I think it is very dangerous to think this way.... because...
again - your intellect is only one very small aspect of what makes
you human (and humane)
That you can communicate and connect better with an intellectual
equal is a fallacy bred by snobs. (Sorry Fatum) A better person
isn't necessary smarter - and a smarter person isn't necessarily
better.
A blink of an eye and we cross the line into feudal caste
systems where people can only marry within their own castes because
only their caste is good enough for them. Natural selection means,
we make our own choices - if you like bimbos, so be it. But who
knows in that bimbo genes is one dormant super intelligent gene she
carries from some ancient ancestor. It's DNA lottery with the human
species.
But if we are talking about eugenics as a POLICY - then the
choice is taken away from us. I am afraid to walk down that
road.
of course, life is certainly more complex than that. There's
genetic mutation, there are sleeper genes that trigger certain
desirable traits or anomalies in people. The list goes on. What I'm
saying is, while we haven't worked out the exact mechanics of it,
genetic inheritance is a fact, whether it's for physical traits, or
mental ones.
A farmer who wants some super cows, or a dog breeder who wants,
the famous example would be the tailess boxer, would cross breed
the traits he wants and after a while, he'll get em, that he has to
cull off a certain percentage of calfs or pupsies with the wrong
characteristics only slightly obscure the fact that genetic
inheritance is a fact. Yes, life is a gamble, the most unlikely
hand may win, or a sure bet may flop, but there are good odds and
there are bad odds.
eugenics as a policy would never happen, period. in anycase,
that's not the road I'm talking about, the road's a very personal
one. Of course, one may say, that takes away free choice, which is
one of the basis of the human condition, no ? But another of
my point is many people already make such a choice out of their own
free will, unconsiously, no ? Don't many ladies draw up a prereq
list of desirable traits in a boyfriend ? 
Of course, there are the exceptions, and the
unlikeliest people would get together. But that's why they are
exceptional ?
From a macro perspective, such exceptions is good for the
species, as it introduces genetic variations across the pool that
otherwise wouldn't happen, It also makes for social dynamics, a
healthy non-stagnant society. But then, which parent wouldn't wish
their offsprings to turn out very smart ? And why is that so ? Is
it because parents are aware deep down, that intellectual ability
is a key driver of later success ? An indication of innate
potential ?
For sure, such a topic stinks very much of snobbery and elitism
(ironically, one of the things I forced myself to recognize early
in life, is that I'm actually not very smart, perhaps that's why I
have an avid fascination with this area), not to mention all the
grossly politically incorrect connotations it conjures up. That's
why, for most people, our inbuilt egalitarian instincts rejects
this line of thought immediately.
But I think we must be cognizant of all the drive factors in the
socio-economic cycles of a society, if we were to effectively
address such inequalities. This is but just another facet of the
problem, however disturbing it is to think about.
