When watching the video from >>6433 I got this one on the "Up next" sidebar. I think the part between 46:05 and 48:38 explains very clearly a certain attitude common among rationalists (specially the effective altruism types) that also leads to things such as acceptance of polyamory.
The whole talk is about the evolutionary origin of morality, but the main purpose of the talk is to support the idea that you could reason your way into a superior morality, one that is more logically sound and not as limited as the naturally evolved one. In the part I mentioned (46:05 to 48:38) she says that increased intelligence (from better nutrition, healthcare, whatever else causes the Flynn effect) leads to a broader morality that isn't focused only on the ingroup. But the effect of this Moral Flynn Effect is so far limited, and intelligence might not continue to increase, so people are still restricted to a great extent by the naturally evolved form of morality. So, we need to find the ideal, rationally determined morality that would arise after overcoming the primitive, evolved morality. She continues to say that evolutionary psychologists are stereotyped as wanting to maintain the status quo, of using evolutionary psychology to justify 1950s sex roles and the like, but that this is not true and that she's specifically interested in evo-psych because she seeks to surpass it.
That last bit is very obviously connected to the subject of this thread, but the previous part also helps explain the views of the people being discussed ITT. Much like Diana says one should not be restricted by the naturally evolved morality, but should seek to develop a better, more logical morality, the same principle would apply to other things, such as personal preferences. The same logic that leads some to spend 90% of their income on mosquito nets or to carefully weigh whether it's more important to give up beef or chicken (you know, since cows feel like more morally worthy animals, but it takes killing a whole lot of chickens to get as many meals as you can get from a single cow (Diana says save the chickens)) also leads people to determine that wanting exclusivity from their romantic partners is a backwards, no longer justified desire that must be overcome.

tl;dr: Spear the transhumanists, primitivism now.

>>6472
I don't think people who are good at training others as described in that video would necessarily be predators, they are just those who successfully convince others that their (the trainers') needs and wants are important. That said, I found it funny that she claimed women who are good at this should be preferred, since it presumes that their wants will be entirely or at least mostly aligned with the well-being of their husbands and children, which might not be the case. The predator types you mention being the most obvious example.

>>6473
>Being an unconscious conditioner is very noticeable and unattractive in a woman as well as simply pathetic.
Most people don't notice, and the whole conditioning others thing seems to work amazingly well for most women.
>I'd rather my wife be a sheeple
Sheeple do all this unconscious conditioning just fine though. It seems that self-awareness is what would limit it.
>my children inherit autistic and moderate dark triad traits from me. Then they can consciously learn to condition people
I hear autists are exceptional at manipulating people, or even at dealing with people in general. Good luck with your plan.