Execute the criminals

If you believe in evolution all the way like I do, some conclusions are inevitable. Such as: criminals should be given much harsher sentences, and the focus shouldn't be on trying to rehabilitate them. Rather, they should be executed without undue delay, especially if there is even a tiny suspicion that they will commit further crimes if set free.

There is currently way too much compassion being shown to criminals. They are put in prisons whose luxuriousness rivals that of 3-star hotels. It costs an absolutely staggering amount of resources to house these criminals. Ultimately the cost is borne by the taxpayer, who are struggling to raise their own families. Of course, the problem is that too many people are dependent on the "crime industry". The police, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc. People in these professions, like parasites, produce nothing of value.

This crime industry is the main reason why the government is so keen on gun-control. Someone once told me about a labour union strike that happened at his place of work. Unfortunately I was told this story possibly 20 or more years ago, so I don't remember the details clearly, but please bear with me. There was a bulb that needed to be replaced, so he asked the workers to change it, but the workers on strike refused to change the bulb because they were agitating for higher pay. When he tried to do it himself, they prevented him from doing it and instead threatened him with bodily harm. Just like the union workers, the government also refuses to let the common people take matters into their own hands, because then a lot of government-employed people would be out of work. It's just basic economics. Andy Turnbull explains it brilliantly in The Cassandra Papers:

The most obvious problem with the GNP is that it counts all transactions as positive factors, even if they are obviously negative. The ice storm that hit southern Quebec and eastern Ontario in January of 1998 added billions of dollars to Canada's gross national product.

In 1993 the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York added more than a billion dollars to the GNP of the U.S.A. In 1995 the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City added even more that year and sparked a long-term increase of at least $300 million a year for extra security at US federal buildings.

In Canada Paul Bernardo who raped at least 14 women in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough and who kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed two teen-age girls in St. Catherines added tens of millions of dollars to the GNP. His contribution includes the cost of the police investigation of the rapes and kidnaps, medical and psychiatric treatment for the victims who survived his attention and, after he was caught, his trial and the media frenzy that accompanied it.

If he spends the rest of his life in jail he will continue to contribute to the GNP because the average prisoner costs at least $50,000 a year to maintain and a "special" prisoner like Bernardo, who needs protection from other prisoners, probably costs more. If you believe in numbers, Paul Bernardo was and is a productive member of society.

Read that part again: Criminals are productive members of society. Why? They stimulate the economy. They reduce unemployment (many people, like lawyers, judges, police, etc. base their livelihoods on criminal activity).

But what about the suffering caused to the criminals if we execute them? Assuming anyone in their right mind would care, the criminals will cease to suffer once they're dead anyway.

There is one very real problem: innocent people being falsely found guilty and executed. A best effort should be made to determine if the accused is innocent, and if he is not, the sentence should be carried out without delay. If it turns out later that the one executed was falsely accused, then the accuser can be executed just like the other criminals. Innocent people die all the time: that's just tough. Next time don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Other than the economics and morality of it all, why do I think that criminals should be executed post haste? Evolution, what else! Executing them will reduce the likelihood that they will have children. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, the saying goes. Since behaviour has a genetic component and is inherited from parents, it makes sense to eliminate "criminal genes" from the gene pool. Shocking? Well, think about this: why do you think the majority of people living today aren't criminals and instead law-abiding citizens? Because throughout history, those who committed crimes were often executed. They didn't last long enough to leave many children around. If those criminals were treated any differently back then, there would be absolute chaos in society today. The wolves would outnumber the sheep.

What kind of society are we creating for our children?

What should a woman do with her intelligence?

I received a book in the mail a while back called "Monkeys On Our Backs". The author at one point questioned the common idea that women should use their intelligence and potential to benefit society.

All men and women are born with intelligence. But they are so different from each other that intelligence benefits them differently.

What the science shows is that a man needs to use his intelligence in order to reproduce (have children). A man who does not have intelligence to gain status, wealth, and power will have trouble finding a wife. In evolutionary terms, a man who is intelligent and who uses it will enjoy higher fertility. A man who is not intelligence will have more trouble finding a wife and having children.

