From what I've observed, those with an IQ more than two or so standard deviations above normal have social problems because they relate to others poorly.
Especially if they are introverts. Extroverts do better, but often have hidden difficulties masked by their outgoing personalities.
My IQ is more than three standard deviations above normal. In Meyers-Briggs I'm right down the middle between E and I.
Certainly I was never very popular in school, and for a long time there was a feedback loop between peers finding me arrogant and annoying and me becoming even more arrogant and annoying in defense.
But then my family adopted 4 special-needs kids, and I learned that being smart wasn't enough for dealing with everything in life, and also that I wasn't half bad at some of the other stuff: I made a perhaps-surprisingly good big brother. And then I went into the IB program for high school and for the first time personally knew people who were definitely smarter than me (if only in some fields, I told myself). Both experiences were very helpful in teaching me to have an identity outside intelligence.
But as far as relating to people in general, it's not as bad as you might expect. For one thing, almost everyone I know is smart. My parents, my near-age biological brother, my wife, my kids (so I tell myself, but they're too young to know yet really), and most of my friends are all of well above average intelligence.
And overall I find that humility and real (or adequately feigned) interest make interacting with almost anyone pretty workable. For humility, I try to remember that I'm smart through no merit of my own: it's a gift of God (or chance, or the inexorable unfolding of the big bang as you like) through genetics and environment. Of course I participated usefully in my own intellectual growth, but there are any number of sad failures of application and tenacity to count against me in that column, too. For interest, like so many things, it's about faking it till it becomes real.
IB programs really teach you a lot about life. Our program was actually inside an inner city school where the population not in the program had a very low rate of success as far as graduating and careers went. There is a lot of pressure involved with having abilities of any kind. People begin to expect results, regardless of your other passions or wishes.
I agree, humility and genuine respect is absolutely critical to relating up and down the chain of both IQ and command. That said, sometimes you have to think if life wouldn't be easier if everyone had the IQ of a 3 year old. At least then innovation would come naturally, and everyone would learn to share.
I think resilience is the most important trait; a resilient introvert can do fine.
A high-IQ person is going to have difficult socialization early in life, and be behind the curve on a lot of social milestones. However, this becomes less important as a person gets older; most people would consider it a good thing for a 40-year-old to be mistaken for someone in his mid-30s.
My IQ's about 150 and I've definitely had a problem with girls I've dated not taking me seriously (to the point where I've had to dump them) because I'm 25 and my "number" is in (gasp!) the low single digits, as if not having done a Sherman's march in my 20s were something to be embarrassed about. I'm sure that a significantly more insecure version of myself would internalize this and have problems, but actually I just look at these sorts of experiences as incredibly funny.
From an evolutionary POV, the number of past sexual partners is the number of women who 'voted' you to have mating potential. Women grant more weight to other women's evaluation of you than they do to what you think about yourself.
1. More women should be thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. Are they that unsure of their own judgment that they need to evaluate a man based on the imputed opinions of people they've never met, many of whom are in his distant past? I, for one, like finding a great girl who men have underrated in the past.
2. A low or high number of sexual partners has, in general, a lot more to do with lifestyle and values than ability.
You will not be happy with a woman who does not think for herself. Most people would. It will take you more effort to find someone you'll be happy with, but it will likely be a higher-quality relationship when you do.
"Should"? Evolution laughs at should. Lemmings follow each other because 99% or more of the time that is EXACTLY the right thing to do, and 99% is more than enough to win in evolution.
And what we learn from evolution is we should laugh at should too. My theory: should is a gambit to control you on the part of other people trying to win in the game of evolution.
A person's reproductive goal, both in evolutionary times as well as by modern standards, is to raise successful offspring. Parental investment is a strong predictor of this.
Thus, a woman benefits by selecting a loyal man rather than a promiscuous one. For her to marry a loyal man with strong genetics (e.g. an attractive man with a limited sexual history, indicating a low disposition toward promiscuity) is optimal. A woman who disqualifies men because they've had a low number of sexual partners is never going to accomplish this.
Anyway, the obsession over the number of past sexual partners means nothing in an evolutionary context, since the whole concept is a social construct. Pre-numerate cave dwellers would have lost count pretty quickly.
Your post reads like a red herring (in the stock sense). A "story stock" has to have a good story, it doesn't have to have numbers behind it.
Anything's reproductive "goal", in any times, is to show up a lot in later generations. Promiscuity and particularity both show up as strategies in humans and broadly beyond. Anybody studying reporductive strategies many generations later will have a strong survivorship bias in their results.
A woman who selects a man who isn't very promiscuous is unlikely to get her genes spread very far by her son(s). This trades off against the part of the story you tell.
Please take my comment as a truism about evolution rather than women in particular. The extremely superficial explanation is my view of one strategy among many.
Primitive strategies are none the worse for being primitive: though no guarantor of success, they're often adequate. thus the number of citations of a science paper is not a direct reflection of its quality, but not irrelevant either. I was surprised to discover that market traders, far from being tight-lipped about their strategic overview, spend a lot of time calling each other up when things were slow to ask what their competitors thought of the day's financial 'weather'. Google's Pageranks are similar. And so on.
It is true that a fairly non-promiscuous person will likely be a better parent and thus a desirable match. Nevertheless, some competitive genes don't hurt. Also commitment after experience is more interesting than commitment by default (see daily YC thread on how 'Windows users only like it because it came with the computer they bought').
Especially if they are introverts. Extroverts do better, but often have hidden difficulties masked by their outgoing personalities.