The headline of an article that a Lovefraud reader recently sent to me is:
Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths
With a headline like that, of course, I had to read it. The article, from 2008, describes research on the “Dark Triad” and mating behavior. The Dark Triad refers to the personality disorders of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. I had some problems with the article, but before I ripped into it, I figured I’d read the original study. Here it is:
The Dark Triad: Facilitating a Short-Term Mating Strategy in Men
This study was published in the European Journal of Personality in 2009, and the lead author is Peter K. Jonason. To be honest, I find it hard to believe that the study was considered to be a contribution to the field of personality research. But before I rip into it, let’s review the Dark Triad.
Dr. Liane Leedom posted an article about the Dark Triad on Lovefraud back in 2007. Here it is:
Choosing a love partner? Beware of The Dark Triad
Dr. Leedom wrote:
The Dark Triad is Psychopathy, Narcissism and Machiavellianism. To varying degrees, all three personality types entail a dark, interpersonally destructive character with tendencies toward grandiosity, emotional callousness, manipulation and dominance. Psychopaths and Machiavellians have high self-esteem, and are charming and fun but psychopaths are also impulsive and cunning. Narcissists are grandiose and have high self-esteem, and may also be intellectually gifted. Research has shown that these three personality types are all a bit different and yet also highly overlap.
So what do these three personality types have in common? They are preoccupied with dominance and power, and deficient in love and empathy. To anyone who is looking for a love relationship, Dr. Leedom offers the following advice: “Avoid, at all costs, connecting with a member of the Dark Triad.”
Dark Triad and mating strategy study
I realize that scientific papers aren’t supposed to offer advice, but the degree to which Jonason tries to remain “objective” in his study is ridiculous. Here is how he describes the Dark Triad:
Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy—collectively known as ”˜The Dark Triad’—are traits that are linked to negative personal and societal outcomes, and are traditionally considered maladaptive. However, the persistence of these traits over time and across various societies, as well as linkages to positive traits, suggests that the Dark Triad can be advantageous in some ways. For instance, subclinical psychopathy is associated with a lack of neuroticism and anxiety, which may facilitate the pursuit of one’s goals through adverse conditions. Similarly, narcissism is associated with self-aggrandisement, and Machiavellianism is associated with being socially manipulative, both of which may aid in reaping benefits for oneself at the expense of others, especially in initial periods of acquaintance. (Citations omitted.)
So Jonason ascribed to psychopaths the positive quality of persistence in overcoming obstacles—would he be referring to stalking? And self-aggrandisement—drawing attention to one’s own importance—helps in stepping on people? But what is the real value of Dark Triad personality traits, according to this author? Exploitative, short-term sex! Here’s what he wrote:
Although most studies have focused on the negative aspects of the Dark Triad, our evidence suggests that there might be some up-sides to these anti-social personality traits. We found that the scores on the Dark Triad traits were positively related to having more sex partners, an unrestricted sociosexuality and a greater preference for short-term mates.
Study subjects
So, how did Jonason conduct the study? He offered extra credit to 224 undergraduate psychology students to fill out self-report questionnaires. The group included 88 men and 136 women. They were aged 17 to 43—the median age was 21 and the average age was 23.5.
The students filled out three separate inventories to test for their level of psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism. Then the students were asked about their views on sex, and about their sexual behavior.
So how do you think hormone-drenched, strapping young adults in today’s sex-crazed culture would respond to the following: “I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners.”
I assume the answer was: “YEAH!”
Then the students were asked, “With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse within the past year?”
I assume, especially among the males, that the answer was an exaggeration.
If the popularity of Jersey Shore is any indication, my guess is that plenty of 20-somethings think lots of casual sex is just fine, and if they weren’t getting it, they’ll lie and claim that they were. Jonason even admits that this may have happened in his study.
Evolutionary argument
Nowhere in his report does Jonason indicate that he actually interviewed any psychopaths, narcissists or Machiavellians. He merely asked a narrow and unrepresentative sample of human beings to answer questions about themselves on standardized tests. Jonason subjected the responses to a myriad of statistical analyses. It appears that he dazzled the journal editors with his math, because I wonder about his conclusions.
