I really think the British tabs are just trying to bait me (and perhaps Cal). Now I am a huge fan of sociobiology, believing as I do, it provides enormous support for many of my most retrograde views. Nonetheless, this study seems to say James Bond is disagreable. Now, if I'm not mistaken he fights for the good guys and is extremely charming and as a certain teen idol would say has "outrageous skills." Besides, despite the slander, he married a girl but they killed her. Can he be blamed that long term relationships don't work out (and that the first girl he sleeps with in any picture gets killed?)
This study however, though confirming one of my other strongly held views, nice guys finish last, (see What's a Curmudgeon to Do below) is as poorly designed and executed as can possibly be. Very very few traits have died out in society. That does not mean they are evolutionary advantages. For instance, being a dork. As far as I can tell this has no evolutionary advantage but dorks are everywhere. The Dark Triad here, if epitomized by James Freak'n Bond, seems to me to be a set of traits a lot of people would want; dorkiness not so much.
There are more dorks than James Bond types as far as I can tell. Does this mean according to sociobiology that dorkiness is more highly esteemed by women than being able to hit a running man with a snub nosed Walther PPK at 25 yards? I think not.
Back to the drawing board British Socio-Biology people.
I will say this, I don't know how they go over with the babes but these are good traits in a lawyer:
The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism.