Seems that it should provide some selection bias, as the more intelligent you are, the more likely you will have a good idea and survive longer/provide better for your family etc.
Perhaps, but in times past physical strength was probably as much or more important than intelligence. Note that the least intelligent also have less opportunities to pass on their genes. It would seem that there's a sweet spot where a mix of intelligence and strength is most favored(note the testosterone hypothesis in the article).
Now, however, intelligence is much more important to success. How long will it take for evolution to smile on those with higher IQs such that potential mates find intelligence to be the most attractive trait?
I don't think it's paradoxical. There's a reason "smart genes" didn't proliferate throughout the human race, giving us all (the genetic potential for, at the least) 150+ IQs. That reason is that they're a reproductive drag.
Comments
Why is it paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success than average intelligence people?
Seems that it should provide some selection bias, as the more intelligent you are, the more likely you will have a good idea and survive longer/provide better for your family etc.
Perhaps, but in times past physical strength was probably as much or more important than intelligence. Note that the least intelligent also have less opportunities to pass on their genes. It would seem that there's a sweet spot where a mix of intelligence and strength is most favored(note the testosterone hypothesis in the article).
Now, however, intelligence is much more important to success. How long will it take for evolution to smile on those with higher IQs such that potential mates find intelligence to be the most attractive trait?
I don't think it's paradoxical. There's a reason "smart genes" didn't proliferate throughout the human race, giving us all (the genetic potential for, at the least) 150+ IQs. That reason is that they're a reproductive drag.