First, he says people with Dark Triad traits have more sex. Even though he based the conclusion on testosterone-enriched young adults, I’m sure he’s right. Then, Jonason portrays this casual, exploitative, short-term sex as a successful mating strategy in the march of evolution. He writes:
Our study indicates a connection between the Dark Triad and more positive attitudes towards casual sex and more casual sex behaviors. To the extent that lifetime number of sexual partners is a modern-day marker of reproductive success, and given that the Dark Triad traits are heritable and exist in different cultures, we speculate that these traits may represent one end of a set of individual differences that reflects an evolutionarily stable solution to the adaptive problem of reproduction. (Citations omitted.)
So he’s saying that casual sex benefits the survival of the human race. I have to wonder about this argument. According to Wikipedia, “Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.”
Psychopaths have been called intra-species predators. They exploit other human beings, and some have been responsible for killing others, ranging from a few to millions. If the members of the Dark Triad were so successful, I would think there would be more of them in the population. But this would be bad for the species, for human beings, as a whole. Would natural selection encourage an adaptation that has the potential of killing off other members of the species? I hope not.
Back to the news article
As is now obvious, I have a low opinion of this study, and my opinion of the news article is even lower.
First of all, consider the headline, Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths. Nowhere in the study does Jonason claim that women love psychopaths. Whoever wrote the headline converted the idea of casual, exploitative sex into love.
Then there’s the first paragraph of the article:
Bad boys, it seems, really do get all the girls. Women might claim they want caring, thoughtful types but scientists have discovered what they really want — self-obsessed, lying psychopaths.
The article completely omits the study’s description of duplicity in the sex pursued by personalities of the Dark Triad. As we well know, most of us who have been intimate with psychopaths, narcissists and Machiavellians were conned into it. We didn’t want, “self-obsessed, lying psychopaths.” We were deceived. But the author, Science Editor Steve Connor, went for the sensational rather than the accurate.
Finally, there’s the idea of using James Bond as an example of the Dark Triad, or at least the most recent James Bond from Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig. This James Bond, you may recall, fell in love. He was ready to quit being a spy so he could be with his love—until she betrayed him. Even then, Bond attempted to save her life.
A real psychopath wouldn’t do that.
Yeah, One joy, I really wish I could find my niche. I may have to CREATE it.
I don’t deal well with stress, so wasn’t a very good server, never made a lot of money, and really don’t like it either. I hate cleaning houses, and not very good at that either, since my vision is so incredably bad. I’m not details oriented gal in the least. I resent the details.
I’m very creative and love that about myself. One of my professors said I was so creative he had a hard time keeping me grounded. LOL
I used to paint portraits, but was lazy and unknowledgable about marketing myself. Also unmotivated and probably had NO CONFIDENCE. I used to write prose poetry and developed a small following on open mike nights…never sought publication for all the above reasons.
I thought about painting concrete decks and slabs for people. I thought about rug making, I thought about small mosaic projects. I’ve done bead work. I’ve painted Van Gough’s starry night on a chest of drawer’s, as well as some of my own designs.
When I started working toward my degree, I thought about Art therapy. Then, I wanted to teach Creative Writing.
Through my own (huge) mistakes, I have forclosed on those two options. I have just never developed the career path that I should have, and sadly, it’s getting a little late for that, now.
I wanted to comment, though, do you know that teacher’s get much better results from their students when they don’t explain much about what they want from them. It acts to free up the creativity of the student. It doesn’t limit them to the teachers idea of what she wants. While it might be a distressful sensation for the student, because of this insecurity, they will push themselves furthar.
I think that may have been what was happening with you, on your job, and something really positive came out of it. I hope you are really proud of yourself. You should be.
One Joy,
I’m happy for you!!! I love that feeling and energy that is produced by chanting. We go to local kirtans here. You should check out Krishna’s web page to see if he will be coming close to where you are. I’d love to see you walk out of the kirtan after it’s over LOL–need ten miles of kite string to pull ya back in!
My husband and I have spent the better part of ten years practicing yoga, reading the holy books (Gita, Ramayana, Mahabarata), going to kirtans, meditation, pranayama, the whole bunch of bananas. Learning from Dharma Mittra, like in the old days; from mouth to ear. We love it.
