cognitive fun!

"But, of course, since high working memory correlates with high emotional stolidity, emotional communication is trickier for those with a high IQ: they have to push out what for others leaks out involuntarily, and a painful, stilted parody of small-talk inevitably ensues."

This an interesting topic...I read the blog you cited. Here's what I think.

This depends on level of skill and the premium a high IQ person puts on social interaction as a meaningful game. Speaking of which, I would have a look at a book I'm reading now called
"the Game" by Neil Strauss. This book, while not exactly high literature, is about a bunch of computer geeks who morph themselves into charmers to pick up women. Strauss is a well educated popular writer who became a student of the 'game' in order to research this book.
As in acting, sales, comedy, or magic, many of the manipulation tactics, are 'thought out' or intellectualized beforehand so as to obviate stiltedness that is a result of not knowing what to do or say. A technique that is most often deployed by these is misdirection, often by actions and not words -- this is common to magicians and psychics and all sorts of con artists of duplicitous stripe.

What I've observed in social interaction is how 'real emotions' don't work well, especially
when one wants to get something for someone.
The most important thing is intention. Look at early Woody Allen movies, for instance. Surely he gets laid a lot more than he should since
he appears nervous. But what is plausible is that women are attracted to him because he is
not really nervous or neurotic but is playing this. It's a shtick -- albeit one that he uses over and over again. It seems that women have a better sense of the uses of untrue emotions more than men do and have greater capacity for utilizing them day to day for their own ends.
Perhaps they don't need to construct a strategy
because these manipulation tactics are learned
when very young; thus women tend to far better socially than men on average (with, of course, like anything else, many exceptions).

It makes sense then that many men with high fluid intelligence don't invest intelligence into the social arena, until, perhaps, later in life when they realize it's value. Much of this has to do with their not understanding how to achieve what they want by manipulating other people's emotions and their own in order to get what they want. Social class, or what's now called SES, needs to be considered, too. A middle class high IQ male will often have less understanding (by dint of environment) of how social interaction works, than his upper class counterpart who is immersed in it from a young age. Clearly, an upper class high IQ person is
at a big advantage in understanding the game of
social life and will know there's no such thing
as "small talk." Everything is said or not said
for a reason. Granted, you don't have to be all
that bright to understand this but you do have to be reasonably bright to master principles as well as ambitious enough to put them into action. One needs people around them to learn it from. Gladwell's "Outliers" contrasts Chris Langan's rough around the edges style, with Robert Oppenheimer, who grew up privileged and grew up understanding the social game. It is not so much IQ that is the enemy but clearly
a sense with many bright people from the middle
and lower classes that the social arena isn't
intellectually worth one's efforts to invest in mentally. It makes sense to think this way, but those in the upper classes don't get to decide -- the nuances of social life is just promulgated into their lives from a young age, no matter how bright (or dull) they are and so an investment of whatever brain power that they have into the social game is obligatory.
SES is a key issue; one the blogger missed.