Abdul-Aziz

iNow, There is no place for making vicious ad hominem attacks against others in the great halls of science. Either say something intelligent or don't say anything at all.

Why do women avoid men of high intelligence? I once asked the noted anthropologist Donald Symons (University of California in Santa Barbara), and the evolutionary psychologists David Buss (University of Texas) and David C. Geary (University of Missouri) this rather quite interesting question: The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: "Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius." A close personal acquaintance of mine seems to believe that most women are physically repelled by men of high intelligence because most women are seeking a man who can be easily manipulated mentally into handing over whatever natural resources he is capable of commanding. He has also informed me that the more highly intelligent a man is, the greater will be his risk of having to endure a lifetime of perpetual celibacy given the statistical rarity of female intellectuals and the fact that "likes generally tend to attract likes" (women, being generally average in intelligence, pursue men who are similarly average in mental capacity). Certain studies would seem to bear this out; for example, a study conducted by C.T. Halpern et al (2000) suggests that "higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity in adolescence and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor." A number of writers, such as Clifford Pickover (Strange Brains) and Cesare Lombroso (The Man of Genius) before him, have also suggested that both intellectual giftedness and especially genius are highly correlated with celibacy, even gynophobia. I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny? What do you think, Professor? Dr. Symons responded: Here are a few observations re your questions. Human intelligence increased dramatically over several million years of evolution, which wouldn't have happened if intelligent men were at a reproductive disadvantage. Studies of women's mating criteria consistently show that intelligence is valued by women (cf David Buss's books on human mating). Intelligence is near, but not at the top of the list, and there's no reason to suppose that high intelligence by iteself can compensate for other deficits. Furthermore, other female mating criteria, such as high status, economic prowess and being funny correlate positively (though, of course,imperfectly) with intelligence. I would guess that geniuses like Newton, who is not known to ever have had sex with a woman, were celibate by choice, because of odd character quirks, and not because they were too intelligent to be attractive. Einstein certainly did well with women, and it sure wasn't because of the remorseless precision of his profile. Studies of preliterate peoples have consistently shown that headmen and shamans, who tend to have more wives and children, are regularly described as unusually intelligent. These are the societies that most closely resemble those that obtained during most of human evolution. And in modern industrialized societies, which diverge in many ways from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, upper classes have fewer children because they choose to and have the means to (reliable contraceptives), not because upper class men can't find wives or other sexual partners. The anthropologist April Gorry analyzed the character traits of the heroes of 45 highly successful romance novels, written by and for women. Heroes were described as muscular (45/45), handsome (44), strong (42), large (35) and so forth, and no hero was described as the opposite of any of these things. Heroes also had various character traits, such as sexually bold (40), calm (39), confident (39), etc., and in 38 of the 45 novels he was explicitly described as intelligent. No hero was described as not having any of these traits or of being unintelligent. I find these data especially compelling, because women are voting for these books with their money, and the market will produce the kinds of romantic fantasies that women want to read. In sum, I think that intelligence is a highly valued trait in men, and always has been, though it may not be number one on the list, and certainly can't compensate, for most women, if other highly desirable traits are absent. Don Symons Here is Dr. Geary’s reply: Well, there are studies that suggest that women are attracted to these traits in men. But, there is a negative correlation between IQ and men’s reproductive success; positive correlation for income. My guess is that women do not want men who are too extreme on any trait; they want tall, but not too tall, e.g. This is probably true of IQ and for reasons you state. What is too extreme? I don’t know, but probably once you get passed the 145 range (3 standard deviations > mean), you’re probably getting there. Of course, someone this bright should be able to figure out how to cover this up, except when necessary. Dave David C. Geary, Ph.D. University of Missouri Here is the response of Dr. Buss: Interesting thoughts, but they are not supported by my data, nor the studies of others. Women are indeed attracted to intelligent men, and in fact marry men on average 4 IQ points higher than their own. At the tails of the distribution, of course, one runs into trouble; so yes, at the very high ends, both men and women have problems finding someone they can talk to. Still, women are drawn to men smarter than they are; men are more willing to settle for a woman less intelligent, since they prioritize looks and other qualities more. Thanks for the interesting questions. David Buss It has always been my personal experience that most women are frightened of men who are much more intellectual and more sophisticated than they are; all of the most intelligent/creative men I have ever known have always been year-round dateless wonders. Survey after survey seems to indicate that women value intelligence as a desirable personality characteristic to be found in a potential mate, however all of my friends have reliably informed me that discussing quantum mechanics, single nucleotide polymorphisms, or even the relative merits of Kantianist idealism over Hegelian dialectics is liable to have a woman quickly reaching for the front door than in any mood to take off her panties. In accordance with the foregoing, a large body of scientific research does suggest that there exists a sharp discrepancy between what a woman says she wants and what she actually does. After all, many women may verbalize a desire for intelligent male sex partners; unfortunately, I’ve even heard stories about harmless intellectuals (who are almost always men) driving away hordes of supposedly available women at parties simply by mentioning some esoterica concerning Einstein’s theory of special relativity or even something much more readily comprehensible as the novels of Thomas Hardy. So, I guess my question is, do women really avoid men who are highly intelligent? Why have generations of engineers, mathematicians, and more abstract philosophers always experienced considerable difficulties in attracting women (minus the expenditure of financial wealth)? Are women frightened of men who happen to be highly intelligent? Why do women find men of high intelligence to be so intimidating (and so repulsive as well)? Your responses and input would be highly appreciated.