On the other hand, it is exactly the opposite for women. Women who "use" their intelligence to its "full potential" must necessarily have lower fertility. This is not idle opinion - it is a scientific fact, backed by empirical observations. A woman has a limited time, part of which she can allocate to career, and the other part to family. She cannot give 100% to each. A woman who divides her time between family and career will have less fertility than a woman who gives 100% to family. It is only possible for a career woman to match the fertility of a housewife if:

1. there are perverse incentives that artificially boost the fertility of career women (tax breaks, socialized day care, socialized fertility treatments)
2. there are perverse disincentives that artificially lower the fertility of housewives (tax codes that penalize families, higher taxes to support career women's choices, etc)

Note that I'm not saying that women should not be intelligent. Rather, I'm saying that women are better off not "using it to its full potential" in the modern sense ie. pursue a career. From an evolutionary standpoint, women can effectively use their intelligence to further their reproductive success in only one way: by passing it on (via genes) to their children.

1. Their sons will benefit, because they will be able to attract a quality wife and have children. The more intelligent he is, the higher status, wealth, and power he will likely enjoy, and the more likely that his wife will be able to be a housewife and enjoy higher fertility. It goes without saying that he will have intelligent sons (see #1) and daughters (see #2).
2. Their daughters will also benefit, because they will themselves be more intelligent, but more importantly, they will be able to have more intelligent sons of their own (see #1)

Society may "lose" out by not utilizing all this female intelligence to its "full potential", but:

1. If we don't know what we are losing out on, then why should it bother us? People living 2000 years ago couldn't concieve of space travel, but it didn't seem to bother them.
2. Perhaps our modern society could have been achieved 2000 years ago. But so what? Are we really better off now than we used to be? And who would be around who could appreciate the fact that modern society had been achieved 2000 years earlier than scheduled? Instead there would only be people complaining that modern society hadn't been achieved 4000 years ago instead of 2000 years ago.
3. Perhaps global warming might have happened 2000 years ago. And it could have been fixed 1900 years ago. But how is it different from global warming happening now and being fixed in 2100 AD?
4. Is it better for a woman to use her intelligence to benefit society, or is it better for her to have 2 sons who will inherit her high intelligence and benefit society?

Abortion: why it's bad for you... but mostly good for everyone else

I'm a firm believer in letting everyone live the way they want to live. As long as they don't interfere in the lives of other people of course. If people want to have abortions, then I believe that they should be able to have them. Human life isn't sacred. Evolution will sort everyone out in the end.

The real question is "who will inherit the earth"? The answer is of course those who don't practice abortion and contraception. If the ultimate goal of all life is reproduction, and if success can be measured in terms of how many children and grandchildren one has, then those who have more children are more successful than those who have fewer or no children. Those who have children when young are also more successful than those who have children when old. Those who use contraception will tend to be less successful than those who don't.

However, if you live in a society you will always have some indirect effect on everyone else in that society. It is not really truly possible to "live as one wishes without interfering in others lives". There is always atleast an indirect effect. There are some problems with abortion and contraception that we need to be aware of.

• You need to ensure that your sons don't marry those who use abortion and contraception. A woman on hormonal contraception may fall in love with your son who may not be a good match for her. If this happens, your son may be in for a rocky marriage.
• You need to ensure that your daughters don't marry men who (through their sexual experience) expect women to be on hormonal contraception. They are likely to treat sex casually, be irresponsible, and have STDs.
• Those on hormonal contraception and who practice abortion are likely to be promiscuous. You need to ensure that your sons don't get involved with promiscuous women because of the risk of STDs. There is some evidence that using hormonal birth control actually increases the risk of contracting HIV due to changes in the user's immune system.
• Those who don't have nor want children will eventually depend on welfare to support them in their old age. Your sons and daughters may be the ones indirectly supporting the elderly through taxes.
• Those who practice abortion and contraception will raise their children in a likewise manner. And it may be that your children will learn these things from their children at school.

When looking for potential matches for your sons and daughters, you must find other families that share your values. Sexual selection is an entire half of evolution (the other half being natural selection). If you disapprove of the way someone is living, then the correct way is to ignore them and ensure that your sons and daughters do not marry them. Trying to force them to live the right way might work on the surface, but the genes responsible for that behaviour will just crop up in succeeding generations.

Life is also a competition for resources. The more of my family there are, the better; the fewer of everyone else there are, the better. So if people think that their genes aren't worth passing on to the next generation, then I heartily agree, and so be it. This is how evolution works.

