–“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos
I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors:
(a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation.
(b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile)
(c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times).
(d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers.
(e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles.
(e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality).
Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies.
And yes that means what you think it does.
Updated:
Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it.
Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain.
My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.