: high standards and morals, and politeness. Nice guys were also
Speaker 1: considered to be more passive in their interactions with women,
Speaker 1: lacking confidence and being unsure of themselves. They were also
Speaker 1: thought to be willing to wait for sex because they
Speaker 1: cared about their partners and treated them with respect. In general,
Speaker 1: nice guys were thought of as less physically attractive. As
Speaker 1: one woman put it, nice guys are generally not as
Speaker 1: attractive and have a great personality to compensate for the shortcoming. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: looks not personality tend to get a women into bed.
Speaker 1: Double ouch. Where are these women coming from? Make sure
Speaker 1: I don't ever meet them? But anyway, no wonder nice
Speaker 1: guys are so frustrated. I would also beg to differ
Speaker 1: with this woman on her foundational assumptions, but more on
Speaker 1: that later. Now let's talk about perceptions of bad boys.
Speaker 1: In this study, perceptions of bad boys fell into four
Speaker 1: different categories. One group of women saw bad boys as rebellious, mysterious, daring, arrogant,
Speaker 1: and dangerous. Another group saw bad boys as macho, strong
Speaker 1: and confident. A third group viewed bad boys as fun, adventurous, spontaneous,
Speaker 1: and outgoing, and a fourth group saw the bad boy
Speaker 1: as sexy, charming, good looking, and sexually experienced. Women cited
Speaker 1: many different reasons for why bad boys are sexually experienced.
Speaker 1: Some women suggested that bad boys use aggressive, dishonest, and
Speaker 1: manipulative tactics to obtain sex. Others suggested that bad boys
Speaker 1: are more likely to approach and ask women for sex
Speaker 1: because of their self confidence and prior successes. With women,
Speaker 1: which made them less fearful of rejection. Participants reported that
Speaker 1: the sexual success of bad boys led them to be
Speaker 1: viewed as more desirable and appealing by women. Bad boys
Speaker 1: were also considered to be more physically and sexually attractive,
Speaker 1: approaching relationships, more casually, caring more about sex than intimate relationships,
Speaker 1: and sexually unfaithful. Look these are colleged aged women in
Speaker 1: this study, between the ages of eighteen and twenty five
Speaker 1: years at one university writing these responses, so the findings
Speaker 1: must be taken with a grain of salt. Women at
Speaker 1: different stages of their life and with different life experiences
Speaker 1: may have different conceptions of as well as interest in
Speaker 1: quote bad boys and quote nice guys. Still, this research
Speaker 1: provides a general idea of how these different kinds of
Speaker 1: men are perceived. Taking these results at face value, we
Speaker 1: can see that nice guys are perceived as good people, friends,
Speaker 1: and marriage partners, but not passionate lovers. Bad boys, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, are perceived as having more of a
Speaker 1: mix of positive and negative qualities. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: bad boys are perceived as having some very attractive qualities
Speaker 1: such as sexiness, confidence, charm. On the other hand, they
Speaker 1: are also seen as exhibiting negative behaviors, such as aggression
Speaker 1: and duplicity. Therefore, a number of traits are quote bad
Speaker 1: in the sense that they are related to highly selfish,
Speaker 1: exploitive mating strategies. Although a certain degree of self deception
Speaker 1: and other deception can be adaptive in the mating domain,
Speaker 1: particularly during the courtship phase, some individuals take deception and
Speaker 1: selfishness to the extreme, almost completely lacking in the emotional
Speaker 1: intelligence skills required to respect the feelings of others, let
Speaker 1: alone form an intimate, meaningful, and committed relationship, not that
Speaker 1: they necessarily want to. Differences in various personality traits may
Speaker 1: exist because of the adaptive benefits they conferred on survival
Speaker 1: and reproductive outcomes. Throughout the course of human evolution. Those
Speaker 1: with low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness behave in ways
Speaker 1: that may increase their short term mating success. A reduction
Speaker 1: in both of these traits. Agreeable and conscientiousness is an
Speaker 1: integral component of a number of personality disorders that are
Speaker 1: receiving considerable research attention. In recent years, psychologists have looked
Speaker 1: at the traits and behaviors of these socially undesirable individuals
Speaker 1: those with narcissism, macavelianism, and psychopathy. Although they have traditionally
Speaker 1: been studied only in clinical settings, researchers have started to
Speaker 1: investigate these traits in behreha in the general population. Let's
Speaker 1: now zoom in on the dark triad of personality really
Speaker 1: get into the head of people who score high in
Speaker 1: the dark triad and look at their mating outcomes to
Speaker 1: get a better sense of how these dark personality individuals
Speaker 1: accomplish their selfish mating goals. As a quick description, narcissism
Speaker 1: involves entitled self importance, Macavelianism comprises a sense of strategy
Speaker 1: and long term manipulation to get longer term goals, and
Speaker 1: psychopathy involves thrill seeking behaviors, impulsivity, lying, boldness, and meanness.
Speaker 1: So in this seminal paper from two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: Peter jo Nason and his colleagues looked at the link
Speaker 1: between the Dark triad personality traits and short term mating.
Speaker 1: As you can see in this table, the number of
Speaker 1: sexual partners as well as the motivation to seek a
Speaker 1: short term mate we're both significantly correlated with the Dark
Speaker 1: triad personality traits. But and I'm going to keep saying
Speaker 1: this over and over again today. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.
Speaker 1: What is it about dark triad individuals that is so attractive?
Speaker 1: If anything, Some of the earliest research on this topic
Speaker 1: suggests that it is their physically attractive veneer that is attractive,
Speaker 1: not necessarily their unadorned bodies. Consider this study conducted by
Speaker 1: Samine Vizier and colleagues. They found that narcissists put a
Speaker 1: lot more preparation to their appearance, were fashionable, stylish, and
Speaker 1: expensive clothing, appeared cheerful, and were rated as more attractive
Speaker 1: at first sight compared with those scoring lower in narcissism.
Speaker 1: They also found effects unique to each gender. Female narcissists
Speaker 1: applied more makeup, pucked their eyebrows more, and revealed more
Speaker 1: cleavage than females scoring lower in narcissism, and male narcissists
Speaker 1: tended to ditch their eyeglasses and pump up their muscles
Speaker 1: more compared with the less narcissistic males in their sample.
Speaker 1: According to the researchers quote, our results show that narcissism
Speaker 1: can be judged with some degree of accuracy on the
Speaker 1: basis of physical appearance. Alone. Furthermore, the magnitude of this
Speaker 1: effect is sizable considering how little information was available to
Speaker 1: the observers. These findings suggest that physical appearance reflects narcissist personality,
Speaker 1: preoccupation with good looks and desire to be the center
Speaker 1: of attention, and serves as a vehicle with which to
Speaker 1: promote their status. Multiple studies confirm those findings. In this
Speaker 1: paper from twenty twelve, Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strub make
Speaker 1: the case that people with dark personalities more generally not
Speaker 1: just narcissism, but also psychopathy and machiavelianism, are really good
Speaker 1: at creating a physically attractive veneer, at least at first meeting.
Speaker 1: They conclude that quote, dark personalities construct appearances that act
Speaker 1: as social wars, possibly for facilitating their cutting social strategies.