Why a lower life expectancy and a higher birth rate is better

Thanks to modern medicine, life expectancy has increased substantially. More children survive childhood, and people live longer. But perhaps it's too good to be true? What if the status quo of higher life expectancy and lower birth rate requires a large expenditure of energy that's ultimately based on petroleum that may not be available in the future?

Childbirth

When more children survive childhood through external factors like caesarean birth, there is less "evolutionary pressure" to be able to survive natural childbirth.

An analogy: suppose some birds somehow get isolated on an island where there are no predators. Eventually, some of them will lose the ability to fly, beause on this island there is no evolutionary pressure to be able to fly. There are no predators to eat the birds that don't fly. Soon the flightless birds will multiply. But this isn't necessarily to say that the flightless birds are somehow inferior. Because nature tends to be economical, it will often (within an ecological niche) get rid of unnecessary features because those features are expensive to maintain. Within an ecological niche such as the ground, a flightless bird is more efficient than a flying bird. So on this island, the ability of flight has been trimmed from some of the birds because it is unnecessary and wasteful. Still there will be flying birds as well, because they occupy a different ecological niche (the air). In the air, obviously the flightless birds don't do well at all but the flying birds do quite well.

In human populations, lack of evolutionary pressure leads to similar outcomes. When childbirth becomes safer through external factors (caesarians, etc), there is less evolutionary pressure for babies to present properly or grow to a safe size within the mother, and there is also less evolutionary pressure for mothers to be able to give birth naturally. Over time, this lack of evolutionary pressure leads to small but significant increase in the average size of babies, and small but significant decreases in the size of the female pelvis. Eventually, a situation may result wherein women cannot give birth naturally any longer and require medical assistance. Whereas now childbirth is a normal function of the human body, eventually it will become a medical emergency.

There are at least two problems that I can see with this situation:

1. It requires the presence of a medical industry that is often parasitic. Parasitic because it is more profitable for those in the medical profession to recommend that women get c-sections even if they are capable of giving birth naturally. Eventually when women lose the ability to surive a normal childbirth, it is the medical profession that will profit the most.
2. If for some reason medical care on a large scale isn't available, then it's possible that unimaginable numbers of women and children will die in childbirth. Returning to the example of the birds on the island, suppose predators such as dogs are introduced to the island. The flightless birds will most likely be wiped out. Similarly, when the childbirth environment changes (lack of medical care), the large proportion of women with pelvises too small or who are giving birth to too-large babies will not survive childbirth.

Just as in the breast-cancer industry that profits from donations to fight breast cancer, the medical industry similarly plays on our emotions when it comes to the safety of women and children in childbirth.

Childhood

Another factor that increases life expectancy is that more children these days survive into adulthood, thanks to antibiotics, vaccines, better hygiene, safety practices, etc. Same as in childbirth,  children who survive to adulthood with the help of external factors no longer face evolutionary pressure to survive to adulthood unassisted. This will lead to weaker immune systems on average, antibiotic overuse and resistance, reliance on vaccines, allergies becoming more common, etc. Soon children will come to rely on external factors to keep them alive because there is no pressure to be self-reliant. Again, the medical industry profits from this state of affairs.

Old age

Still another factor that increases life expectancy is that people live longer. Again, people rely on various (and usually expensive) medical interventions to help them survive to an old age. In fact, the cost of keeping a person alive for a year increases as that person ages. This is because as they get older they require more expensive interventions to keep them alive. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it costs more for one person to live to 100 than for two people to live to 50 each. Again, the big winner here is the medical industry. In order to justify the spending required, they play on our emotions, just as they do when it comes to women and children.

There are several disadvantages to having a large elderly population, apart from the required amount of medical intervention. The elderly are also less productive and a lot of welfare spending goes to them. And of course someone has to pick up the bill for this, and that is the taxpayer.

Higher birth rate

Thus far we've considered the factors that raise life-expectancy. If we were to overhaul this system, it would result in a lower life expectancy. But if more people are dying, then there will need to be some way to sustain population levels. Thus a higher birth rate is justified. However, it has to be done the right way. It makes little sense to encourage single mothers to have lots of children, because those children will ultimately wind up costing society far more than having a higher life expectancy. I believe that, done the right way, a higher birth rate will make people happier. People will be more productive (because younger people are more productive on average), and people will be more health conscious. It is well known that the more you take care of someone, the less care they take of themselves. It shifts the responsibility of survival to the individual, where it belongs.

