As Inductivist has previously underscored, a natural predilection for monogamy is probably being selected for, at least in Western societies where progressively higher levels of sexual equality and consequent increasing female advantage in mate choice has been the story for more than a century.
This isn't surprising. In Darwinian terms, women benefit more from serial monogamy than men do. Women are only able to conceive one man's child at a time. They benefit from having that man's material and emotional devotion. Men can potentially conceive a nearly unlimited number of children at once and are consequently handicapped by being beholden to only one woman.
Indeed, it is the one-trick ponies--male and female, black, white, and Hispanic--who are having the kids. Betas procreate more than alphas do. Further, married guys average as much sex as good game guys do. The beta move of partnering up gives in-house access that can even give Roissy a run for his money.
That does not mean that monogamy is supplanting polygamous behavior. The temptation to try and trade up exists for women. As social sanctions against acting on this desire have steadily dissipated, the socio-cultural environment is pushing against the biological advantage the monogamous enjoy. As a result, the level of sexual promiscuity over time appears to be steady-as-she-goes.
Those who prefer a monogamous society where most men have an active stake in the future should push HBD as a socially acceptable way of explaining and understanding human behavior. The view that children are blank slates shaped by their environment discourages a woman from pondering whether or not she wants her children to be like their father before following her vestigal instincts and letting a cad knock her up. If nothing else, she'd be more likely to thrill-seek with contraceptives and then make babies with a guy of higher quality afterwards. Who ultimately makes the babies is what's important for the long-term well being of society.
To reiterate, as a self-described HBD realist, I'm inclined to think the alpha-beta dichotomy is overblown. Alpha personality traits are generally attractive, but how realistic is it to presume that an introvert will simply decide to fool the world into thinking he's extroverted, or an agreeable person suddenly become consistently disagreeable? Are more than 100,000 years of honing the detection of desirable attributes in human sexual selection negated by memorizing some negs and vowing never to show indecisiveness? It has the feel of a unique business opportunity to make a six-figure monthly income from home.
A reader sent me a link (I've lost it, apparently) to Roissy's post on how to keep a girl once you have her, and my reaction was "duh"--I'd done something almost identical to the "I'm going to eat. You coming?" a couple days before. I regularly get complaints--real ones, where she's irritated at me for some condescending scoff I make or view I hold--from girls I know that I'm too self-rightgeous (which is has some overlap with, but is not the same thing as, being highly self-confident). Maybe I could actively alter my personality traits in real time (as I do here to facilitate openness in discussion), just as 'betas' could try to do so going the other direction, but I wonder how sustainable it is or how effectively it can be done, and at what cost in terms of cognitive dissonance.
That said, since I've already made this a sort of open book on pieces of my existence, I'll continue to occasionally report on things I've said or done that might be of use to those 'afflicted' by less social audacity than I possess.