Speaker 1: Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Is it
Speaker 1: just their physically attractive venear? To go deeper into this issue,
Speaker 1: mirkha Back and colleagues in twenty ten tried to capture
Speaker 1: the quote charismatic air of narcissism in the laboratory. Over
Speaker 1: the course of three studies, they found that narcissism was
Speaker 1: indeed correlated with popularity at first sight. Second, and most alarming,
Speaker 1: in my view, the aspects of narcissism that were most
Speaker 1: maladaptive in the long run, such as exploitativeness and entitlement,
Speaker 1: proved to be the most attractive qualities at first meeting. Third,
Speaker 1: an examination of observable verbal and nonverbal behaviors, as well
Speaker 1: as aspects of physical appearance, revealed four main characteristics that
Speaker 1: make up the charismatic air of the narcissist. The four
Speaker 1: main characteristics of the charismatic air are attractiveness, interpersonal warmth, competence,
Speaker 1: and humor. As the researchers put it, quote, narcissism predicts
Speaker 1: all of the four relevant qtamines. Attractiveness from their flashy
Speaker 1: and neat attire, interpersonal warmth from their charming glances at strangers,
Speaker 1: competence from their self assured behavior, and humor from their
Speaker 1: witty verbal expressions. As a result, they thus should enjoy
Speaker 1: greater initial popularity than non narcissists end quote. Look. I
Speaker 1: think initial is doing a lot of work here, considering
Speaker 1: that further studies have shown that the popularity of the
Speaker 1: narcissists tends to take a nose dive upon further meetings,
Speaker 1: especially within the context of a romantic relationship. So I
Speaker 1: think it's a really important caveat to point out here. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go even further in understanding the correlation between dark
Speaker 1: traits and number of sexual partners. Dark personalities are also
Speaker 1: really good at targeting victims to this study by Sarah
Speaker 1: Wheeler and colleagues, which found that people who score higher
Speaker 1: on psychopathic traits are better able to judge vulnerability to
Speaker 1: victimization after viewing very short clips of targets just walking.
Speaker 1: Kind of scary when you think about it. The dark
Speaker 1: triade is also correlated with a long list of strategies
Speaker 1: for them to reach their selfish goals. This paper by
Speaker 1: Peter jo Nason and his colleagues from twenty ten shows
Speaker 1: that the aggressive and narcissistic strategies of dark tried individuals
Speaker 1: include stealing mates from others and using exploitive and coercive
Speaker 1: strategies to retain their meat. As you can see on
Speaker 1: this long list, some of the meat retention strategies include vigilance,
Speaker 1: monopolizing the mate's time, inducing jealousy, and derogating competitors. Yikes.
Speaker 1: So consistent with a lot of these other findings, research
Speaker 1: has found that those with Dark Triad traits have a
Speaker 1: very specific love style, if that that's what you want
Speaker 1: to call it. Peter Jennason and Philip Kevanaugh found in
Speaker 1: twenty ten that those who score higher on measures of
Speaker 1: the Dark Triad tend to score higher and lutis and
Speaker 1: ProGMA love styles, meaning that they have more of a
Speaker 1: game playing and cerebral utilitarian what can I get out
Speaker 1: of you way of loving, as the researchers put it,
Speaker 1: quote loving with the one's head and not one's heart
Speaker 1: may be an expression of the limited empathy slash emotional
Speaker 1: systems characteristic of these individuals. It's very clear that these
Speaker 1: individuals who score high in the Dark Triad really do
Speaker 1: view the meeting domain as a competition, as a game,
Speaker 1: and in some way they're right. It is a competition.
Speaker 1: The main domain is a competition. You are competing against
Speaker 1: a lot of other men for the attention of a
Speaker 1: woman that you're attracted to. That's true. And people who
Speaker 1: do tend to treat it as a game and tend
Speaker 1: to really take that competition seriously do tend to do better.
Speaker 1: But as we'll keep exploring, throughout the rest of this episode.
Speaker 1: Is that really the only way you have to go
Speaker 1: about it to reach your mating goals? Spoiler no it's not,
Speaker 1: but more on that later. Finally, the trait of impulsivity
Speaker 1: is also relevant here. Researchers have found that psychopathy is
Speaker 1: associated with quote dysfunctional impulsivity, defined is the tendency to
Speaker 1: make quick decisions without much forethought, especially when it leads
Speaker 1: to difficulties. Interestingly, narcissism was more strongly related to functional impulsivity,
Speaker 1: defined is the tendency to make more quick decisions when
Speaker 1: it's beneficial and optimal. As the researchers put it, quote,
Speaker 1: it appears that narcissistic impulsivity involves venturesome social engagement, whereas
Speaker 1: psychopathic impulsivity stems from poor self regulation. To me, this
Speaker 1: suggests that not all members of the dark triad are alike,
Speaker 1: and narcissism seems to be the less dark but I
Speaker 1: would say still dark member of this trio. Nevertheless, the
Speaker 1: higher levels of impulsivity among dark tried individuals undoubtedly contributes
Speaker 1: to their mating success. They're just more willing to jump
Speaker 1: right into a sexual situation without thinking about the consequences.
Speaker 1: On themselves and others. I don't know about you, but
Speaker 1: I'm going to need a cold shower after that one.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna take my jacket off here these dark, tried individuals. Whoo, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's move on. Now that we've examined the traits and
Speaker 1: behaviors of socially undesirable individuals, let's take a closer look
Speaker 1: at what women actually want. Researchers have attempted to address
Speaker 1: this issue by having women in the laboratory make actual
Speaker 1: decisions about whom they would date. Then reviewing this literature
Speaker 1: will start with the foundational evidence and move through to
Speaker 1: the latest research. In one of the earliest sets of
Speaker 1: studies conducted on this topic, Edward Sadala and his colleagues
Speaker 1: presented their participants with videotaped and ridden scenarios depicting two
Speaker 1: men interacting with each other. They varied on whether the
Speaker 1: male acted dominant or non dominant. Their idea of non
Speaker 1: dominance seemed to be one of submissiveness. For instance, here's
Speaker 1: an excerpt of a scenario in which the mail was
Speaker 1: depicted as dominant. John is five feet ten inches tall,
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty five pounds. He has been playing
Speaker 1: tennis for one year and is currently enrolled in an
Speaker 1: intermediate tennis class. Despite his limited amount of training, he
Speaker 1: is a very coordinated tennis player who has won sixty
Speaker 1: percent of his matches. His serve is very strong and
Speaker 1: his returns are extremely powerful. In addition to his physical abilities,
Speaker 1: he has the mental qualities that lead to success in tennis.
Speaker 1: He's extremely competitive, refusing to yield against opponents who have
Speaker 1: been playing much longer. All his movements tend to communicate
Speaker 1: dominance and authority. He tends to psychologically dominate his opponents,
Speaker 1: forcing them off their games and into mental mistakes. In contrast,
Speaker 1: here's an excerpt of a scenario in which the same
Speaker 1: tennis player is instead depicted as non dominant. Note that
Speaker 1: the first three lines that I read before were kept
Speaker 1: the same across conditions. His serve and his returns are
Speaker 1: consistent and well placed. Although he plays well, he prefers
Speaker 1: to play for fun rather than to win. He is
Speaker 1: not particularly competitive and tends to yield to opponents who
Speaker 1: have been playing tennis much longer. He is easily thrown
Speaker 1: off his game by opponents who play with great authority.