With a lower life expectancy and a higher birth rate, government could go back to the ideal of "defending and protecting the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property", as explained by Frederic Bastiat. Such a setup requires less taxes, less government interference, less welfare, less medicine, less energy expenditure, more robust children and therefore people, etc. People will also have children earlier, which also leads to positive outcomes for children (better genes and parenting).

The confusion over pedophilia

When people say "pedophilia", they often don't understand what they're saying. I've seen people refer to sex with 16 year olds as pedophilia.

Pedophilia is defined as sex with children (from neonate to pre-pubescence). Pedophilia doesn't make a great deal of sense from a biological perspective, because pre-pubescent humans are incapable of causing pregnancy or becoming pregnant, so adult humans exclusively seeking sexual relations with pre-pubescent humans are probably doing something wrong. "Evolution gone wrong" you could say, although it's not as simple as that.

In fact, it's just another example of "Fisherian Runaway" sexual selection. Where youth in women was found to be an indicator of fertility, youth soon came to be attractive for its own sake. Just like the peacock's tail became attractive for its own sake. Adult women well understand this subconsciously, and they play along when they shave their body hair. In fact there is a name for it: neoteny.

Ephebophilia is defined as sex with adolescents (stage between puberty and adulthood). From a biological perspective, there is nothing wrong with ephebophilia, because adolescents are able to cause pregnancy or become pregnant. In fact the difference between adolescence and adulthood is pretty much arbitrary and meaningless and academic from a biological perspective.

Biologically we have not changed a great deal from those who lived even 1000 years ago, so to say that people are abnormal for reproducing when young when in the past it was pretty much the standard thing to do shows a distinct lack of awareness of history. In ages past, life expectancy at birth was probably no higher than 30 years, and life-expectancy at adolescence was probably around 40 or so (most women would have had a very large number of children). It is then straightforward that if our ancestors weren't ephebophiles and instead waited until their 30s to have children as they do today, homo sapiens would have had the same fate as the mammoths.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even the use of the word "ephebophilia" is a Fisherian Runaway in the making. Suppose there are a large number of people being struck by thrown apples. Even then, it makes no sense to outlaw the simple act of having apples. Similarly, it is only relevant to criminalize ephebophilia in the case of those people who seek only sexual relations with adolescents with the exclusion of attendant normal reproductive behaviour. It is meaningless to criminalize a person for marrying an adolescent, having several children, and living happily married until death. Otherwise every man throughout history who ever lived is technically a "criminal".

On the other hand, if the person wants nothing more than to have sex with one 15-year old after another with no intention of having any meaningful relationship with any of them, then it makes more sense to criminalize that behaviour because it is dysfunctional and any society allowing such a thing will soon be overwhelmed by other more functional societies.

Contraception and bipedalism: the parallel

When humans started to walk upright, the female pelvis became smaller as a result of bipedalism. As a result, human babies spent less time developing inside its mother and more time developing outside. No other animal species takes so long to mature into adults. In a way the quality of childbirth can be said to have decreased, in order to take advantage of the gains from bipedalism.

... the complexity, pain, and danger of human birth and the long and dangerous dependency of the human infant are the "price" we pay for hips that facilitate bipedal locomotion. (source)

Here's the modern parallel: when humans gained control over their reproductive systems (the birth control pill, condoms, etc), the institution of marriage was fairly quickly eroded away. As a result, children faced several developmental difficulties due to the lack of the family framework. In a way, the quality of children can be said to have decreased in order to take advantage of the gains (whatever they may be, whether real or perceived) resulting from the control over reproduction.

Now it is no doubt that bipedalism was a good thing. And yet, I can almost imagine a scene during that time (when bipedalism was on the rise) in which the "conservatives" (those against bipedalism) were railing against the "liberals" (who were for bipedalism) because of the harm being caused to the babies.

Contraception was a turning point, on the same scale as bipedalism. Are the conservatives of today needlessly worrying? Will humanity adapt to the new environment? What are the benefits that contraception brings us that is on the same scale as the benefits that bipedalism brought us?

What is a human being?

When we think of a human being, we think of a man or a woman. In biology, a living organism is something that can reproduce itself, among other things.

Suppose you want to send a human being to a distant planet, in order to colonize that new world. Do you send a man? Or a woman? Or two men? Or five women? Obviously you have to send a man and a woman at the very least. So in a sense, a man-woman pair make up a single unit of homo sapiens.

