Mimicking Desirable Intimate Partners: Adaptationism Applied to an Evolutionary Hypothesis of Psychopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis sought to examine the fundamental question asking whether psychopathy better represents an evolved personality disposition or is a result of disorder of the developing brain.The central concern for the hypothesis development and study design was to assess the potential function of psychopathy-whether the traits of psychopathy perform a specific function that was selected and shaped over time to have a specific effect on reproduction that explains its existence.From research of female mate preference, psychopathic deception and sexuality, and extreme phenotypic expression in males, a hypothesis is formalised and tested-the sexual exploitation hypothesis.Competing hypotheses-social exploitation and disorder hypothesesare also included to execute the method of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlain, 1890(Chamberlain, /1965)).The study used a two-part methodology.Study 1 included university males assessed on psychopathic traits being assessed on fluctuating asymmetry (FA) and video recorded telling feigned remorse stories and in dating scenarios.Study 2 included male and female participants who rated the remorse stories on genuineness, trustworthiness, and believability, and female participants rated the dating scenarios on desirability and left voicemail messages for the males.Results of Study 1 found that psychopathy was unrelated to FA, but inversely related to Factor 1.Results of Study 2 showed that female raters tended to give higher ratings of trustworthiness and believability to males higher in psychopathy compared to male raters.Additionally, single females and those high in Emotionality tended to consistently give preferentially higher ratings for high psychopathy males.Females tended to give higher dating scenario ratings for high psychopathy males (especially Lifestyle facet) and spoke in a higher voice pitch to males higher in Factor 1. Results support the sexual exploitation hypothesis over the competing hypotheses and implications of the hypothesis discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".