No, my point is that a substantial percentage of women prefer "bad boys" (think the "Dark Triad" of Jonason et al) over "nice guys"; these women find "bad boys" much more attractive and more socially desirable than males who possess altruisic behaviour and personality characteristics. To everyone: Let's keep this thread open because this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed. Thank you.

Have you ever considered sending an e-mail to faculty of psychiatry professors at a prestigious university? You would probably get more responses.

I don't think homosexuality is entirely biological in origin, neither do I believe that it is completely socially constructed. Homosexuality is not some monolithic entity, but exists along a homosexual continuum punctuated by readily distinguishable "homosexualities", with one form of homosexuality blending imperceptibly into another form of homosexuality. Although some "homosexualities" maybe purely biological in origin, others can involve aspects of both genetics and social constructionism, and still other "homosexualities" can be entirely socially constructed.

Animals, particularly mammalian species, are capable of forming close attachment bonds, however I don't think elephants and humans have the same capacity to love. Humans can provide, rear, and nurture dogs to maturity through the capacity of selfless love, whereas I'm not so sure elephants are capable of doing the same thing.

Well, there is some scientific research which suggests that canines can experience learned helplessness, which is a rudimentary form of depression.

In the distant evolutionary past, as well as in all pre-industrial, agricultural societies, men who possessed high levels of physical strength, athletic prowess, natural aggression, and dominance, were those deemed most capable of providing for and defending a woman and her children. In an age where might made right and tilling the land for sustenance involved an incredible amount of physical strength, it made perfect evolutionary sense for a woman to choose a warrior or a really tough "bad boy". A scholar, a poet, or a philosopher would stand no chance before a horde of wandering barbarians, unpaid soldiers, and merciless nomads, enabling the woman and her children to be slaughtered in cold blood. However, if a woman selected a man who was known for having an aggressive, violent, even murderous temperament, she was simply making a long-term investment in the eventual success of her future reproductive strategy. Secondly, it also made sense for women to choose "bad boys" over "nice guys" (unless they were members of the aristocracy) given the rudimentary technology and high levels of physical strength and aggression involved in providing for a family; accordingly, really tough "bad boys" were much more successful hunters, farmers, defenders, and killers. Even today, in a world where women are physically weaker and less aggressive than men and often subject to the greater violence and cruelty of dominant males, it still makes sense for a woman to select "tough guys" over "nice guys" (unless they happen to be financially well-off). Hundreds of thousands of women are often raped, tortured, mutilated, and even brutally killed each year, especially in Third World countries, making it necessary for a substantial percentage of women to follow their primitive evolutionary drives and value having physical strength and a violent temperament in a male sex partner, especially when financial wealth is very scarce. Furthermore, the 1979 "sexy sons" hypothesis developed by a team of evolutionary biologists named Weatherhead and Robertson, postulates that a man's ability to provide for his wife and children is irrelevant to his genetic value as a potential father of viable offspring. Women would select an "attractive" male (a "bad boy") on the basis of such testosterone-related features as physical strength, athletic prowess, bilateral symmetry, aggression, dominance, masculinity and social presence, as opposed to the weakness and kindness of "unattractive", more feminised males ("nice guys"). Thus, taking the laws of genetic transmission into account, selecting "bad boys" as potential mates would produce more "bad boys" who would be just as tough as their fathers and able to compete against other "bad boys" in the struggle for reproductive access to available females. From an evolutionary biological point of view, "nice guys" would not be considered attractive partners because they would be publicly humiliated, beaten up, and even killed by rival dominant males, making the woman unable to pursue a viable reproductive strategy. The "bad boy" construct has already been operationalized by a variety of researchers as representing macho, dominant, aggressive individuals with violent temperaments, the type of male sex partner that a significant percentage of women idolize in their romantic fantasies. The psychopath and the murderous criminal represent the "bad boy" construct in its extreme form. Please do not quote from textbooks as these do not prove anything. There is a substantial amount of current scientific research which suggests that women are attracted to both affluent males and "bad boys" as potential sex partners. Although the majority of women are largely attracted to such traits as male socio-economic status and financial wealth, a substantial percentage of women are also attracted to "bad boys", such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, individuals who would guarantee the woman large numbers of future grandchildren, who would in turn produce more "bad boys" and even greater numbers of offspring. