>Not wave 'citation please' like a cheap flag. Okay. Your right. Instead I am going to talk about the conclusions the article makes. "Because reproductive suc

>Not wave 'citation please' like a cheap flag. Okay. Your right. Instead I am going to talk about the conclusions the article makes. "Because reproductive success is the ultimate goal of all living organisms, so intelligent women are more likely to go against such evolutionary design." If were going to go ahead and define the most important things in life as the most evolutionarily viable ones, then we've already ceded way too much ground. And even this argument doesn't take into account things like overpopulation, if everyone tried to maximize baby output, we'd fill the planet up mighty quick. So it may actually make sense to reproduce less, but not necessarily not at all. "My theory would also predict that intelligent men should be less likely to become parents, but data do not confirm that. Some suggest that women prefer to have children with more intelligent men, but the data contradict this too." If the data already contradicts your hypothesis, then why say it? "Men’s income or education has no effect on their likelihood of becoming parents. Intelligence doesn’t allow us to do better what we are designed by evolution to do." Designed is a misnomer, natural selection works because those who survive are the ones represented. We weren't "designed" to do anything. Were here because the people before us had babies. It is preferable that we continue to have babies so that people will exist in the future, but raw baby making isn't everything. Our "Evolutionarily novel" environment was made through the use of intelligence. On a societal level intelligence is important to create novel inventions which keep more humans alive long enough to make babies. If intelligent people don't reproduce, but the populations that they spawn in stay alive longer than dumber populations, then the people who have recessive intelligence genes that let them occasionally spawn a genius will do just fine, leaving intelligent people in the system and making them evolutionarily valuable. Of course, on a individual scale this may not work out too well for the intelligent people. With all that in mind, in the spirit of Fermi's Paradox: If intelligence isn't evolutionarily valuable, and is in fact negatively correlated with evolutionary success, then why are the smart people still here? (In non-trivial numbers.)