Heartiste writes in his Dating Market Value Test For Men that only slightly above average men have an advantage. I would agree with that as it not only is consistent with my own experience but also coincidentally is found by a mathematical model of democratic election. Finally, it seems quite logical that higher intellectual capabilities are not perceived as an advantage but as a threat. According the Dunning-Kruger effect, we all are incapable to correctly evaluate capabilities that are more favorable than ours. We cannot understand a more intellectual person, and everything that we cannot understand we use to fear instinctively.
Fortunately, if women are capable to select slightly more intelligent men this is of evolutionary advantage over many generations, as these INDIVIDUAL decisions sum up over the generations.
Unfortunately, that is not true with democracies, as COLLECTIVE decisions always cut down over the generations.
The mathematical effect on variance is as follows: the former will increase variance, the latter decrease towards idiocracy.
„The social sciences have developed in ways that are not necessarily to our advantage.“
Though they do have developed to the advantage of the money source, the government. That’s the fundamental rule of evolution: everything evolves to get the most of the resources. Admittedly that implies that government is not “necessarily to our advantage” which for most of you is difficult to digest.
“How to fix?”
Simply develop social science isolated from governmental support. BTW, if you keep your eyes open, you can spot a lot of social science evolving outside governmental control. As a matter of fact that’s where social science becomes most exciting.