Speaker 1: Strong opponents are able to psychologically dominate him, sometimes forcing
Speaker 1: him off his game. He enjoys the game of tennis,
Speaker 1: but avoids highly competitive situations. Across four studies, the researchers
Speaker 1: found that the dominant scenarios were considered more sexually attractive,
Speaker 1: although dominant John was regarded as less likable and not
Speaker 1: desired as a spouse. Taken at face value, this study
Speaker 1: seems to support the sexual attractiveness of the dominant alpha
Speaker 1: male over the submissive beta male. The researchers concluded quote
Speaker 1: the results of all four experiments supported the prediction that
Speaker 1: sudance behavior would selectively increase the sexual attractiveness of males.
Speaker 1: Another study conducted at the University of London seems to
Speaker 1: confirm these findings. The researchers had eighty one women watch
Speaker 1: a one minute silent video of a male in three
Speaker 1: dominance conditions. Low dominance was closed body posture, medium dominance
Speaker 1: was open body posture, and high dominance was open body
Speaker 1: posture with gesticulation, and they had women rate the males
Speaker 1: for sexual attractiveness. Results showed that higher dominance behavior significantly
Speaker 1: increased the attractiveness of the man. It's interesting to note
Speaker 1: how even in this highly controlled experimental setting, slight changes
Speaker 1: to the posture such as sitting position of a male
Speaker 1: significantly increased his levels of attractiveness. According to the researchers,
Speaker 1: this indicates that women may use simple nonverbal signals of
Speaker 1: dominance as criteria for male attractiveness. I think this is also,
Speaker 1: in general a lesson to males that just even slight
Speaker 1: tweaks to your behavior can change attractiveness as well. The
Speaker 1: researchers concluded, Thus, our results contribute to extant literature on
Speaker 1: the quote nice guy's finished last phenomenon by showing that
Speaker 1: dominant body postures do result in higher ratings of sexual attractiveness.
Speaker 1: Of course, this is not to argue that other variables
Speaker 1: such as pro social orientation do not mediate these results. Rather,
Speaker 1: when operationalized independently, dominant nonverbal behavior appears to increase women's
Speaker 1: ratings of men's attractiveness. Okay, fair enough. At least they
Speaker 1: hint that there may be some additional nuance here, And
Speaker 1: it turns out there is additional nuance here. Enter a
Speaker 1: study by Jerry Berger and Mika Cosby in nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: nine called do Women Prefer Dominant Men? The case of
Speaker 1: the missing control condition? The researchers had one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighteen female undergraduates read the same exact descriptions of John
Speaker 1: the tennis player. Remember John the tennis player from that
Speaker 1: prior study couple slides ago, But they added a crucial
Speaker 1: control condition in which some participants only read the first
Speaker 1: three sentences of the description. If you recall, these were
Speaker 1: the first three sentences that were consistent across all the conditions.
Speaker 1: John is five feet ten inches tall, one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty five pounds. He has been playing tennis for one
Speaker 1: year and is currently enrolled in an intermediate tennis class.
Speaker 1: Despite his limited amount of training, he is a very
Speaker 1: coordinated tennis player who has won sixty percent of his matches. So,
Speaker 1: consistent with the prior study that I mentioned, women found
Speaker 1: dominant John more sexually appealing than submissive John that was replicated. However,
Speaker 1: the John depicted in the control condition had the highest
Speaker 1: ratings of sexiness of them all. The researchers then asked
Speaker 1: women to indicate which of the adjectives used to describe
Speaker 1: John were ideal for a date as well as for
Speaker 1: a long term romantic partner. They found that only one
Speaker 1: woman out of the fifty undergraduates in their sample actually
Speaker 1: identified dominant as one of the traits she sought in
Speaker 1: either an ideal date or a romantic partner. For the
Speaker 1: rest of the dominant adjectives, the two big winners were
Speaker 1: confident seventy two percent sought this trait for an ideal date,
Speaker 1: seventy four percent sought this strait for an ideal romantic partner,
Speaker 1: and assertive forty eight percent sought this trait for an
Speaker 1: ideal date. Thirty six percent sought this straight for an
Speaker 1: ideal romantic partner. Not one woman wanted a demanding male,
Speaker 1: and only twelve percent wanted an aggressive person for a
Speaker 1: date and romantic partner. In terms of the non dominant adjectives,
Speaker 1: the big winners were easy going sixty eight percent sought
Speaker 1: this trait for an ideal date, sixty four percent sought
Speaker 1: the straight for an ideal romantic partner, and sensitive seventy
Speaker 1: six percent sought this trait for an ideal date an
Speaker 1: ideal romantic partner. Not one women wanted a submissive male
Speaker 1: for either a date or romance. Other low ranked non
Speaker 1: dominant adjectives were shy two percent for dating, zero percent
Speaker 1: for romantic and quiet four percent for ideal two percent
Speaker 1: for romantic. I think that this study was revealing in
Speaker 1: a number of ways. For one, it suggests that women
Speaker 1: may find dominance sexually attractive within the context of a
Speaker 1: competition where your man is competing against others, but they
Speaker 1: want the man to be sweet and sensitive to them.
Speaker 1: So that's one I think nuance of these findings. Another
Speaker 1: is that dominance seems to take many different forms. The
Speaker 1: dominant male who is demanding, violent, and self centered is
Speaker 1: not considered attractive to most women, whereas the dominant male
Speaker 1: who is assertive and confident is considered attractive. As the
Speaker 1: researcher suggests, men who dominate others because of leadership qualities
Speaker 1: and other superior abilities, and who therefore are able and
Speaker 1: willing to provide for their families quite possibly will be
Speaker 1: preferred to potential partners who lack these attributes. Their research
Speaker 1: also suggests that sensitivity and assertiveness are not necessarily opposites,
Speaker 1: and I think that's a really, really insightful finding. In fact,
Speaker 1: further research suggests that the combination of kindness and assertiveness
Speaker 1: might just be the most attractive pairing across three studies.
Speaker 1: Laurie Jensen, Campbell, and colleagues found that it wasn't dominance alone,
Speaker 1: but rather the interaction of dominance and pro social behaviors
Speaker 1: that women reported were particularly sexually attractive. In other words,
Speaker 1: dominance only increased sexual attraction when the person was already
Speaker 1: high in agreeableness and altruism. I reviewed a lot of
Speaker 1: this literature in my twenty fourteen article is Kindness Physically Attractive?
Speaker 1: What I think is really interesting about this literature, and
Speaker 1: as some research has shown, is that the personality of
Speaker 1: an individual can actually affect perceptions of their physical attractiveness.
Speaker 1: Considered this very interesting paper from twenty fourteen by Yan
Speaker 1: Zhong and colleagues, which found support for the notion that
Speaker 1: what is good is beautiful, finding that participants received higher
Speaker 1: attractiveness ratings when presented with positive personality information such as
Speaker 1: decent and honest. According to the researchers, the results suggest
Speaker 1: quote that the personality of an individual may affect his
Speaker 1: or her facial attractiveness evaluation. Look, I can resonate with this.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I'm incredibly attracted to a woman I see somewhere,
Speaker 1: and then I approach them, and after a two minute conversation,
Speaker 1: I just don't find the physical attractive anymore. I think
Speaker 1: all of us can kind of relate to this experience, right, Okay?
Speaker 1: Moving on, A seminal study in two thousand and three
Speaker 1: sheds further light on the interaction between physical attractiveness and personality.
Speaker 1: I really like this paper. It's a really clever study
Speaker 1: by Jeffrey Urbaniak and Peter Killman called physical attractiveness and
Speaker 1: the quote nice guy paradox Do nice guys really finish? Last?