Just as a heart isn't a human being by itself, and a brain isn't a human being by itself, so too a man by himself or a woman by herself are only half a human being. Is an unfertilized egg a human being? Of course not. Is a sperm cell a human being? No. Only when they come together do they form a person, and even that person is only half a human being until he or she grows up and forms a relationship with a person of the opposite gender.

People speak jokingly of "my other half" when referring to a spouse, and yet it's more true than anyone realizes.

What women want

Women complain about men a lot these days, as well they should. Men are untidy, insensitive, sex-crazed. They rape, they murder, most criminals are male. They make women pregnant and then run off with other (much younger) women. They don't pay child support for kids they've fathered. Et cetera.

Ironically, all the qualities that men have, both good and bad, are those which have been selected by women. In fact it's more than just a "selection", it's an "election", because by having a child by a man, the woman is casting a vote that says "this is the kind of man I want future generations of men to be like". And of course the men are voting as well, but to a lesser extent, what they want women of the future to be like. Note that none of this is being done consciously. Consider the peacock's tail. It confers no survival advantage. In fact a peacock with the best and biggest tail is the easiest for predators to catch. But it has a reproductive advantage because it's what the peahens want. Why do the peahens want it? They have no idea.

So it's futile for a woman who has given birth to a man's child to then complain about his qualities. She is only repeating the "mistake" his mother made!

Contraception in the light of evolution

People these days often say that they want few children or even no children. The reasons - or more accurately justifications and rationalizations - are many, but the most popular one is overpopulation.

Unfortunately, they have a serious lack of knowledge and/or understanding about evolution and how it works.

Every man has a fatherhood instinct, and every woman has a motherhood instinct. But the thing about the motherhood and fatherhood instincts is that they are not "all or nothing". Instead there is a continuum going from no motherhood instinct to strong motherhood instinct, and all women fall somewhere along this continuum. It is the same with the fatherhood instinct - there is a continuum going from no fatherhood instinct to strong fatherhood instinct, and all men fall somewhere along this continuum.

The motherhood and fatherhood instincts are controlled by genes, so they fall under "nature". They are not to be confused with "parenting skills" which fall under "nurture". It is the same instinct that causes the feeling of the "biological clock" in older women approaching the end of their reproductive career. They are physiological needs.

It is the people who have a weaker motherhood or fatherhood instinct who are more likely to have fewer children. And those who have stronger instincts will have more children. So if this state of affairs continues, the genes responsible for weaker instincts will slowly be bred out of the human gene pool, and the genes responsible for stronger instincts will slowly predominate.

In fact, the pill and safe contraception are accelerating this process. In the past, people often had children against their will. Women had no choice but to reproduce, because they gave sex in exchange for security, and sex meant babies. Men also had no choice because sex is a physiological need for them. But now, contraception allows men to take care of this physiological need without the usual consequences. And women can give sex in exchange for security (or they don't need security from a man because they are economically independent) without the usual consequences. But no contraception can dampen or eliminate the motherhood and fatherhood instincts. A woman will feel the biological clock ticking when she hits her mid to late 30s, regardless of which form of contraception she's using. And the stronger these instincts become, the less effective contraception will be. Consider that many single teenage mothers choose to have babies regardless of the availability of contraception, and regardless of the risks. That is the motherhood instinct in action.

So future generations of people will have stronger parenting instincts, which will drive them to have more children. What delicious irony!

Iterative game of life

Came across an article on Psychology Today called Do Married Women Want Their Husbands to Cheat?.

Further to what the author says about women's choices in men, I would add that women have to choose a balance between these two extremes:

1. choose men who are not promiscuous because if he cheats on her, it will potentially divert his resources to other women's children
2. choose men who are promiscuous because it will benefit:
1. her sons because promiscuity will give her sons a reproductive advantage
2. her daughters because they will inherit his mother's "attraction to promiscuous men" genes and thus confer a reproductive advantage on her daughters

I chose to call this post "the iterative game of life" because it is reminiscent of the "prisoner's dilemma problem". The prisoners behave differently depending on whether every game is discrete and doesn't affect following games or whether the game is iterative. While the prisoners will act purely selfishly in the former case, they may tend to cooperate in the latter to avoid each punishing the other in successive games.