I still got effed over by a spath though! I saw a poster here say that it showed us the ugly side of life, which we did not know or where aware about. That was true of myself. Had NO idea these people existed. She did a number on me emotionally and finacially. Not so much my husband because he knows about the ugly side of life, having gone to viet nam when he was 26/27 yo.
It’s a journey for sure. We will see Bhagavan Das this summer, he is coming to Rhode Island and it’s not far. I can hardly wait!!! Hare Om
Kim,
There are jobs working with kids and adults that might be right down your alley….in assisted living situations, in nursery schools, etc. where you don’t have to have a degree to work there in “art therapy” etc. or in hospitals as an art therapy assistant to someone with the degree….or activities , or work in a gym, there are lots of places you could use your skills and be creative.
Tutoring students in language and literature, teaching English as a second language…Remember New Lily? That was what she did was to advertise and teach private classes in English as a 2nd language.
I can’t remember if you have your degree or not, but I know you were at least pretty close I think I remember…so maybe there are grant moneys to send you to finish a degree. Go to the “unemployment” office and talk to those folks and see what they have available there may be some programs out there that will help you get more education and/or a job. Start looking for these things now before your current “job” is over. Good luck.
One Joy and Polly,
That post, is, I think the culmination of what I’ve been trying to wrap my head around. It’s the final conclusion to why we can’t explain what happened to others. It came out of all the thinking about spaths for 2 years and my desperate attempts to get my parents to understand that they have a monster, not a son, living in their basement.
Today is my mom’s birthday. I will be making another attempt at explaining to them.
OneJoy,
thanks for your encouragement. I will be doing that very soon. My hypnotherapy has given me more peace and calm in 4 sessions than I would have thought possible. I would encourage anyone else here to try it for breaking down the old programming very quickly. I wish I could afford more sessions.
Hi Joyous one … yes I did get the cd thanks – I sent you an email about it but guess you didn’t get it – it was such a well timed surprise – I needed the cheer up on the day that it arrived so thanks so much for thinking of me and remembering I couldnt’ access it here.
I was pretty crap at judging character … I always believed every sob story I was told and gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, even if I’d heard bad things about them before meeting them. So I was a sitting duck really – I sooo wanted to believe that there was good and potential in everyone and if I just worked hard enough then everything would be alright. It wasn’t though and my theory was proven waaaay wrong. Hard even now to live through it – the memory of it but with every day it fades a little and recedes into the background of a previously tattered tapestry that is called my life. I’m now taking better care of it and fixing the parts that were broken or about to wear through so it’s strong, colorful and unified.
Skylar …
I was reading through some writing tonight from one and two years ago and watched some videos I’d made delineating my understanding of what a psychopath is and how they create the dynamic that destroys you like a tornado through subtle methods of subterfuge. I haven’t moved much from where I was and yet I have. I’ve made some pretty big changes in a short while even though I haven’t yet physically moved location. I have quite a bit of captured thoughts and memories – for a ‘one day’ project. Now doesn’t seem quite the right time to do something serious with it as it’s a bit too fresh and raw, but I’m sure I’ll be glad of the information one day. It’s interesting to reread what I wrote and all the insights I recorded. I refer frequently to this site throughout the later writings and to new insight that has come from reflecting on what I learn here.
My life is getting better in every way though. I seem to be meeting nicer and better people and I’m actively considering my own future and what I want next. Although living alone is frequently lonely, nothing is as lonely as a psychopath who hates you but tells you he loves you in the room next door. I’m glad I’m alive, but sometimes the scarring is hard to live with – it’s like I lost my exuberant flamboyant optimism and drive – still feel quite up and down – deflated and buoyed in turn. Strange process of development and metamorphosis to go through.
I am thankful for friends who understand this life shattering experience and the disintegration of everything you value. Regular people who haven’t been through it don’t pay it enough attention and don’t understand the impact it had on who I am today. I don’t know why but I wish they did.
I hope everyone is having a day where they smile a little, laugh heartily and encounter a friendly soul whether human or animal 🙂 Much love to everyone
I have to say Peter Jonason’s remark is an INSULT TO JAMES BOND!!!
What’s all this rubbish about Bond fitting the “Dark Triad”? Nonsense! Bond only fits ONE criterion out of the three: that’s to say, “thrill seeking.” He enjoys dangerous assignments, which is why he picked the profession he did. And sure, he likes “trying new things”—including “new women.” But Bond can’t even be called “impulsive,” not in the sense of being subject to ill-considered, thoughtless impulses as a psychopath can be.
