I find fault for a couple of reasons; 1) The evolutionary argument is faulty, but not because of what you may think. Think about it, "lower status men...have more to lose." More to lose? Looking at lower status people in an environment, one would've surmised that they have the [u]least[/u] to lose. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Being in a position of power would imply that there are more responsibilities, pleasures and freedoms to be had. Lower status have less privilege, thus less to lose. A 2.1 KD player stresses about every encounter. A .4 player kills his own teammates. 2) 165 matches is not enough information. Wiki explanation of reliability below. Check sources if you care that much. [spoiler]Temporary but general characteristics of the individual: health, fatigue, motivation, emotional strain Temporary and specific characteristics of individual: comprehension of the specific test task, specific tricks or techniques of dealing with the particular test materials, fluctuations of memory, attention or accuracy Aspects of the testing situation: freedom from distractions, clarity of instructions, interaction of personality, sex, or race of examiner Chance factors: luck in selection of answers by sheer guessing, momentary distractions The goal of estimating reliability is to determine how much of the variability in test scores is due to errors in measurement and how much is due to variability in true scores.[6][/spoiler] In summary, this is not an objective study. Being a "loser" is not a fact, it's an opinion., and needs to be revisited.