Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Dark traits such as low empathy and cruelty may have proven useful in male intrasexual competition (Kruger & Fitzgerald 2011), so these traits and women's attraction to them may have co-evolved as a socially parasitic [[Reproductive success|reproductive strategy]] (Gervais 2018). | Dark traits such as low empathy and cruelty may have proven useful in male intrasexual competition (Kruger & Fitzgerald 2011), so these traits and women's attraction to them may have co-evolved as a socially parasitic [[Reproductive success|reproductive strategy]] (Gervais 2018). | ||
Dark behavior patterns may additionally serve as [[signalling theory|honest/hard-to-fake signals]] of high status as only high status men can get away behaving in anti-social manner. Status in this case is not only determined by aggression and intimidation, but also by [[LMS|income, looks]], [[IQ|competence]] etc. Men may | Dark behavior patterns may additionally serve as [[signalling theory|honest/hard-to-fake signals]] of high status as only high status men can get away behaving in anti-social manner. Status in this case is not only determined by aggression and intimidation, but also by [[LMS|income, looks]], [[IQ|competence]] etc. Men may also have been selected to mimic such dominance signals (Puts 2015). | ||
The fact that not all men exhibit dark traits indicates that men have evolved diverse strategies of [[statusmaxxing|status ascension]] (''prestige'' vs ''dominance strategy''; Kruger 2015, Gervais 2018). | The fact that not all men exhibit dark traits indicates that men have evolved diverse strategies of [[statusmaxxing|status ascension]] (''prestige'' vs ''dominance strategy''; Kruger 2015, Gervais 2018). | ||