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, and I posted a post debunking all of your objections, however you did not bother to take the time to read it. The research of Herold and Milhausen (1999) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2003) clearly demonstrates that a significant percentage of women are attracted to "bad boys", however this contention is refuted by McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006), who demonstrate conclusively that "bad boys" are preferred for both short-term and long-term relationships and that "nice guys" are both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable. The study of Jensen-Campbell et al (1995) demonstrates that women are attracted to a mixture of both "nice guy" and "bad boy" traits, but still provides conclusive proof that women find "nice guys" to be sexually unattractive. However, the research of Jensen-Campbell et al. has been superseded by McDaniel and even that has been superseded by the current 2006 research of Urbaniak and Kilman. No, I did not post my original theory again, what I did post was a further elaboration and clarification of my original theory, thoroughly debunking all of the previous claims made by you. All of your questions have been answered and your objections have been refuted. Excuse me, but I did not double post anything. I simply posted research that both clarified and totally refuted your objections. Stop dismissing my work as double-postage, especially when you obviously do not possess the ability to counter any of the arguments already presented (which are fairly obvious to begin with). I did, and on numerous occasions as a matter of fact; however, you chose to deliberately ignore it over and over again, because it pointed to conclusions that you found uncomfortable. And again, I did not repost my theory; I strongly suggest you sit down and read it from beginning to end, instead of dismissing it without giving it due consideration. Science is about uncovering fact, not reinforcing the cozy, Alice-in-Wonderland world you prefer to inhabit.

I believe that, to a certain degree, mammalian species of animal and human beings share very similar emotions. For example, all of the more primitive emotions that we as human beings feel, such as pain, pleasure, loss, anger, animal attachment, fear, lust etc, are almost certainly experienced by animals, particularly by those belonging to mammalian species. However, more complex emotions such as empathy, compassion, sorrow, guilt, love, conscientiousness etc, seem to be found only in humans. Although a controversial field of inquiry, there is some evidence that certain species of animal, such as canines and even chimpanzees, are capable of such emotions as learned helplessness and mournful behaviour. The primatologist Jane Goodall observed that chimpanzees formed strong attachments with their young and were capable of exhibiting certain signs that resembled the emotion of sadness. Unfortunately, one difficulty with postulating the existence of animal emotionality is being able to differentiate between an emotive response that is really a genetically pre-programmed, physiological response to external stimuli and one that is based on genuine individual self-awareness (is the creature actually conscious of the pain it suffers?).

I have been trying to answer everybody's questions on this thread. However, I'm only human; I can't answer 20 people at once. I did not repost all of my arguments verbatim; I have also provided a considerable amount of clarification/elaboration on certain issues. All of the research I have cited definitively proves each one of my 3 contentions. The only sources that you criticized were either deliberately misinterpreted by you or not crucial in any way to my theory. However, I am open to suggestions and willing to listen to input that may prove to be invaluable sometime in the near future. As such, I am all ears. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHey, just a question: is that avatar really a pic of you? (I hope I don't sound invasive)

The term "evolutionist" is an ideological, not a scientific construct. It is an obscurantist word used by creationists and other nonscientists to smear their opponents and silence rational dissent. The world of empirical research has no place for ad hominem attacks on others.

