The following can be found in various spots on the Internet but I couldn’t source the 1976 study. Regardless, sounds right:
“The Inuit’s view of Socipaths: “Kunlangeta is allegedly an Inuit Yupik word for psychopath – in a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe “a man who … repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and … takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.” When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, he replied, “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.””
The common explanation for female sexual preferences is that she’s choosing the fittest lover for her children. However, women are reliably attracted to Dark Triad: narcissists, sociopaths and abusive manipulators. Looking at the most matriarchal of societies–Latino barrios, African tribes and the like–children suffer greatly and end up socially abused. Men aren’t happy with the situation, either. We don’t like working with manipulative selfish types. And the evolutionist himself admits that women seek out Beta Bux because her ‘fittest lover’ doesn’t care about her survival, either.
What are evolutionists thinking? That humanity’s genetically finest are conscienceless predators who abandon their kids and that’s good for the human race? They can’t have it both ways: “Sociopaths are superior humans because they outbreed those who value the health and survival of children.” They square the circle by comparing humans to non-humans either that have children that require no male investment post-sex or that instinctively protect & nurture their young with no need for artificial structure.
Anything to deny the fact that even in primitive human societies, what’s best for healthy families is shoving the “most successful men” off a cliff.