Speaker 1: The researchers conducted two studies on college women in which
Speaker 1: they had women choose between men of various levels of niceness.
Speaker 1: Women were given a script in which a woman named
Speaker 1: Susan is participating in a game show that resembled aspects
Speaker 1: of the pop or TV show The Dating Game. Susan
Speaker 1: is presented with the opportunity to date a number of
Speaker 1: different contestants and must choose between them in condition one,
Speaker 1: the nice Todd condition. Todd gave responses that would be
Speaker 1: associated with a nice guy, such as, quote someone who
Speaker 1: is in touch with his feelings and those of his partner,
Speaker 1: who is kind and attentive and doesn't go for all
Speaker 1: the macho stuff, also great in the bedroom, and puts
Speaker 1: his partner's pleasure first. In condition two, the middle Todd condition,
Speaker 1: Todd gave more neutral responses, such as, a real man
Speaker 1: knows what he wants and he knows how to get it.
Speaker 1: He plays hard and works hard and is great in
Speaker 1: the bedroom. In condition three, the jerk Todd condition, Todd
Speaker 1: was portrayed as a somewhat insensitive, self absorbed, macho jerk,
Speaker 1: saying things like a real man knows what he wants
Speaker 1: and he knows how to get it. Someone who knows
Speaker 1: who he is, but keeps other people guessing and on
Speaker 1: their toes. He doesn't go in all for that touchy
Speaker 1: feely stuff. He's also great in the bedroom and can
Speaker 1: tell his partner what he likes. Note that they kept
Speaker 1: that last part consistent across all the three conditions, so
Speaker 1: all three were described as being good in bed. The
Speaker 1: only thing that varied was their niceness. I think that
Speaker 1: was a really really clever experimental paradigm if you ask me. So.
Speaker 1: What did they find? The researchers found that the nicer
Speaker 1: Todd was portrayed, the more or frequently he was chosen,
Speaker 1: and the more desirable he was rated as a potential
Speaker 1: marriage partner. A steady boyfriend and a platonic friend. He
Speaker 1: was also seen as generally more intelligent and sincere. When
Speaker 1: Todd was portrayed as more physically attractive, he was chosen more,
Speaker 1: but physical attractiveness didn't overwhelm the niceness factor. That's super interesting.
Speaker 1: Where Todd was rated as more physically attractive yet less nice,
Speaker 1: it was the relative niceness that triumphed over the physical attractiveness.
Speaker 1: That's right. When it came to a dating or romantic partner,
Speaker 1: the majority of women rejected the insensitive man, even when
Speaker 1: he was more physically attractive than his counterpart. However, when
Speaker 1: it came to purely sexual relationships, a different pattern emerged.
Speaker 1: Uh oh. In these cases, niceness was less influential than
Speaker 1: physical attractiveness. As the researcher's note quote. It may be
Speaker 1: that the nice guy stereotyped is more accurate in relation
Speaker 1: to relatively casual physical relationships than to more serious relationships. Still,
Speaker 1: the overall results of these studies suggest that although niceness
Speaker 1: may be less essential in these relationships, it still should
Speaker 1: not be a major hindrance as would be suggested by
Speaker 1: the nice guy stereotype. Now at this point in the discussion,
Speaker 1: I think it would be beneficial to bring in the
Speaker 1: distinction between dominance and prestige. One striking similarity across all
Speaker 1: the studies we've explored here is the sample college students.
Speaker 1: Most college students have not had the years of expertise
Speaker 1: that enable them to achieve success in a domain. This
Speaker 1: is important to keep in mind because the attainment of
Speaker 1: social status and the mating benefits that come along with
Speaker 1: it can be accomplished through compassion and cooperation just as much,
Speaker 1: if not more so, than through aggression and intimidation. Just
Speaker 1: looking at the social structure of grade school, it's easy
Speaker 1: to assume that dominance is the only roots of social status.
Speaker 1: It would seem as though dark triad bullies who use intimidation, coercion,
Speaker 1: and fear inducing tactics are the only ones who rise
Speaker 1: in the status hierarchy. Unlike other species, however, humans have
Speaker 1: many alternative roots to high social status that don't rely
Speaker 1: on dominance. Beyond school, on the stage of life, knowledge
Speaker 1: has societal impact, and those with high prestige tend to
Speaker 1: be recognized for their skills, success, and knowledge. Many scholars
Speaker 1: across ethnography, ethology, sociology, and socio linguistics believe that two
Speaker 1: main roots to social status, dominance of prestige arose in
Speaker 1: evolutionary history at different times and for different purposes. In
Speaker 1: the field of psychology, self reported measures of dominance and
Speaker 1: prestige are being distinguished at both the behavioral level and
Speaker 1: the hormonal level. As I noted in my article The
Speaker 1: Myth of the Alpha Male, published in twenty fourteen on
Speaker 1: the Art of Manliness website, alpha men are not always
Speaker 1: the most physically dominant and aggressive. Interestingly, while advocates for
Speaker 1: acting dominant often point to chimps as proof of the
Speaker 1: exclusivity of this route to male status, recent research has
Speaker 1: shown that even among primates, alpha male status can be
Speaker 1: achieved not only through size and strength, but through adept
Speaker 1: sociability and the grooming of others as well. Of course,
Speaker 1: the usefulness of empulling a dominance or a prestige strategy
Speaker 1: depends on an individual's own set of mental and physical dispositions,
Speaker 1: as well as the particular situation. Individuals who possess the
Speaker 1: physical ability to intimidate others or enforced threats, and who
Speaker 1: live in cultures or environments such as prison that promote
Speaker 1: the use of coercive techniques may be more oriented toward dominance.
Speaker 1: Those who have the mental skills to acquire culturally valued
Speaker 1: information and skills and find themselves in social situations that
Speaker 1: don't force hot dominant hierarchies may be more oriented toward prestige.
Speaker 1: This seminal study from twenty thirteen by Joey Chang Jessica
Speaker 1: Tracian colleagues clearly distinguished between these two different paths to
Speaker 1: social status. They found that the dominance route is paved
Speaker 1: with intimidation, threats, and coercion, and is pueled particularly by
Speaker 1: a form of pride called hubristic pride. Hebristic pride is
Speaker 1: associated with arrogance, conceit anti social behaviors, unstable relationships, well
Speaker 1: levels of conscientiousness, and high levels of disagreeableness, neuroticism, narcissism,
Speaker 1: and poor mental health outcomes. Hebristic pride, along with its
Speaker 1: associated feelings of superiority and arrogance, facilitates dominance by motivating
Speaker 1: behaviors such as aggression, hostility, and manipulation. In contrast, prestige
Speaker 1: is paved with the emotional rush of accomplishment, confidence and success,
Speaker 1: and is fueled by dentic pride. Authentic pride is associated
Speaker 1: with pro social and achievement oriented behaviors. Authentic pride is
Speaker 1: associated with pro social and achievement oriented behaviors, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
Speaker 1: satisfying interpersonal relationships, and positive mental health. Critically, authentic pride
Speaker 1: is associated with genuine self esteem, considering yourself a person
Speaker 1: of value, not considering yourself superior to others. Authentic pride,
Speaker 1: along with its associated feelings of confidence and accomplishment, facilitate
Speaker 1: behaviors that are associated with attaining prestige. People who are confident, agreeable,
Speaker 1: hard working, energetic, kind, empathic, non dogmatic, and high and
Speaker 1: genuine self esteem inspire others and cause others to want
Speaker 1: to emulate them. As you can clearly see in this table,
Speaker 1: while both dominance and prestige were correlated with perceived influence
Speaker 1: and agency, only prestige was correlated with increased likability. It
Speaker 1: looks like you don't lose anything with prestige, but only
Speaker 1: gain in likability. It's time to review all of this
Speaker 1: research and come to a general summary of what most
Speaker 1: women want. What a woman want. Taken together, it seems
Speaker 1: like the ideal man for a date or romantic partner
Speaker 1: is assertive, confident, physically attractive to them, whatever that means
Speaker 1: to them, socially exciting, easygoing as in not controlling, sensitive, kind,
Speaker 1: and prestigious while not being aggressive, demanding, dominant, shy, or
Speaker 1: a pushover. I think that's a reasonable summary of the research.
