Absolutely, no argument there.
My argument is simply that hyper-intelligence (as opposed to moderate-intelligence) hasn't really given humans a reproductive edge. Sure, the inventor of the spear, or wheel, or whatever was a lot smarter than his rivals, but using those inventions didn't require hyper-intelligence. The use of these inventions granted great reproduction advantage, but the invention of these things did not.
A farmer who knows what seeds to use and which to discontinue - what crosses will be favorable - when to plant - how to deal with disease or overburdened branches - will have a huge reproductive advantage over a farmer of moderate intelligence who plods along doing what he has always done.
A more intelligent hunter is a more successful hunter and a more successful hunter generally has better reproductive success.
A more intelligent mason is a more successful mason and a more successful mason generally has better reproductive success.
A more intelligent war leader is a more successful war leader, and a more successful war leader generally has better reproductive success.
A more intelligent person is more likely to achieve higher rank in society, and one with higher rank in society is generally has better reproductive success.
Any human endeavor conducted by a human of demonstrable higher intelligence will be done better than a human of moderate intelligence. When you do things better you generally have better reproductive success.