I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth.

It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty.

All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior.

See also rdtsc's comment.