Speaker 1: Now that may differ from the ideal man for a
Speaker 1: short term fling. The research suggests that for a short
Speaker 1: term affair, women may prefer physical attract in this trait
Speaker 1: over and prioritize that over other traits. But we'll have
Speaker 1: a lot more in a second to talk about the
Speaker 1: distinction between long term and short term meeting preferences. Still,
Speaker 1: we have some lingering questions about the quote nice guy,
Speaker 1: and I put nice guy in quotes because I think
Speaker 1: that's really important to distinguish the quote nice guy from
Speaker 1: the genuinely, genuinely nice guy. One lingering question we still
Speaker 1: have is whether the quote nice guy is too nice.
Speaker 1: As my friend the advice goddess Amy al Khon puts it, quote,
Speaker 1: Let's get something straight, the poor opposite of a bad
Speaker 1: boy is not a nice guy, but an overly nice guy.
Speaker 1: The difference is in the desperation nice guys call when
Speaker 1: they say they will overly nice guys call every twenty
Speaker 1: minutes to thank you for just being you. Kristin, my
Speaker 1: name is Christine. Their prey corrects, going out with an
Speaker 1: overly nice guy is like being beaten to death with
Speaker 1: a Hallmark card. That's from Amy Alcon. And here's an
Speaker 1: article by Sandy Mecky in Women's Republic called nice Guys
Speaker 1: and why you should avoid them at all costs. As
Speaker 1: Sandy puts it, quote niceness is being able to handle
Speaker 1: social situations with no conflict. It means treating people with
Speaker 1: polite manners. Nice means the ability to be inoffensive. Also
Speaker 1: from this article, she makes clear that nice guy in
Speaker 1: quotes is referring to a very specific group of guys.
Speaker 1: In her words, quote the group of guys we are
Speaker 1: talking about is the quote I am nice until I
Speaker 1: get what I want. Type of nice. Quote I will
Speaker 1: do anything and go out of my way to get
Speaker 1: what I want type of nice or being nice in
Speaker 1: fear of getting caught up in any conflicts and or
Speaker 1: rejection end quote. Sandy and Amy Alcon might both be
Speaker 1: onto something. Psychological research suggests that not just in the
Speaker 1: mating domain, but even in an organizational context, it really
Speaker 1: is possible to be too nice, and that the quote
Speaker 1: right touch is important. As you can see in this figure,
Speaker 1: there appears to be a curve linear relation between assertiveness
Speaker 1: and effectiveness. Too little interpersonal assertiveness and the rated effectiveness
Speaker 1: as a colleague or leader is low and too much
Speaker 1: and its rate is low. But there does seem to
Speaker 1: be a right touch of assertiveness for effectiveness in an
Speaker 1: organizational context, and the same seems to apply in the
Speaker 1: maining domain as well. Another issue is whether the quote
Speaker 1: nice guy is really just a euphemism for boring guy.
Speaker 1: Let's revisit this classic study by Bust and Barnes that
Speaker 1: I talked about early on in this episode. Yes, the
Speaker 1: number one most reported marital preference was kind considerate. However,
Speaker 1: right behind it, number two too was socially exciting. I
Speaker 1: think that's actually really interesting. So perhaps kind considerness without
Speaker 1: anything else is just by itself not sexually attractive or
Speaker 1: even attractive as a meat. We all are human, you know,
Speaker 1: and we all like excitement, a little bit of excitement.
Speaker 1: I think related to these other questions is the question
Speaker 1: are nice guys too available? Look Supply and demand is
Speaker 1: a real thing, like anything in life. If you come
Speaker 1: across as too available and not choosy. People just aren't
Speaker 1: going to be as interested in you. It's part of
Speaker 1: human nature, whether we like it or not. Also, we
Speaker 1: take a lot of our cues about the meat quality
Speaker 1: of an individual by looking at how others view them
Speaker 1: as a potential meat. The phrase in the psychological literature
Speaker 1: is called meat copying, and it's a very robust finding
Speaker 1: in psychology. As skywork Place and colleagues put it, when
Speaker 1: searching for a meat, one must gather information to determine
Speaker 1: the mate value of potential partners. By focusing on individuals
Speaker 1: who have been previously chosen by others, one selection of
Speaker 1: mates can be influenced by another successful search, a phenomenon
Speaker 1: known as mate copying. Place In colleagues did a real
Speaker 1: world test of this, having people report on their real
Speaker 1: mating interest in video recordings of speed dates, finding that
Speaker 1: both male and female participants showed maate copying effects of
Speaker 1: heightened short term and long term relationship interest toward individuals
Speaker 1: and dates they perceived as successful in the In the
Speaker 1: speed dating they also found that the relative attractiveness of
Speaker 1: observers and the observed played a mediating role in whom
Speaker 1: an individual will choose to copy with higher physical attractiveness,
Speaker 1: obviously having the effect there. So again, physical attractiveness matters.
Speaker 1: Consider this study from twenty ten called Rejection Hurts the
Speaker 1: effect of being dumped on subsequent mating efforts. Christine Stanek
Speaker 1: and colleagues found that finding out potential partners were rejected
Speaker 1: by their last partner negatively affected their desire to pursue
Speaker 1: a relationship with them. What's more, these scenarios produced intriguing
Speaker 1: sex differences, such that men's ratings of women fell after
Speaker 1: learning she had rejected her last partner, but women's ratings
Speaker 1: of men increased after the same information was introduced. However,
Speaker 1: in terms of sex differences, failing to disclose information about
Speaker 1: a past relationship was unappealing to both men and women,
Speaker 1: though particularly so for women. Now that we've talked about
Speaker 1: what most women seem to want and covered some additional
Speaker 1: nuances about the quote nice guy, let's acknowledge that individual
Speaker 1: differences matter. Another way of putting this is what do
Speaker 1: some women want. You may have heard the phrase opposites attract,
Speaker 1: but that's not what the research actually shows. It seems
Speaker 1: like the truth of the matter is that like attracts
Speaker 1: like I think. This study is a really good example
Speaker 1: of this. This study is called do Psychopathic Birds of
Speaker 1: a feather Flock together? Psychopathic personality, traits and romantic preferences.
Speaker 1: They found quite clearly that women with psychopathic traits were
Speaker 1: attracted to males with psychopathic traits, so that really is
Speaker 1: a thing. Another important individual differences variable is socio sexuality.
