Why do modern humans tend to value intelligence more than strength? Probably because almost any task that can be performed by a strong man can be performed equally well by two average men working together; contrariwise, there are many tasks that can be performed by a smart man but cannot be performed by any number of average men working together.
Tools are great, and can serve to multiply strength (a hammer) and intelligence (a calculator), but the creation and use of tools relies mostly on intelligence. Thus, smart men can use tools to convert intelligence into strength when necessary, and in the necessary form. Unlike lions, for instance, we aren't stuck with teeth and claws -- we can trade a sword for a hammer almost instantly.
This modern situation is a boon to women -- as a particular group -- because women tend to be just as smart as men, but much weaker. Without tools, women are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to strength, but with tools the genders are much more equally capable. Still, biology being what it is, men and women perceive each other very differently without taking tools into much account.
Tools are also the foundation of capitalism at the archetypical capital investment. They can be passed on to children and they allow families to build wealth over generations (counting artificial structures such as houses and fences as tools, which seems reasonable). As such, tools are essentially physical manifestations of intelligence -- stockpiles of smartness we can save for later and use over and over again, and even share with others.
There's a corollary to your point about other human qualities, intelligence being a principal one: For many tasks, no number of mediocre people can substitute for one truly excellent person. A football team, for example, needs one really good quarterback. No number of so-so ones will substitute. In business--same thing. Some positions need excellent people, and the lack of good talent can't be compensated for by volume.
Your argument that tools are phsysical manifestations of intelligence is flawed and easily disproven. Chimps make and use tools but dogs and dolphins don't. That doesn't have a thing to do with intelligence, but with the fact that chimps have hands that are free to manipulate their environment -- like we do. We didn't get such big energy-hungry brains by accident. The physical traits to promote such a development had to have happened to begin with.
In fact, there is no real seperation of intellectual and physical labor. They are linked inseperably, as one must think in order to act, and one must be able to act according to one's thoughts.
I agree with what you say about how we value intelligence over strength these days. But part of me thinks that's true in everything but sex, or at least sexual attraction.
Strength as manifest in physical fitness is still the primary attractor in the sexual dance. True many women and some men desire an intelligent mate, but first impressions will give the advantage to the attractive one.
DS: Yes, but football is a game, and the limit of one quarterback per team is totally artificial; the artificial rule is required to make strength advantageous. In business, aren't talented people the smart ones? And wasn't my thesis that smart people can't be compensated for by numbers?
Communist: What I wrote cannot be proven or disproven, it's just an illustration and a useful way to think about intelligence and tools. You may want to argue that it's not useful, but that doesn't "disprove" anything.
As for hands, yes, in order to use a tool you must have some way to interact with the surrounding environment -- that doesn't have to be hands, though, and the mere possession of hands isn't "strength". Anyway, hands are ubiquitous, while intelligence is not, therefore it makes much more sense to think of intelligence as the primary necessary and sufficient condition for creating and using tools.
Ron: Regarding sexual attraction, yes, which is what one of the linked-to posts says.
Throw attractiveness into the mix, and then what do you have? Much more interesting.
As we advance as a people, though, intelligence and the application thereof are much more dynamic than human strength. Any advances in strength come from advances in intelligence (how much to eat, how much to rest, when to rest - things like that).
hln