Games Primates Play

Can I get a "Who cares?"

Sexual promiscuity is based on the size of a persons libido the traits that predict promiscuity- extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism (especially in women), positive schizotypy, and the ''dark triad'' traits (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) are simply tools one has to satisfy libido (for men at least),
Would an agreeable male introvert be able to have as many partners as an extroverted bad boy?
There are people with all of the traits that predict promiscuity but have low libido and so they are able but unwilling to be promiscuous.

This study seems highly flawed to me. For one, there were no women scientists involved. Women who have reviewed

I imagine it is appealing to think that you don't have to factor in socialization and the historical barriers to women getting direct access to resources and can just reinforce that system, but this doesn't fly, sorry.

See Dorothy Dinnerstein's "The Mermaid and the Minotaur" for one explanation of why some male scientists would collaborate to perpetuate these myths.

I recommend that readers see other articles about this study. It has been debunked pretty readily by several other reviewers, including some female ones not in this "club" that wants to reinforce this.

Of course our evolutionary history would inspire different personality traits between the two sexes, but this is likely not as extreme as the data show. If Del Guidice et al. had gained a more cross-cultural sampling, or even had sampled a different culture, would these results necessarily be the same? I do not believe so, because people can change their personalities overnight if something extreme enough happens to them. Did the study take this type of variation into account?

Of course this is politically incorrect, but what difference does that make if it is true.

Every subset of animal is a product of their evolutionary upbringing, and their survival was dependent upon successfully interacting within their society and biology.
Women have lived in a very different, albeit overlapping, worlds and existence than men. Their innate tendencies in personality has to reflect that.
Although we live in a far more enlightened social world (at least in western societies), that cannot erase what has made women women, a legacy that has existed thousands of times longer in duration than our faster evolving civilizations and increasingly sophisticated mores.
The objections here all fall back upon the nature/nurture controversy.
I believe that we are as individuals, we are 80% nature and 20% nurture.

Of course this is politically incorrect, but what difference does that make if it is true.

Every subset of animal is a product of their evolutionary upbringing, and their survival was dependent upon successfully interacting within their society and biology.
Women have lived in a very different, albeit overlapping, worlds and existence than men. Their innate tendencies in personality has to reflect that.
Although we live in a far more enlightened social world (at least in western societies), that cannot erase what has made women women, a legacy that has existed thousands of times longer in duration than our faster evolving civilizations and increasingly sophisticated mores.
The objections here all fall back upon the nature/nurture controversy.
I believe that we are as individuals, we are 80% nature and 20% nurture.

this whole thing plays into the documented concept of men seeing women as other-than, and unlike men, the default humans, whereas women do not draw these lines. this is a root of chauvinism and objectification. i know it must serve you to find support for the dynamic, but i've drawn a line between you and the rest of humanity, so it hardly matters that you've the "soapbox of influence".

also, to commenter Gary, most of human existence took place in the time prior to what is popularly called "history" - nomadic people with tasks somewhat differentiated but absolutely in the same spheres and environments. tasks were transferable and expedience was the determinant.

While men and women coexist in the same physical spaces, that is not the same spheres and environments.
Mankind has also coexisted his/her physical space with other domesticated animals, but that quite amply illustrates that the same space is not the same environment.

Due to womens' smaller stature, physical strength and natural charter to the vulnerable conditions of child bearing/rearing, women have almost always had to suffer from second class citizenship in the evolution of mankind.
This societal status would cause a fundamentally different base personality type to express due to evolutionary pressures; where a man could generally address interpersonal challenges directly and possibly brutally, women were necessarily conformed to achieving societal and familial success by a less direct approach.

Virtually all of the conclusions this study reports, reflect that kind of personality conformation.
As a man I don't consider it flattering to women many of these findings, but I tend to believe it nonetheless.

It is in recognizing what is first, and in using one's intellect to moderate natural (but detrimental) tendencies, that individuals can improve their responses in principled way.

The first concern I have with the study is the fact that the survey was taken from only US citizens, primarily white, and all educated? How is this survey even considered relevant? Overall, personality is a difficult topic to test. There are a number of problems when testing an individuals behavior; was the individual having a bad day? did they just end a relationship? did they just get a promotion? did they just in a fender bender? All of these situations would skew the personality that would be observed in a participant. Not only considering the near future in an individuals life is important. Most of the personality traits that are being analyzed in this study are those that develop in a person over time. For example; if an individual is seen as "rule-conscious" it could be because during their child hood their parents were abusive, naturally that individual would grow up to listen to rules.

More data needs to be collected, bottom line.

I think this study is too narrow. It would be more convincing if it were done in a cross-cultural manner. I think studying a wider range of societies around the world would have given a better indication. I also think it is a bit extreme in general. I can think of plenty contradictions to this study and would be interested in seeing the results of this study in other societies and cultures.

I think this study is too narrow. If this were done more cross-culturally I would be more convinced. Most of the participants were white and from the US. This seems extremely unfinished. I also think that American society has a major impact on the results of this study and once again, including other societies and cultures would create a much better study in my opinion.