Speaker 1: But before I explain what socio sexuality is, I want
Speaker 1: to make very clear that it's possible to score high
Speaker 1: in social sexuality and not be a psychopath, so the
Speaker 1: two are not synonymous. Quite simply, the socio sexuality dimension
Speaker 1: of human personality has to do with how high your
Speaker 1: sex drive is. Socio Sexuality researchers measure social sexuality through
Speaker 1: behaviors such as how many different sexual partners have you
Speaker 1: had sex within the past twelve months, attitude such as
Speaker 1: sex without love is okay, and desire such as I
Speaker 1: have frequent fantasies about having sex with someone I'm not
Speaker 1: in a committed romantic relationship with. So social sexuality difference
Speaker 1: does a matter. For some women who score very low
Speaker 1: in social sexuality, they wouldn't even think about having sex
Speaker 1: outside of marriage. Or having sex without love. It's just
Speaker 1: so far into them to even think of such a thing.
Speaker 1: But for a lot of women who score high in
Speaker 1: social sexuality, and I don't judge either way. I'm very
Speaker 1: sex positive. Women with high social sexuality have a very
Speaker 1: high sex drive and just love love having sex with
Speaker 1: as many different partners as possible, and love doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be the central equation for them. And perhaps for
Speaker 1: them they're looking for the kinds of traits that people
Speaker 1: look more for in short term partners, such as physical
Speaker 1: attractiveness and niceness, just isn't as important for them for
Speaker 1: wanting to have sex. I mean, look, you know, women
Speaker 1: and men are both human. I think it's very obvious
Speaker 1: to think about men and their desire for short term
Speaker 1: affairs and what they're looking for. It's very you can
Speaker 1: think about men, and it's very easy to think about
Speaker 1: men and what they look for when they're looking for
Speaker 1: a short term fling. But I think unfortunately society sometimes
Speaker 1: tends to shame women who have the same desires, and
Speaker 1: I do think that is very unfortunate. I just want
Speaker 1: to introduce this individual differences variable as a very important consideration,
Speaker 1: and a lot of things we're talking about today. Another
Speaker 1: individual difference is variable that's important is sexism. Sexism does
Speaker 1: seem to have an effect on who we're attracted to,
Speaker 1: and researchers have actually identified two different types of sexism.
Speaker 1: Hostile sexism, which is antipathy towards women who are viewed
Speaker 1: as trying to take men's power, such as quote women
Speaker 1: seek to gain power by gaining control over men, and
Speaker 1: benevolent sexism, which is endorsement of subjectively positive yet stereotypic
Speaker 1: beliefs towards women, such as quote, a good woman should
Speaker 1: be set on a pedestal by her man. This study
Speaker 1: by Jeffrey holland colleagues brings all of this together. The
Speaker 1: researchers came up with a measure of quote assertive strategies
Speaker 1: by combing through two popular books written by speed seduction gurus,
Speaker 1: The Game and The Pickup Artist. This is a picture
Speaker 1: here of a very well known pickup artist who had
Speaker 1: his own TV show. His name is called Mystery, and
Speaker 1: he argued that to get women, you know, you really
Speaker 1: have to put on this fancy outfits, put on these
Speaker 1: fancy outfits. You have to nig women, you know, kind
Speaker 1: of putting them down a little bit, keeping them on
Speaker 1: their toes, kind of making sure you kind of maintain
Speaker 1: power at all times. Well, the researchers operationalize this and
Speaker 1: came up with a scale of assertive courtship strategies, and
Speaker 1: based on their own interpretation of these techniques, they came
Speaker 1: up with this fourteen items scale, a set seeing three
Speaker 1: particular assertive courtship strategies. The first is competition, so includes
Speaker 1: things like compete with other men who are interested in
Speaker 1: her even if she is with another guy, try to
Speaker 1: pick her up, and if she rejects, you don't give
Speaker 1: up easily. The second set of techniques is isolation, so
Speaker 1: try to get her alone or let her know you
Speaker 1: are in control, or find if she came to the
Speaker 1: party alone so you can take control of the situation.
Speaker 1: And the third class of techniques is teasing or as
Speaker 1: the pickup artist called nagging, which includes things such as
Speaker 1: pick on her appearance or behavior, be a little insulting
Speaker 1: to her, and make a few jokes at her expense.
Speaker 1: So what do the researchers find. They found that socio
Speaker 1: sexuality was associated with a preference for assertive strategies. In
Speaker 1: particular men high in socio sexuality were more likely to
Speaker 1: employ assertive strategies, and women high in social sexuality were
Speaker 1: more likely to be receptive to assertive strategies. But additionally,
Speaker 1: sexism also mattered in both the college and adult samples.
Speaker 1: Women scoring high in hostile and benevolent sexism traits were
Speaker 1: more receptive to assertive courtship strategies. Among college students, there
Speaker 1: was an interaction. Women with a combination of high social
Speaker 1: sexuality and high hostile sexism preferred men's dominant courtship strategy
Speaker 1: the most. Only in the adult sample, however, was male
Speaker 1: sexism related to the use of assertive strategies. With a
Speaker 1: positive association between hostile sexism and assertive strategy use, the
Speaker 1: researchers suggest that people prefer courtship strategies that match their
Speaker 1: same quote courtship script. The study also highlights the importance
Speaker 1: of social sexuality in mat preferences and the importance of
Speaker 1: looking at different age groups college adults when studied courtship strategies.
Speaker 1: Many of these assertive courtship behaviors may be more prevalent
Speaker 1: in college, lowering the variation in courtship strategies and making
Speaker 1: it more difficult for researchers to find an effect. It
Speaker 1: would also be interesting to see the effect of courtship
Speaker 1: behavior strategy use by females, but this study did not
Speaker 1: look at that in particular. Now we can add even
Speaker 1: further nuance here by asking what do some women want
Speaker 1: some of the time. Research suggests that women show changes
Speaker 1: in their mating preferences across the ovulatory cycle. In particular,
Speaker 1: research shows that women's preferences for a short term meat
Speaker 1: who has quote good genes is enhanced when women are
Speaker 1: most fertile in their cycle. These trait indicators, such as
Speaker 1: physical attractiveness, muscularity, being socially respected, and being confrontative, should
Speaker 1: also be traits that most women value more in short
Speaker 1: term than long term meats. The results of a study
Speaker 1: by Ganghestan and colleagues support the good genes hypothesis. When
Speaker 1: women are fertile and rating men's attractiveness as short term partners,
Speaker 1: they are particularly attracted to traits that tend to be
Speaker 1: valued in short term meets. No preference shifts in favor
Speaker 1: of traits deem more valuable in long term meats such
Speaker 1: as good father, faithful, warm, and financially successful were found
Speaker 1: across the ablatory cycle. As the researchers conclude, women are
Speaker 1: attracted to features attractive in short term meets, but not
Speaker 1: long term meets when fertile, and when their partners do
Speaker 1: not possess these features, they are particularly drawn to men
Speaker 1: other than their partners. As most of these studies do
Speaker 1: not find changes in sexual desire across the cycle, sexual
Speaker 1: desire per se is probably not responsible for these effects.
Speaker 1: That's super interesting nuance. Now you may note that in
Speaker 1: the chart that I showed, intelligence wasn't considered particularly important
Speaker 1: for a shorting by most of the women in the
Speaker 1: study at their height of their ovltrary cycle. However, I
Speaker 1: want to add some additional nuance here by highlighting a
Speaker 1: study by Hazelton and Miller in two thousand and six
Speaker 1: which found that women especially value creative talent overwealth when
Speaker 1: they are ovulating and evaluating men as short term meats.
