Don't know.  Evolutionary biology and psychology suggests that since we evolved from primates that all of our current thinking is based off of how primates used to act and every decision we make is still based on and controlled by the evolutionary thinking of our ancestor animals.  So that every decision an average person can make is likely based on a decision an animal in our chain would make. 

For example, fear of the dark is fairly widespread among all cultures often attributed to the fact that many predators of primates hunted at night. (VS say, the fact that in the dark... things are... DARK therefore we can't see as well, therefore more noises are unexplained and vision is our primary sense being how we navigate in the world..)

Evolutionary biology/psychology/sociology of this kind is basically a hasty "prove all" for people who want to be able to explain human thinking.  They think humans have free will because they can choose options... but given the same options and scenario they will ALWAYS pick the same option... and why they pick this can be traced back to human kinds ancestors.  The ironic part is people who do this research are often considered extreme right wingers... even though it's  essentially done only by atheists.  Maybe beacuse it's more popular in europe.  I'm not sure if the same Right wing = more religious correlation happens in europe.  Heck, evolutionary biology says religions were created specifically because for some reason they provided some surivival advantage (more cooperation within groups) or as a byproduct of other survival advantages. (Abstract thinking, the ability to perceive that others have consiousness and understanding of mortality.  Though i'd note that at the very least 2 and 3 would suggest most animals have gods.  I think animals have shown abstract thinking as well, at least some, however i'm unsure of that).

Well that's what an outlier is more often then not.  A datapoint that doesn't fit with what is ususally observed, usually do to external pressuers.  I brought it up to cut off a future arguement involving prostitutes should someone else feel like mentioning it.  It was a common technique of Freud.  Much less people argue if you are able to counter their objections without them having to present them, because they no longer think you are just uninformed and the less longer into an arguement people are, the more likely they are to admit they are wrong.

Hence a "Hanging trap" where you deliberatly don't adress someone to show them being illogical by them either contradicting their other point, or having a load of data really is only useful when the other person has a history of not changing their mind.

That's not what the studies show. It was a misinterpretation done by the author of the blog. The writer clearly used the same reasoning and studies done by the people which shows that rapists prey on their victims by looking at their motions. The more confident a person seems the more decreased chance of getting raped.

The author misinterpreted it into meaning something else like wear sexy clothes and decrease the chances of getting raped. That's complete BS utter nonsense. If a person is not comfortable in sexy clothes they will lose their confidence rather than gaining it, so that's ill-advice too. How in the world will wearing sexy clothes decrease chances of rape when the studies that the author was using clearly stated that clothing was not a factor?

I don't think any woman should be accused of being a slut due to the clothes she wears.

No, the more religious you are, the more likely it is that you're also right wing (and nationalistic, and xenophobic, and racist). I think the extreme religiousness is one of the reasons why there's no left wing in Romania.

See, i'd blame it on the opressive communist regime that spread xenophobia as a means of holding people down.

Kinda leaves a bad taste in someones mouth when the extreme version of something fucks over your country.

I mean, i doubt there are many dog owners among people who were brutally mauled by dogs at a young age.