I've been researching on whether or not foids prefer "Dark Triad" men and have found mixed resultshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.021>Women rated the high DT character as significantly more attractiveDoes not provide character descriptionshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916301015>younger women rated the low-scoring DT personality as significantly more favorable than the high-scoring DT personality. Further, the participants' level of fertility did not significantly influence attractiveness ratings.Although it has a larger sample size, the descriptions of the characters are cheesy. Also finds a smaller gap than the previous studyhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214543879>Men, but not women, perceived a responsive stranger as more gender typical (masculine/feminine) and, in turn, as more attractive.Researchers are Israelihttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/333438272_Girls'_perceptions_of_boys_with_violent_attitudes_and_behaviours_and_of_sexual_attraction>although non-violent boys are highly preferred to those with a violent profile, we observed that boys with violent attitudes and behaviours are mostly preferred for hooking up, and boys with non-violent traits are mostly preferred for stable relationships.Small sample size, results vary across country. "would your friend want to hook up with him?" is interestinghttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-019-00213-0>Analyses involving comparisons of two men showed women's ratings increased in favor of the more psychopathic manDid not read full studyhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2394562/>Whereas fertile-phase women were particularly sexually attracted to men perceived as arrogant, intrasexually confrontative...Contradicts previous study on age vs DT preferencehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8845529/Very small sample sizeI encourage you all to do your own research and read the studies yourselves
>>84805995There are studies that use "facial morphs" to assess Dark Triad preferences, however that just means more masculine faces, and women probably prefer less masculine faces on average suprisingly.
>>84805995The conclusive megastudy on this shows that dark triad traits are only attractive if you're already physically attractive to begin with. If you're sub 8 then its probably better off being normal or a nice guy or whatever. The reality is that confidence, assertiveness and other traits touted and seen as attractive in women are generally perceived as arrogance, aggression in less attractive men. There was a follow up study on the study that bullies are more successful which did confirm that bullies are indeed generally more successful but specifically only the physically attractive ones whilst ugly bullies often turned out antisocial rejects.Essentially the gradient on general female attraction for women (not all women but as an aggregate) is dark triad chad > autistic mute incel >>>>>>> normal nice guy sub 8 > dark triad incel, obviously this is an oversimplification there's more cases than this but this should give a general idea of how the gradient works in regards to looks and personality but if there's anything to take away physical attractiveness is more important than everything else combined.
That's not research, that's copypasting urlsTry going outside and asking people, stop spamming
>>84806078>don't look at actual studies and experiments, just approach random people and ask awkward questions
>>84806124the studies and experiments are just asking people questions
>>84806141in an efficient, scientifically rigorous way.
>>84806141>the studies and experiments are just asking people questionsNo they're not the good ones anyway
>>84806163Just go outside and ask people then
>>84805995Interestingly, women with secure attachments (non-anxious, non-avoidant) are much less attracted to dark triad traits than their counterparts. Secure attachment correlates negatively with Dark Triad traits and attraction to them. A negative relationship was obtained between secure attachment style and Dark Triad psychopathy, and a positive relationship between insecure attachment and dark personality, highlighting disorganized attachment with Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy personality traits.(https://www.mlsjournals.com/Psychology-Research-Journal/article/download/1573/1215)I think all of this starts to make a lot more sense when you look at attachment styles - although the research done on it is light, at the moment. The closest thing to a consensus on this is: secure attachment = protective factor, insecure attachment = risk factor; because, studies disagree on which insecure style matters most, and in which direction.
>>84806141>>84806186You know what, maybe I should conduct my own study. I'd just have to find out how to get a large sample sized that's unbiased as possible.
>>84806372You didn't read the study bro it was about whether people with dark triad characteristics have secure or insecure attachments yeah no shit mentally ill people are ill
>>84806393I'm just retarded and attached the wrong link. Here is this:https://irispublishers.com/oajap/pdf/OAJAP.MS.ID.000633.pdf
>>84805995It really depends. You have to specify:Who a woman wants to marryvs.Who a woman wants to get fucked by
>the basis of dark triad comes from an interpretation of Big 5 scoresThat in itself makes the concept absolutely retarded from the very start. Anyone who spouts this are morons and any psychologist taking this seriously hasn't studied psychometrics other than pop psychology crap. It's no wonder why psychology is such a shit show with it's replicability crisis showing most studies are the worst studies in all the "sciences."
>>84806141Ladies and gentlemen, the average 90iq rightoid