Speaker 1: So maybe creativity more than intelligence is showing the effect. However,
Speaker 1: is showing the effect. What's more, I've personally conducted a
Speaker 1: number of studies with my colleagues suggesting that creativity is
Speaker 1: very attractive for both short term and long term meats,
Speaker 1: and when it comes to intelligence, I wouldn't just count
Speaker 1: out intelligence as sexy. In this study that I published
Speaker 1: with my colleagues called who finds Bill Gates Sexy? Creative
Speaker 1: meat preferences as a function of cognitoibility, personality, and creative achievement,
Speaker 1: we found it really depends on the IQ and intellectual
Speaker 1: curiosity of the female. We found that women with a
Speaker 1: high IQ and with a ravenous intellectual curiosity did absolutely
Speaker 1: find intelligent men sexy for a short term affair. So
Speaker 1: where my sapio sexual is at? What? Now? Before we
Speaker 1: leave this whole discussion today, I don't want to give
Speaker 1: you the impression that nice guys always finished last in
Speaker 1: the bedroom, because the research actually shows that nice guys
Speaker 1: don't finish last in the bedroom. Glinski and Sonnenstein did
Speaker 1: one of the largest ever studies on this topic, analyzing
Speaker 1: three thy two hundred students aged eighteen to twenty six
Speaker 1: years old who had taken part in the third wave
Speaker 1: of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Overall, they
Speaker 1: found that men were more likely than women to report
Speaker 1: having had orgasms during sex eighty seven percent of men,
Speaker 1: compared with only forty seven percent of women. Men on average,
Speaker 1: were also more likely to enjoy giving oral sex than
Speaker 1: women were, which is interesting suggesting that men might not
Speaker 1: be as selfish in bed as stereotypes might have it.
Speaker 1: In terms of individual differences, though, high self esteem, autonomy,
Speaker 1: and empathy were associated with greater total sexual pleasure, frequency
Speaker 1: of orgasm, enjoyment level for giving and receiving oral sex
Speaker 1: and females, whereas only empathy was associated with total sexual
Speaker 1: pleasure among the men in the study. Among men, autonomy
Speaker 1: was positively correlated to the frequency of orgasm, whereas self
Speaker 1: esteem was linked to the enjoyment of giving oral sex.
Speaker 1: The researcher suggests that those with higher levels of empathy
Speaker 1: are more responsive to their partner's needs, and their partner
Speaker 1: is thus more responsive in return. Therefore, it seems as
Speaker 1: though nice guys may finish last where it really counts,
Speaker 1: in the bedroom. Okay, let's take a deep breath. We've
Speaker 1: covered so much so far in this series, and I
Speaker 1: know it's a lot to process. Let me take all
Speaker 1: the scientific findings and attempt to give my best advice.
Speaker 1: Let's start out with advice for the quote nice guy.
Speaker 1: If you aren't getting the mating results you want, you
Speaker 1: may want to hold off on becoming a card carrying
Speaker 1: narcissistic psychopath. You may only need to make some minor adjustments.
Speaker 1: Here are some tips. One, dial down your eagerness, hold
Speaker 1: your horses, cowboy. Women want quality men, and quality men.
Speaker 1: Don't act desperate. It is simple supply and demand. The
Speaker 1: more a guy acts like he's in short supply, the
Speaker 1: more a women will demand him. Two. Be more playful
Speaker 1: and interesting. You may be boring dates and scaring women
Speaker 1: away because you're too serious and anxious. Try watching some
Speaker 1: comedy before you go out to get yourself in a
Speaker 1: playful frame of mind, or take a date to a
Speaker 1: stand up comedy show. It's my preference personally. Three More
Speaker 1: you're assertive. If you are constantly being put in the
Speaker 1: quote friend zone, perhaps you are not being assertive enough
Speaker 1: about what you want. There's a difference between dominance and assertiveness.
Speaker 1: Get out of your comfort zone by making bold, romantic gestures.
Speaker 1: They won't always work out, but at least it gives
Speaker 1: a girl a chance to see you in the way
Speaker 1: you want her to see you. If you are nervous,
Speaker 1: remember women find honesty sexy, which leads me to number four.
Speaker 1: Be authentic, honest, and direct. Don't try to be the
Speaker 1: kind of man you think women want, but play up
Speaker 1: your own unique strengths. A healthy dose of self promotion
Speaker 1: is okay. Own yourself. Women can tell when you're trying
Speaker 1: to be something you're not. Jerks don't try to be
Speaker 1: nice guys, so why should nice guys try to be jerks?
Speaker 1: Five Get out of your head. Instead of worrying about
Speaker 1: following a set of rules that puts you too much
Speaker 1: in your own head and creates unnecessary anxiety, direct your
Speaker 1: attention to the external world. Ask really interesting questions. This
Speaker 1: relates to number six. Listen, ask a woman questions and
Speaker 1: genuinely care about her answers. Women like to be understood
Speaker 1: and will appreciate that you care about what they have
Speaker 1: to say. Too much self focus will come across as unattractive.
Speaker 1: Women really do like to be seen and valued. Seven.
Speaker 1: Do good things for others. Smile at strangers, help granny's
Speaker 1: cross the street, volunteer at to homeless shelter, do habitat
Speaker 1: for humanity. We're in a culturally valued skill and become
Speaker 1: really good at it. Instead of trying to manufacture attraction,
Speaker 1: work on genuinely becoming the type of man women want.
Speaker 1: Then attraction will come naturally as a result, Eat be
Speaker 1: flexible and handle rejection graciously. Honestly, I think there are
Speaker 1: aspects of the dark triad that the quote nice guy
Speaker 1: can learn without becoming a bad person. It is possible
Speaker 1: to have multiple social strategies at your disposal, one aagentic
Speaker 1: and measured by the dark triad, and one pro social,
Speaker 1: measured with altruistic behavior, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. There certainly are
Speaker 1: times when an altruistic cooperative orientation is essential, such as
Speaker 1: when forming meaningful reciprocal relationships and developing a skill that
Speaker 1: helps humanity. And I also think there are times when
Speaker 1: you may want to adopt an agentic social strategy, such
Speaker 1: as when you want to hold your ground or your
Speaker 1: beliefs and maintain your self respect or in quickly bouncing
Speaker 1: back from rejection. Rejection is just a normal part of
Speaker 1: the of the courtship process and the and the mating domain.
Speaker 1: It's something you're just going to have to get used to.
Speaker 1: And the good news is the more you get rejected,
Speaker 1: the more comfortable you get with rejection. This is what
Speaker 1: my friend told me. Okay, now here are some advice
Speaker 1: for women. One understand the narcissistic mindset. Narcissistics are easy
Speaker 1: to spot and easy to avoid. Once you understand the
Speaker 1: narcissists mindset and what drives them, you realize just how
Speaker 1: predictable they really are. Beware of men who talk about themselves,
Speaker 1: name drop, or spend more time in the mirror than
Speaker 1: you do. Men who put others down, especially in feerors
Speaker 1: and strangers, and men who react too harshly to criticism
Speaker 1: and see criticism or rejection where it doesn't even exist. Finally,
Speaker 1: be on the lookout for men who act entitle to you.
Speaker 1: That's a huge red flag. Number two slow down. Relationships
Speaker 1: with narcissists start off with a bang literally but fizzle
Speaker 1: out fast. Relationships with good guys may take more time
Speaker 1: to develop, but may ultimately be more satisfying and exciting.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for a long term relationship, don't put
Speaker 1: so much stock in your initial attraction and be open
Speaker 1: minded to guys who may not be as flashy at
Speaker 1: first sight. Three. Assess him in multiple contexts. Sometimes extroverts
Speaker 1: can be very hard to distinguish from narcissists at first encounter.