No. What I did was elaborate on certain issues in order to provide sufficient clarification to first-time viewers of this thread. I just want people to be well aware of the issues at stake and what supporting information is available. Not only have I provided a tremendous amount of empirical research which supports all of the contentions I have made, but I have been actively participating in this debate since day one. Sometimes I cannot continue debating because of real world issues that need to be taken care of, but those are external factors of which I have no control. Otherwise, when I am here, I am always prepared to debate the issues. Are you serious? I presented a large amount of research which you not only failed to refute, but completely ignored, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, I'm wondering if we can find some common ground. Is it even possible? I realize that having open lines of communication is the only way to do this and I am prepared to go head to head on this issue. All I am looking for is answers; all I wish to do is understand why certain phenomena occur in the external world which lie beyond my control. All I really desire is sympathetic companions to aid me in my quest to find answers and not be presented with more and more questions.

All Recent Evidence Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” In the abstract of McDaniel’s paper, Why/Why not date a nice guy? (2005), it states: The results of the present study suggest that reasons for dating (i.e., not wanting physical contact, wanting stimulating conversation, and wanting an exclusive relationship) and perceived personality traits (i.e., sweet/nice and physically attractive) influence a young woman's desire to date a nice guy, and that perceived personality traits are better predictors of her choice of a man to date than are reasons for dating. However, what the author clearly states is that it is because women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys” that there is a sharp disconnect between a young woman’s reasons for dating and her spatio-temporal perception of which traits are attractive/unattractive in either a “nice guy” or a “bad boy”, creating a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance over the process of female reproductive choice. Although women claim to want “nice guys”, both stepwise and multiple regression analysis, as well as factor analysis, of the frequency tables generated by the collected statistical data demonstrated that being sweet/nice could neither be classified as an attractive or unattractive trait; instead, the statistical data revealed that women considered physical attractiveness to be a much more important consideration in their selection of a male sex partner than being sweet/nice, which was not even considered at all. McDaniel postulates that the “fatal attraction” hypothesis, in which a woman’s initial favourable impression of “nice guy” personality characteristics, such as being sweet/nice, can become negative perceptions of those characteristics, probably contributes to the female preference of “bad boys” over “nice guys”. McDaniel writes: The "fatal attraction" hypothesis may explain subsequent rejection of a nice guy because his sweet/nice guy caution may be read as loser/nice guy passivity. McDaniel provides further evidence that a woman’s reasons for dating are not as substantial as her perception of those personality traits which are characteristic of the target male by demonstrating that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Popular culture, as well as some academic researchers, have suggested that women prefer “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships, but “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships. However, multiple regression analysis of the data revealed that a woman’s desire for high commitment dating had almost nothing to do with whether she selected a “nice guy” or a “bad boy”; however, her desire for low commitment dating was positively correlated with her willingness to date a “bad boy”. McDaniel writes: Popular and academic texts claim that young women report wanting nice guys for committed relationships. However, regression analysis of the reasons for dating factors indicated that the high commitment reason for dating accounts very little for a young woman's desire to date a nice guy or a not-so-nice fun/sexy guy, and the low commitment dating factor was related only to an increase in the likelihood of dating a fun/sexy guy a second time. Given the centrality of low commitment dating as a mechanism which facilitates the intensification of a budding relationship into “coupledom”, the “bad boy” is ideally situated; because women find “nice guys” to be both socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, “nice guys” are not desired for low commitment dating and therefore cannot progress onwards to more long-term, stable relationships. McDaniel further observes: First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy's likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage. Thus, the 2005 research of McDaniel offers powerful evidence that women prefer “bad boys”, such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, over “nice guys”. The most recent social scientific research on the “nice guy” stereotype also suggests that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Urbaniak and Kilman, in their 2006 paper Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype, not only demolish the previous studies of Jensen-Campbell et al (1995), Herold and Milhausen (1999) and their own 2003 research, but also supersede the previous research of McDaniel. Urbaniak and Kilman found that women prefer “bad boys” or “jerks” for both short-term, casual dating and long-term, committed relationships, directly contradicting the findings of Herold and Milhausen (1999), as well as those of their own 2003 research, which suggested that “jerks” may be highly sought after for low-commitment dating, but that “nice guys” would be preferred for longer, more stable relationships. In this study, empirical observation of actual female socio-sexual behaviour was substituted for female self-reportage, constituting a significant methodological improvement over previous studies. Instead, overall male dating success, actual female selection of males