Similarly, evolution does not operate within a generation insulated from succeeding generations. If it did, then women would only choose non-promiscuous men. We all know that this is false in reality. A superior evolutionary strategy is to consider the effects in succeeding generations.

Which came first, beauty or intelligence?

I came across an article on Psychology Today, a blog post by the Scientific Fundamentalist called "Beautiful People Really ARE More Intelligent".

We all know that women care a great deal about their beauty, because they know what attracts men. And men care a great deal about status (which may be gotten by intelligence) because they know what attracts women.

Now this got me thinking: why was the title of the blog post worded "Beautiful People Really ARE More Intelligent"? It would be equally valid to say "Intelligent People Really ARE More Beautiful". After all, evolution is not directed, so intelligence is just a strategy, just like beauty. Neither one is better than the other. One (intelligence) is a strategy used by males to reproduce, and the other (beauty) is a strategy used by females to reproduce.

I mentioned in a previous blog post (Men are more intelligent than women) that intelligence is largely a male trait. It is more useful to men, but of little use to women when it comes to mating. The title might upset women, but there is really no reason to be upset. After all it is well known that women are more beautiful than men. It's just obvious enough that there isn't any need for a post to be written about it. And as I've mentioned, intelligence and beauty are just two different strategies.

While intelligence is of little use to women when it comes to mating, both beauty and intelligence are important for men. I shall explain why.

From the female's point of view, on the one hand she would like a provider and protector. A male with status fits the bill. But all else being equal, she will prefer the more beautiful male, because her daughters will have a beauty advantage if she mates with a beautiful man with status than a plain man with status. If the man's status is unknown, she will be attracted to beautiful males, because beauty is often an indicator of intelligence (and intelligence begets status). After all, his mother was beautiful, and so it was likely that she attracted an intelligent man with status.

So physical beauty in a man is preferred by women for two reasons:

1. As an indicator of intelligence (and thus status)
2. A beauty advantage for her daughters, so they will be able to attract (intelligent) men with status
3. Smarter men are more virile

Men on the other hand care little about a woman's intelligence because:

1. It is not necessary for a man to determine a woman's beauty and thus fertility indirectly through her intelligence - it's plain to see!
2. While mating with a intelligent woman would ensure that their sons had a reproductive advantage, it is likely that intelligence in a woman reduces her fertility.
3. Until fairly recently in human evolution, a man didn't need to pick and choose which woman he mated with. Because his investment in procreation was all of about 10 minutes, there was no need to pick and choose. Of course, with the advent of marriage and women as property, the environment changed but his brain didn't much.

This is all very hypothetical, so do post a comment if you have any thoughts.

Men are more intelligent than women (and women are more beautiful than men)

In all societies, intelligence can be an advantage for men because a more intelligent man has a greater ability to acquire status which enables him to attract more women and thus have more children. This status can be acquired by various means, such as strength, influence, wealth, etc. So for a man, more status means more fertility.

Since in the mating game it is women who choose men and not the other way around, the question of whether a man would prefer beauty or intelligence in a woman is somewhat beside the point. Also, since the game of life is about reproduction and not about intelligence nor beauty, a man would prefer beauty which correlates with fertility in women. Just as how women would prefer intelligence which correlates with fertility in men (but also beauty which is an indicator of intelligence in men). Which is not to say that intelligence is completely useless in a woman (because his sons would gain a reproductive advantage from his wife's intelligence genes), but intelligence is not an indicator of fertility in women (in fact it is the opposite).

Since the supply of women have always been less than demand, there has always been less evolutionary pressure on women to excel than on men. A woman has to literally do nothing to attract a man (she didn't have to be devious or clever in attracting a man), she has no real use for intelligence. Beauty on the other hand would give her an advantage in attracting men with status.

But then why did intelligence in women evolve at all? Since the more intelligent men were more likely to be successful in mating with women and having more offspring, children (both boys and girls) in the second generation inherited those intelligence genes from their fathers. These girls in the second generation, while being more intelligent (and numerous) than other girls who were the offspring of less intelligent men, nevertheless had no mating advantage over their less intelligent cousins. But a more intelligent man would have more luck with these second generation women than a less intelligent man would have with these women. So in the third generation as well, boys and girls possessing more intelligence would be more numerous.

So it seems that women's intelligence has always been dragged up by the men they mated with. And of course male beauty has always been dragged up by the females they mated with.