Speaker 1: If you are attracted to a guy at first encounter,
Speaker 1: assess him in multiple contexts before getting in too deep.
Speaker 1: Four ask for a dating resume. If he has had
Speaker 1: a lot of failed relationships or has no balls because
Speaker 1: they've been cut off by a prior meat, that's not
Speaker 1: a good sign. Five. Listen to your friends. If your
Speaker 1: friends stopped hanging out with you because they don't want
Speaker 1: to go anywhere near your new boyfriend, that's an important sign.
Speaker 1: If everyone else thinks you're dating a self absorbed narcissist,
Speaker 1: you probably are. Six. Look at where you're going to
Speaker 1: find a meat. If you frequent bars and clubs, you're
Speaker 1: more likely to encounter narcissists on the prow Avoid breeding
Speaker 1: grounds for narcissists. Seven. Give genuinely nice guys a chance.
Speaker 1: Not quote nice guys, but really nice guys. They're out there,
Speaker 1: they exist. Stable and secure guys don't tend to wear
Speaker 1: flashy neon lights on their shirts. If a guy looks
Speaker 1: like he's genuinely interested in you and it is being nice,
Speaker 1: don't automatically assume the guy is weak. Some of the
Speaker 1: most self assured and cocky guys are actually the most
Speaker 1: insecure and the most narcissistic, and many guys with the
Speaker 1: worst quote game make for the most satisfying and exciting
Speaker 1: relationship partners like Mike We're over here a producer. Eight.
Speaker 1: If you tend to constantly be attracted to narcissists, it
Speaker 1: might be time for you to examine, and I mean
Speaker 1: really examine why you are attracted to narcissists. If you
Speaker 1: are searching for an ambitious and exciting man who's not
Speaker 1: too nice, you're likely to be drawn to many narcissists. Also,
Speaker 1: if you're always looking for excitement rather than emotional closeness,
Speaker 1: you're more likely to be drawn to narcissists, notes psychologist W.
Speaker 1: Keith Campbell. What narcissistic need of yours do narcissists exploit?
Speaker 1: It's really important to ask yourself that question. Understanding why
Speaker 1: you eight narcissistic men will help you make significant changes
Speaker 1: to your life. Nine. Examine why bad boys tend to
Speaker 1: be attracted to you. A body of research suggests there
Speaker 1: are certainly body language cues that are more prominent among
Speaker 1: those vulnerable to victimization. For instance, Grayson and Stein found
Speaker 1: that potential victims differed from non victims with respect of
Speaker 1: five motion cues, longer or shorter strides, non lateral weight shifts,
Speaker 1: gestured versus postural movements and foot movement. Potential victims tended
Speaker 1: to lift their feet higher while walking. A key factor
Speaker 1: in victimization seems to be nonverbal cues of dominance for submissiveness.
Speaker 1: We don't want a victim Blaine here, but I think
Speaker 1: knowledge is power, so can anything be done? Prison psychologist
Speaker 1: Mariso Morrow, who deals with criminals and people with psychopathic traits,
Speaker 1: notes that quote, besides one's walk, individuals can purposefully project
Speaker 1: dominance thereby potentially decreasing proceed vulnerability by increasing eye contact,
Speaker 1: decreasing the use of small body movements of the feet
Speaker 1: in hand, and increasing large body movements or changes in
Speaker 1: postural positioning. Ten. Don't let narcissists get into your head.
Speaker 1: Narcissists are really good at exploiting people's emotional weaknesses and insecurities.
Speaker 1: If you find yourself constantly questioning yourself and feeling guilty
Speaker 1: for things your partners really should be guilty for doing themselves,
Speaker 1: this is a sign that the narcissists tactics have succeeded.
Speaker 1: Recognize this and don't let his mind games get into
Speaker 1: your head. Eleven, Get out as soon as you can.
Speaker 1: I know this can be easier than done, especially if
Speaker 1: you're invested in some way. But if you do find
Speaker 1: yourself in a relationship with a narcissist, don't try to
Speaker 1: change him. Remember he enjoys being a narcissist. He's proud
Speaker 1: of it. Be prepared to cut off the relationship swiftly
Speaker 1: and abruptly. The more emotionally attached to get, the or
Speaker 1: it will be to leave the relationship, and the easier
Speaker 1: it will be for the narcissists to manipulate you. Twelve.
Speaker 1: Take responsibility for your situation. As W. Keith Campbell notes, quote,
Speaker 1: understand the situation you're in does not reflect your personality,
Speaker 1: and you can change your circumstance. Responsibility is the ability
Speaker 1: to respond. I completely agree with that. I'll put on
Speaker 1: my jacket for this slide. I'm so ridiculous. Now some
Speaker 1: advice for the bad boy. If you're tired of living
Speaker 1: the fast life, it might be time for you to
Speaker 1: dial down the signals that you're looking for a short
Speaker 1: term affair, such as sexual language, approaching every woman in sight,
Speaker 1: and work on your empathy and relationship skills. Also, you
Speaker 1: might want to try acquiring socially valuable skills that help others.
Speaker 1: If you found this episode of the Human Potential Lab interesting,
Speaker 1: how we recommend reading my book co authored with Glen Gear,
Speaker 1: called Mating Intelligence Unleashed. A lot of the studies I
Speaker 1: mentioned in this episode are included in the book, and
Speaker 1: the book goes even deeper into the various aspects of
Speaker 1: mating intelligence. Finally, and I'm going to take off my
Speaker 1: jockeys for this, I'd like to take a step back
Speaker 1: a moment and give a human note. In reviewing this
Speaker 1: vast and complex literature, I felt like something was missing.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but it all feels so
Speaker 1: robotic and unhuman, as if we're all just automaton robots
Speaker 1: choosing quote good genes or quote good providers. I know
Speaker 1: it can certainly feel that way when we're young and
Speaker 1: in the clubs and feel like the only guys who
Speaker 1: get success with women are the cocky, muscular ones. However,
Speaker 1: I believe that as we mature and move past college
Speaker 1: age and get older and more secure in who we
Speaker 1: are and what we want out of life, both men
Speaker 1: and women start to realize what really matters in life.
Speaker 1: When choosing a partner, we start to value different things
Speaker 1: and just want to be with someone who makes us
Speaker 1: feel safe, to explore all sides of ourselves and to
Speaker 1: grow together with a lot of the research I reviewed
Speaker 1: is unfortunately conducted on college aged students, and even the
Speaker 1: research conducted on adults is focused on people choosing hypothetical scenarios.
Speaker 1: In the real world, I think we are attracted to
Speaker 1: a vibe in energy and a sense of connectedness with
Speaker 1: another person. Now, look, I could just be fooling myself
Speaker 1: and only saying what I wish to be true, but
Speaker 1: I really do believe this to be true. I believe
Speaker 1: that the most fulfilling and meaningful relationships grow over time
Speaker 1: and often with people who get you and who you
Speaker 1: get in return. But what do you think? Leave me
Speaker 1: comments on the YouTube page and let me know what
Speaker 1: you think. I really genuinely care. I wish you all
Speaker 1: the very best in your mating goals, and I hope
Speaker 1: you found this episode comprehensive, valuable, maybe even a little entertaining,
Speaker 1: and stay tuned for further episodes of The Human Potential Lab.