on the basis of physical attractiveness and other variables, as well as objective measures of male niceness/agreeableness are employed as independent factors whose subsequent interrelationship and covariation are determined by sequential multiple regression analysis and other modes of statistical quantification. Thus, Urbaniak and Kilman found that women regarded such characteristics as being “nice” or possessing high levels of niceness/agreeableness as a major hindrance to establishing a committed, romantic relationship, whether of the casual or long-term variety. In their 2006 study, Urbaniak and Kilman test four hypotheses: 1. Within shorter-term, less-committed relationship contexts (i.e., casual-dating relationships, one-time sexual encounters, and casual-sex relationships), men's physical attractiveness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men's niceness/agreeableness. Women have been shown to place more emphasis on niceness/agreeableness in the context of long-term, romantic relationships (e.g., Regan, 1998a). Therefore, our second hypothesis: 2. Men's niceness/agreeableness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men's physical attractiveness in the committed/romantic relationship context. Women have rated men's niceness/agreeableness as a desirable characteristic in all relationship contexts (and not, in fact, as a hindrance; e.g., Regan et al., 2000). Thus, our third hypothesis: 3. In contrast to the nice guy stereotype, men's niceness/agreeableness would be a positive predictor of dating success across all four relationship contexts.As noted earlier, media references to the nice guy stereotype often reflect a categorical distinction in describing the "dating success" of archetypal "homely nice guys" versus "cute, macho guys". Our fourth hypothesis was formed to test the validity of this popular or "media-based" distinction by contrasting two subgroups of men: 4. Men rated relatively high in niceness/agreeableness but relatively low in physical attractiveness (i.e., "homely nice guys") would report greater long-term dating success than men rated relatively low in niceness but high in physical attractiveness ("cute, macho guys"). The reverse pattern was predicted regarding short-term sexual success. The results obtained by Urbaniak and Kilman for the first hypothesis, through bivariate correlation matrices and multiple regression analysis of the data obtained, was that low niceness/agreeableness and high physical attractiveness ensured success for “bad boys” in both short-term relationships and casual dating. Results generated for the second hypothesis suggested that men who lack niceness/agreeableness have much greater success in committed, romantic relationships than “nice guys”, who would have almost zero success in terms of establishing committed relationships. For the third hypothesis, it was found that men who possessed high levels of niceness/agreeableness fared badly across all relationship contexts. Not only was being nice/agreeable described as a socially undesirable trait by women in terms of casual dating, but it was also found that being nice, sweet, kind, or any of a number of other altruistic personality characteristics associated with niceness/agreeableness could be a major hindrance to the establishment of committed, long-term relationships with heterosexual females. Concerning the results generated for the fourth hypothesis, it was found that “cute, macho guys” had more success with both casual dating and long-term committed relationships than men who were high in measures of niceness/agreeableness. Taken together, the 2006 results of Urbaniak and Kilman suggest that women actually do prefer bad boys over nice guys after all. Being nice, kind, sweet, considerate, generous, compassionate, sympathetic, helpful etc, were actually perceived of by the vast majority of women as being highly disadvantageous, even being of negative consequence, when found in a potential male sex partner. These results both strongly reinforce and nicely complement the findings of Schmitt (2003) who, in The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity, found that low agreeableness/conscientiousness and high levels of gregariousness or extraversion, were strongly associated with sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with large volumes of available females, constituting a reproductively viable and evolutionarily sustainable life history strategy. In addition, these traits are also associated with such psycho-pathological conditions as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Schmitt writes: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16 362 participants from 52 nations responded to measures of the Big Five and risky sexuality. It was expected that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would be universally associated with relationship infidelity. Sexual promiscuity, in contrast, was expected to positively relate to extraversion and neuroticism. Analyses across 10 world regions revealed relationship infidelity was universally associated with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Sexual promiscuity was somewhat related to these traits as well, but was more highly related to extraversion across many, but not all, world regions. Both forms of risky sexual behaviour were generally unrelated to neuroticism and openness across cultures. Discussion focuses on possible explanations of regional differences in personality-sexuality linkages. In the conclusion to their 2006 research, Urbaniak and Kilman observe: Although variability in the importance of niceness/agreeableness across different relationship types was expected, the fact that low agreeableness, generally speaking, was more related to success across all the relationship contexts than high agreeableness was somewhat surprising. Previous studies have shown that women highly value niceness in committed/romantic partners (and still value niceness, if less-so, in more sexual contexts; e.g., Regan et al., 2000; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003). The present results, however, failed to show any clear advantage for the men who were highly nice/agreeable, even in the romantic context. As such, results from the present study actually are more consistent with the nice guy stereotype, overall, than were the results