Consider your list further.
The first one entails athleticism. Things that you can do too. Excitement and entertainment. Relationship bonding physical activity. Health and longevity, provided you’re not too reckless. All in all positive benefits from a potential mate and a benefit to potential children.
The second one entails an act of cheating/fraud, the sort of obtuseness that is not good around small children, and the sort of negligent indifference that gets you robbed and causes a lot of trouble to restore when things go wrong. This guy is just dead weight. You can’t trust him to help with children, or to be around long term (hello jail time, “with my best friend?”) or maybe he gets you ostracized in the community, and you’re going to have to clean up his (financial) messes because he just doesn’t pay attention to anything enough to not make them.
The third one as described makes you think he’s a guy who is so tightly wound that he’s a good candidate for a controlling mate or one who will stifle you and/or your children. Not a good mate choice for obvious reasons. This guy can’t adapt. He’s work. Everything you want to do in your life that you need him to get on board with is going to be like pulling teeth. You’re going to be frustrated and unhappy with this guy. Maybe he’s just a solid guy; but presented in this stacked order your first thought is “wound”.
I submit to you that the experiment’s assumptions are wrong because the risk taking scenarios have additional bias in them— from the perspective of a female considering a potential mate — that affected the outcome.
To put more bluntly, the less “risky" behaviors contained less risk, maybe, but also antisocial tendencies, poor “helper at the nest" skills, and red flags signalling a potential for abuse. No other positive benefits.
I’d pick the first behavior group too if that was my choice and not because I find thrill seekers or idiots sexy.
If the third guy is actually just a solid but also adaptable guy, I’d pick him. Need more info though and I admit at first glance the tendency to think the worst because the brain automatically parallels the high to low valuation of most risky to least risky.