As for the other two criteria, why does Jonason call Bond “disagreeable”? I don’t see any indication that he’s “disagreeable”—EXCEPT to the “bad guys” who deserve it! Where’s the proof that Bond is “narcissistic”? Sure, he enjoys the good life, but so would most people, if they can afford it. I don’t see any of the classic signs of pathological narcissism: that Bond is arrogant, that he believes he’s “above” others, that he imagines he’s entitled to things that he’s not, that he’s obsessed with getting others to admire him, that he’s exploitative, treats others with contempt or anything of the kind. Nor is he “deceitful” as a way of life. Oh, sure, espionage and counterespionage require people to work “under cover” as part of the job, but that does not make Bond the kind of fraud or conman who would tell lies and misrepresent himself just to prey on people at large.
All right, so he kills people. Big hairy deal, Garfield! But they’re BAD GUYS! SOMEBODY has to rub out the bad guys who prey on the rest of us, just as somebody needed to rub out that murdering bastard Bin Laden. (And good riddance to bad rubbish!) It’s a necessary job. SOMEBODY has to take out the trash, and that doesn’t give anyone the right to look down on those who do it just because they see it as a “dirty job.”
Bond is an honorable man, not some kind of heartless predator. He’s a man with a conscience, and definite values. He has respect for others—as long as they deserve it—starting with his boss “M,” a man to whom Bond is said to be “devoted.” As far as it’s possible in his career, Bond has normal and warm friendships with others; his affection for Felix Leiter is a case in point.
When it comes to women, Bond does have short term “affairs,” but he’s not the type of Casanova who rates himself by how many women he “scores.” Off the top of my head I can only recall Bond having one genuine “love interest” in any particular story. Far more important, he’s not “exploiting” these women in any way. If they choose to go to bed with him, the pleasure is mutual! In any case his career makes it hard for him to lead a stable, predictable married life.
Whatever his personality type, Bond DOES find the “girl of his dreams” and gets married (in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service). So he WAS the marrying type after all. It’s just his bad luck that his archenemy Blofeld murders his new bride in an act of revenge, so Bond is left single again. Inevitably he spends the next novel hunting down and killing Blofeld for taking away a partner he prized above all others.
In short, Jonason’s assessment of Bond as an example of his “dark triad” is unfounded, unfair, and libelous. So if Jonason is found mysteriously shot dead with a Walther PPK, we’ll know who to suspect! 😉
In spite of all that—and granted Donna’s well-placed reservations about limiting the sample population to undergraduate psychology students!—I do see some validity to Jonason’s study findings. It’s long been accepted that human males can obtain an advantage in reproductive rate (“r”) by impregnating as many females as they can. Females by contrast cannot obtain any such advantage by mating with more males, because their rate of reproduction is limited by the time it takes to gestate an infant. This explains why males as a class have a greater tendency than females to be promiscuous. In the words of the old rhyme:
Higamous, hogamous,
Women are monogamous;
Hogamous, higamous,
Men are polygamous.
Among other places, this sex difference manifests itself in the prevalence of polygyny within many human cultures, past and present, where it’s second only to monogamy as a preferred mating pattern. By comparison, the other two possible mating patterns—polyandry and “group mating” (several males to several females)—are comparatively rare among humans.
All Jonason has done is illuminate the fact that a certain, “psychopathic” type of male is more likely to behave in accordance with just such a “love ’em and leave ’em” strategy, using his time to spread his seed as widely as possible. That seems entirely credible to me. It might even help to explain why psychopathy (specifically) appears to be more common in males than in females.
But two important limitations should be noted. The first is that even if this strategy is advantageous to some males, it does not necessarily follow that it’s advantageous to all males. That little rhyme IS an overgeneralization.
Everywhere in Nature we find organisms with quite different survival (and reproductive) strategies operating side by side, each occupying a “niche” of its own. Very often the success of a strategy depends on lack of competition from others practicing the same strategy. Suppose for instance we survive by eating bamboo shoots, like the panda. If there aren’t many of us, and nobody else is eating bamboo shoots, we’re going to do pretty well for ourselves and start multiplying. But if we get too numerous, or other species are eating bamboo shoots as well, there won’t be enough bamboo shoots to go around and some of us are going to starve—unless we find some alternative dietary strategy.
