We look at text-book examples of runaway sexual selection -- peacocks and scissor-tail flycatchers -- and we see selected traits driven in a direction that comes up against the limits of variation in the population, traits that are exaggerated in the individuals compared to other species, and recognize it for what it is: fisherian run-away sexual selection.
The problem, RAZD, is that you're not trying to explain one human trait in such a way but that you're trying to argue that multiple human traits are the result of separate runaway sexual selection. That's a pretty extraordinary claim and argues for special status for human selection.
And even for each individual trait you have no strong evidence that it is the case:
You also have chosen traits which don't conform to the classic model of runaway selection - hairlessness is not a disadvantage, for example, whilst intelligence has multiple straight forward selection benefits. Traits which don't conform to the dimorphic pattern of runaway sexual selection - men are not smarter than women, women are not markedly different in musical talent, men and women have similar natural head hair (until older ages, anyway), only in body hair is there dimorphism and even there it is slight. And traits for which attractiveness to the opposite sex does not show the marked and consistent needed to explain the differences you want to explain by sexual selection. And, finally, human mating patterns are not well suited to runaway sexual selection since we pair-bond and have done throughout
Homo's evolutionary history.
If you have a better explanation then trot it out and let's see how it compares.
No, I'm not getting into that game. You've made the strong claim that multiple, important, human traits can be attributed to runaway sexual selection. You need to present credible evidence that this occurred.