Hypergamy in Multiple Dimensions: So Many Bare Branches

Writing this particular post is difficult for me.  In contrast to the subject in
http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2012/03/universal-cry-structure-status-rules.html
I was, and remain, very fond of all three of the individuals involved, although geographical distance and basic prudence keep my communication with them very infrequent.
But they all three illustrate an important point, which I'll try my best to make.

I've always had a strong preference for smart girls, and these three are all very smart.  Not a single one has a single child though, which is something that makes me sad.
The first, let's call her woman A, makes me the least sad.  When she was in her early 20s, she would have rated around the 55th or so percentile in terms of attractiveness for women her age (which today would unfortunately equate to around the 70th percentile because obesity among women has increased so much since the late 80s and early 90s).  She's a very smart girl, about three sigmas, and fairly neurotypical as well.  She had no significant mental instability or physical dysfunction and a fairly decent level of non-neurotypical tolerance.  She got married to a fellow PhD in her area of research and has done pretty well for herself.  But she has no children, and she's a bit older than I am.

The next, keeping with convention we'll call her woman B, is probably the smartest woman I've met.  She's 4 sigma, direct observation over extended periods of time as well as psychometrics confirm this fact.  Back in her early 20s, she would have rated around the 45th to 50th percentile in terms of looks, but the fact that she was close to (actually about 5 pounds shy of) her ideal weight would push her into the 60th percentiles today.  She was also miles and miles from neurotypical---probably less so than I am, and her emulation capability wasn't very good at the time.  This likely accounts for the fact that most of her friends were guys in those days---men are satisfied with a far coarser emulation of neurotypical than are women.  Long term matchmaking prospects for her were pretty tough, and she never married and never had children.  A common thread with her was non-neurotypical boyfriends that she'd keep for a year or so which would, with the improved confidence and status gained from having their first real relationship, trade her in for a prettier girl.  The SMP and the junior version of the MMP---call it the long term relationship marketplace, is incredibly brutal that way.  Raise a man's status by 10 percentiles or so, by making him less inept in male-female relationships, and he'll often/usually go looking for a hotter girlfriend.  Most of the time he won't even realise that this is what he's doing.

The last is one I find genuinely tragic.  Woman C was a three sigma neurotypical, like Woman A, who was her best friend.  But Woman C is a rare creature---she is a self-aware neurotypical.  Yes, she has a rationalisation hamster, but that fell beast is bound in adamantine chains.  Somewhat stereotypically, she's also a writer and poet, and, in my judgment, one that doesn't suck (for those less familiar with my style, that is high praise).  She was a very pretty girl in her early 20s---around 75th percentile as I'd reckon it by the standards of the late 80s/early 90s, which would equate to 90-95 percentile by today's standards.  Like woman A, she had no psychological or mental instability and, as I mentioned before, she was and is self-aware.  Hypergamy in multiple dimensions hit her HARD though, especially as the distribution of attractiveness changed in her 20s and early 30s.  You see, a long term match for her when she was close to the 75th percentile was fairly doable, in fact I can easily see several scenarios that might have easily come to pass that would have made that happen.  But a low 90s match in her position would have required some Divine intervention (which yes, I do believe happens, just not often enough for most people to hope for it as plan A).  Consider:
She's going to want a man at least as smart as she is and he's going to have to be 90-95 percentile in status as reckoned by other women.  Let's look at the options

3 sigma neurotypical or non-neurotypical with relatively effortless flawless emulation capability
First off, this is rare.  Second, all of the men I know in this category are really high status---i.e. higher than 95th percentile.

I'm sure that the 4 sigma neurotypical must exist, but I've never met him or her.

I've also never met a 4 sigma non-neurotypical with an effortless flawless emulation capability---effortless but not flawless, yes, or highly energy-intensive but flawless, yes again.  But I've never seen both in the same package---maybe I'll get there myself by the time I'm 60 or 70.
In my experience, I've never seen someone in this category in that status range----80s yes, what VoxDay would call a beta or Roissy would call a 'greater beta'--I know several of them.

So she's trying to thread a very difficult needle, and never quite managed it.  The world did not and likely will never receive any children of hers.  It will have to content itself with her books and poems.

So here we have it, three very smart women, one marriage, absolutely zero children.  Unfortunately, this isn't all that uncommon a story for women in this range.  I shudder to calculate a TFR for women at or above the 3rd sigma.


Update (regarding commenter KK):
For an look at the distribution of weight for women with fairly recent data
http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm
Note especially the percentiles,  presently the 50th percentile woman in her 20s is north of 25 BMI.  21 BMI is, IMO ideal (interestingly enough, women agree that BMI 20-22 is optimal for women).  While there are a few women out there who have BMI >25 that can give a plain Jane at BMI 21 a run for her money, that number is vanishingly small (and many of them work as figure models for plus sizes).