why sapiosexuality is crap

"Full disclosure, there was a time when I described myself as sapiosexual and was quite pride of it, but I also thought I was a binary cis and straight as spaghetti, so it is something you can come back from.
Sapiosexuality is wrong in every single way. People talk about how they are so into intelligence, though "sapio-" clearly references wisdom. That's a related, but also clearly distinct concept. And it's not like we needed a new word for that anyway. Intelligence has been deemed sexy a long time now and it's quite privileged.
Furthermore, the term intelligence is not even a concept that is suited for this context. It's neither what people are actually feel attracted to, nor does it represent a concept based in reality. We all feel attraction to people that we resonate with. I've observed and read from many groups and invidiuals and in the end it always turns out that what they deemed intelligence was always some other form of resonance that didn't even fit the oppressive western concept of intelligence. A closeness and similarity to our own thought patterns, preferences, behaviors or wishful thinking is interpreted als intelligence. Also relevant in that regard is the Duning-Kruger-Effect. This means that even if one was to understand intelligence as a form of mental competence, the concept would collapse in on itself. What we deem intelligent or intelligence is, in fact, a concept completely steaked with by all oppressions that could come out of the western imperialist world: Elitism, racism, classism, ableism, saneism, sexism, transantagonism, eurocentrism, ageism, etc.
Every imaginable bias is neatly packed into the western concept of intelligence. And that means that, even if intelligence as such existed, the probability of one being able to perceive it through all that bias was extremely small. The probability of one simply admiring what society presents to us as a normative ideal that one simply has rationalized and internalized, on the other hand, is close to one.
That's usually when people usually pull their "own definition" of intelligence from their sleeves, as if that was in any way helpful. First, as described earlier, we all react to resonance and throughout our lives and growth the types of people we resonante with often change a lot. Second, a concept that has purely individual and subjective meaning to people is not a term that has any merit in communication.
You might as well be really into hrbldrbt and consider yourself brldrbtsexual.
IQ and EQ are also just pseudo-scientific attempts to make these concepts (intelligence and emotional intelligence) the least bit more real, which fail miserably. Nothing about them is objectively measurable or could be expressed as a quotient. You might as well assign a numeric value to one's humanity.
IQ is especially worthless, as the respective tests measure abilities and not actual capacity. The idea behind these tests is to measure intelligence by observing and judging how well one fares with unfamiliar problems. That may look like a sound idea at first glance, but if you look closer, it simply implodes. On the one hand people are familiar and used to completely different problems. People more or less randomly familiar with the specific problems in these tests are at a clear advantage. On the other hand it's fundamentally questionable that someone could devise a problem and verify the correct solution to it without being familiar with that kind of problem. So it's completely up to the people devising the tests what ultimately counts as intelligent. Since these people were historically (and most likely still are) primarily white western cis men with a western academic background, the tests consist of stereotypical topics: Spatial reasoning, logic, linguistic understanding, maths. Each valid abilities and disciplines and I'm convinced that we should put more emphasis on logic in basic education, because it's an extremely useful tool. I do not support the notion that it allows for a comprehensive judgement of something as important in society as the attribute of intelligence. Especially since that has so much to do with exercise and knowledge and neither fit any definition of intelligence. You can reach an impressively high score merely by practicing the respective types of problems. Even if the IQ held any actual significance, you'd still have to mention when you were tested as IQ scores are subject to high inflation. Also one's mental capacity ain't static and the same throughout your life, heavily influenced by one's form of the day and short and long term influences on our brains.
And the EQ (and the concept of emotional intelligence) doesn't fare much better. They're all just measurements of how well you fit societal ideals and social normativity. And in western and (mostly through colonialism) western influenced societies and cultures well in the hand of oppressive norms, as listed earlier.
There's no such thing as sapiosexuality. It's just a pretentious and oppressive concept used to elevate and pass off one's subjective and prejudiced ideals as an innate attraction to a highly esteemed, but actually insubstantial concept of superiority. "