As a presupposition I invite you to consider the following quote by one of the great pre-Socratic philosophers,

"Are you listening to [merely] me, or to your logos?"

You are invited to consider the following ideas in regards to how they might benefit you and your future endeavors. Without further ado:

What is a Dark Triad?

According to our good friend wikipedia dark triads are defined as Narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic. It is difficult to put into a reddit post exactly how these traits would be expressed in an individual person, but typically: They are extremely focused on themselves and their needs, willing to get what they want at any cost, and largely unconcerned with how their actions impact others.

From here on we will refer to Dark Triad-ism as a methodology and concern ourselves with it's effectiveness as a strategy in comparison to other strategies. We will look at this specifically in terms of reproductive success and be unconcerned with any moral implications. Please note that any Dark Traids you know personally may not be represented in these examples.

The Method:

This is pretty simple, use whatever works: however there is much debate to exactly what is working. Now it's quite difficult to generalize and predict how any particular person might act (seemingly obviously). Typically dark triads will use biological pulls on other people to satisfy their personal needs and desires, the reason it is considered dark is usually because these techniques result in a win/loss for the DT (Dark Triad) and the person they're interacting with respectively. This can be demonstrated simply with the Prisoners Dilemma. Imagine the person who always chooses what's best for them, no matter what the cost to the other party, that's a practical expression of what a DT might choose. If you've watched the video (it's worth your time), you might be thinking, "Why would I choose anything than what's best for me? Why would I leave money on the table".

 For future reference I will refer to people who always act in best interest of the group: A players, and people who always act out of self interest B players. Note that it might be possible to play either side.

and here's a few circumstances where it could be beneficial to you to do just that:

She's always Doing the Math:

It isn't just DT's who are want what's best for themselves, pretty much everyone wants what's best for themselves. Including the girls you want to have sex with, and they are doing this cost/benefit analysis: Briffault's Law.

  • Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him.  (Translation:  What have you done for me lately?)
  • If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered.  (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)
  • A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.

If we accept Briffault's law to be reasonable and logical we should assume that women are doing some sort of cost/benefit analysis, on some sort of subjective basis by what they value. How individual (women) conduct this cost/benefit analysis is subject to debate - however it seems reasonable that we should apply a fundamental principle of the nature of women; Hypergamy.

So if a point comes where she doesn't think you offer any future benefit to her, or someone else is better we should assume that in almost a mechanical sort of way she's going to choose whatever she believes to be best for her.

Is she attracted to DT Traits or something else?

It is worth considering whether or not women are directly attracted to narcism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy primarily or secondarily. An interesting supposition by /u/redagouge:

"Women desire men who are selfish and hold frame because if they can sink into the woman sized hole in the Achilles of every man, then she will have his power and protection. He will have the hard selfish shell to the outside world and the woman has the safe, warm, and gooey inner core to cocoon her. Hence why women like bad boys, how serial killers on death row get love letters and married, and how women stay and sleep with known players and cheaters."

If we take everything into consideration so far it we should consider that these kinds of women somehow are acting in self interest, notibly:

if they can sink into the woman sized hole in the Achilles of every man, then she will have his power and protection.

Let us consider for a moment if these are A or B playing women

Imagine for you're playing your favorite loot based game with a few friends; your friend gets the important drop and doesn't share it with you (player B) - ultimately costing you the match. It seems reasonable that you would be upset at your friends selfishness, but also at the result overall. So what if they don't share with you at your cost but net win for the team? This seems like it would be unclear whether or not you would be an A or B player depending on whether you chose to support your selfish team-mate to lead you to victory. Perhaps you are willing to tolerate your team-mates selfishness as long as the benefits outweigh the cost (you keep winning).

What if it is the case where your team mate acts selfishly and continuously loses the game for both of you as a result of their selfishness? Would you continue to play with them? Could you recommend them to other team mates? Would you warn other people of their selfishness? Could their selfish actions be documented in some kind of way?

Would you rather team up with Player A who shares the drop with you (win-win)/(lose/lose) or Player B who keeps it to themself (lose/win)/(Lose/lose). Maybe you are willing to stick with Player B as long as they keep winning things for you, but you're not sticking around because you like them are you - wouldn't you be sticking around based on their performance?

And this is the case with DT's. Perhaps it is the case that people are willing to tolerate narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism to the extent that they benefit as a result. However as soon as they stop benefiting, they no longer have any reason to keep teaming up with B players. (Briffault's Law.)

How B Player's are missing out:

If people have the reasonable assumption that someone is a B player, then it should be reasonable to believe they would also play B style game as well. This means that B players constantly playing at cost with other people as B player's, while A players are either forced to opt out of playing with B's or join B's all-together. If you're thinking, "well everyone's a B player" - this should be a hint as to what rules you're playing by.

As A player's have the option of choosing from A or B players, where as B players can only choose to play with other B players (assuming A players know who B players are). As our forms of transmission and documentation improve, it becomes easier to identify and "mark" who is a B player: Think of felons and non-felons applying for a Job, all things being equal who would you hire? Why?

Claim: There are plenty of B player's out in the world who are successful:

This is most likely true, but if enough people come together, they can choose to eliminate a player from the game. Just think of sexual assault lawsuits, vengeful lovers, or how child molesters are treated in prison. Generally, society hates B players - even other B players hate B players. Why wouldn't they? Sure B players can continue to deceive other people as to the nature of the game they are playing, but when outed as a B player they only have so many get-out-of-jail-free-cards. Also think about having a B player as a father or a boss, is this the kind of person other people want to work for through thick and thin?

It is I who Should Stand at the Top of the World:

It seems that this exclusive focus on one's own desires at the cost of anything else (even their self) is not only extremely short-sighted, but reduces the player to an animal like state - which ultimately seems self defeating from the viewpoint of development and self progress. If that's not important and the only thing that matters is satisfying one's own desires then it seems like being a player B is also counter productive as you reduce your options for co-operative play, and you're paired up with people who are willing to take your cut in favor of their own. Add this up over the course of a lifetime and who knows what the Net win/loss would be.

If you don't care about the odds and think you can always win, then maybe player B is for you.

If you would like to consider how to increase your options and the amount of people you can play with consider switching to a player A strategy which is highlighted in the book: How to win friends and influence people written by Dale Carnagie.