of our earlier study, which had suggested that the stereotype might be a myth. This contradictory finding suggests a discrepancy between which men women will say they prefer, or will choose in a (experimentally-manipulated) hypothetical scenario, and which men actually are successful--at least, by the men's own accounts. Hence, the current research of both McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) conclusively demonstrates that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Interestingly enough, the research of Bogaert and Fisher (1995) and Harris et al (2007) strongly reinforces the conclusions reached by both McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006). The fact that women are attracted to “bad boys”, such as violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, narcissists, wife batterers etc, is nicely complemented by research which suggests that psychopaths and men high in aggression, dominance, and testosterone attract large numbers of sex partners and easily form multiple short-term committed relationships. In Predictors of University Men’s Number of Sexual Partners, a study conducted by A.F. Bogaert and W.A. Fisher in 1995, it was found that the within-gender variation of differential reproductive success was heavily influenced by such things as normal individual differences in personality and psycho-physiological constitution. Significant correlational associations were found between such traits as hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, extraversion, levels of circulating androgens, physical attractiveness, and “Eysenck psychoticism”, with men who rated high on these measures having the greatest number of sex partners and greater overall reproductive success, in comparison to more normal, less pathological men. Bogaert and Fisher write: We examined the role of personality (e.g., hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking) and physical individual differences (testosterone, physical attractiveness) in predicting university men’s (N = 215) number of sexual partners. Significant zero-order correlations occurred between number of sexual partners and sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone. In addition, multiple regression analysis revealed significant increases in prediction with an additive combination of these individual differences, and some of these individual differences (e.g., sensation seeking) contributed unique variation to the prediction of the number of sexual partners. Finally, principal components analysis revealed a common personality factor labelled Disinhibition that may partly underlie the relationship between some of these individual differences and the number of sexual partners. ... In a study by Harris et al (2007), COERCIVE AND PRECOCIOUS SEXUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHY, it was revealed that the male psychopath is the quintessential Casanova, attracting large numbers of female sex partners and having numerous short-term relationships with women, a life history course routinely described by evolutionary psychologists and others of a socio-biological orientation as, in its more essential aspects, a reproductively adaptive strategy. According to Harris et al: Sexual behavior is closely associated with delinquency and crime. Although psychopaths, by definition, have many short-term sexual relationships, it has not been shown that sexuality is a core aspect of psychopathy. A Darwinian view of psychopathy led to the hypothesis that psychopaths have a unique sexuality involving early, frequent, and coercive sex. Our subjects were 512 sex offenders assessed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Five variables reflecting early, frequent, and coercive sex loaded on the same principal component in exploratory factor analysis on a subset of the sample, whereas PCL-R items pertaining to adult sexual behavior did not. Confirmatory factor analysis of the remaining subjects yielded a measurement model containingthree inter-correlated factors – the traditional two PCL-R factors, and coercive and precocious sexuality. Taxometric analyses gave evidence of a natural discontinuity underlying coercive and precocious sexuality. Coercive and precocious sexuality yielded statistically significant associations with other study variables predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. The present findings are consistent with prior empirical findings and support the hypothesis that psychopathy has been a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy. In addition, my previous three contentions are supported by a tremendous amount of scientific evidence. 1. Women, in general, are not attracted to “nice guys”, operationalized as altruistic male personality and behavioural characteristics. (Jensen-Campbell et al, 1995; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2006) 2. Socially dominant, aggressive, and violent men, such as psychopaths, narcissists, and other dangerous criminal types, have much greater success in establishing committed romantic relationships and attracting large numbers of female sex partners than men who are less pathological in both personality and behaviour. (Bogaert and Fisher, 1995; Seto, 1995; Schmitt, 2003; Harris et al, 2007; Peters et al, 2008; Jonason et al, 2008) 3. A significant percentage of women are attracted to aggressive, socially dominant males. (Sadalla et al, 1987; Herold and Milhausen, 1999; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003, 2006) Women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Current research in evolutionary psychology suggests that this indidvidual is the ideal sex/relationship partner for a substantial percentage of women.

Your wife's therapist sounds like a Freudian psycho-analyst to me. Your discussion of "parts" seems to correspond to Freud's notion of id, ego, and superego. Have you ever considered regular psychotherapy instead?

I remember reading somewhere that the police, such as the FBI or New Scotland Yard, find that catching serial killers is often very difficult because the serial murderers themselves are normally people of very high intelligence and creativity. Some serial killers, such as the so-called Zodiac Killer or Jack the Ripper, are never caught because they are able to outwit the authorities for decades, if not forever.