Parasites of all kinds are rife throughout Nature. (There is no “morality” in Nature; Nature is dog-eat-dog. If we want “morality” we have to make it ourselves!) Parasites can survive as long as the host body they feed on continues to survive. If the parasites become too numerous or too voracious and kill the host body they feed on, the parasites die too. As a result, hosts and parasites tend to exist in a certain balance. As long as there’s a host body to feed on, parasites will evolve to exploit it. But parasites cannot afford to overwhelm the host either.
Parasites normally exploit organisms of other species, but there’s no reason why parasites cannot prey on their own species. The psychopath—or even just the persistent philanderer—could well be considered a kind of intra-species parasite. Human societies can support a limited number of these parasites. However, if the parasites get too numerous, the society is likely to tear itself apart and collapse, or be displaced by another society operating more efficiently, more cooperatively—more “morally” in our terms—with fewer such parasites.
Taking the reproductive aspect alone, there is a spectrum of reproductive strategies throughout Nature, ranging from r at one end to K at the other. This is about “quality versus quantity.” r is a “quantity” strategy. Many organisms reproduce by putting their resources into spreading their seed as far and wide as possible, leaving their offspring to fend for themselves. The vast majority of these offspring will never survive, but in an environment where survival is perilous anyway, “hedging one’s bets” by maximizing the number of possible offspring may mean that a few will survive.
K is a “quality” strategy. Other organisms produce fewer offspring, and put more of their resources instead into helping their offspring survive to maturity. Either strategy can be advantageous under particular conditions, but it goes without saying that as a species, humans, who gestate their offspring and care for them for years after birth, are very close to the K end of the spectrum.
In spite of that, it’s still possible for some males to adopt an r strategy by seducing as many females as they possibly can, leaving it to someone else to raise any offspring they spawn. By human standards this type of male is a kind of “reproductive cuckoo.” However, that does not mean this is the only, or even the best, reproductive strategy for most human males. A great many more human males have found it advantageous to adopt a K strategy by putting their resources into protecting and providing for the offspring they sire, maximizing their offspring’s chances of surviving to maturity. This was even more important in primitive environments where survival was always difficult and uncertain and many children died at a young age.
If all human males were to adopt the “philandering drone” or “cuckoo” approach, the r strategy (which Jonason aptly calls the “Cad strategy”), spending their days wooing countless females and leaving it entirely to those females to provide for their offspring, very few offspring at all would survive. As a strategy, it can only work well if a few males indulge in it. If there’s heavy competition—if every male is doing it—it’s not going to succeed.
Under those conditions, the “fatherly” male who adopted the K strategy (which Jonason calls the “Dad strategy”) of sticking around with his mate to help provide for his offspring would enjoy an enormous reproductive advantage over the “parasitical” drone males whose abandoned offspring would be dropping like flies from starvation. The more beneficial “Dad” types of male would then multiply. But as long as there were other humans around to exploit and raise their offspring, the “parasitical” or “Cad” type of male would never die out.
In short, just because a particular trait confers an advantage on part of a population, that does not necessarily mean that trait can or will spread to the entire population.
The second limitation is this. Jonason’s study is aimed at demonstrating that what he calls this “dark triad” of behavioral traits can contribute to a successful reproductive strategy FOR MALES–or for some subset of males. But I don’t see how any of this confers a reproductive advantage on FEMALES who mate with that type of male! The female who mates with the “Cad” type is going to end up being abandoned and placed at a reproductive DISADVANTAGE in terms of successfully raising her offspring.
So how do we get from Jonason’s findings to the claim Steve Connor makes, that this allegedly explains “why women really PREFER self-obsessed psychopaths”? Isn’t there a HUGE gap in logic here somewhere?
I could speculate on a connection, but I’d rather not do that right now. If that’s really what they’re claiming, it’s up to one of these guys to justify such a claim!
Redwald, ROFLMAO. Your defense of James Bond, and your indignance is duly noted. It’s a hoot.
Redwald,
Your posts are great, finding them interesting to read.
Thanks, everyone! 🙂