Absolutely. For a quick model of why you get multiplicative results:
Intelligence—raw intellectual horsepower—might be considered a force-multiplier, whereby you produce more intellectual work per hour spent working.
Motivation (combined with say, health) determines how much time you spend working. We could quantify it as hours per week.
Taste determines the quality of the project you choose to work on. We might quantify it as “the expected value, per unit of intellectual work, of the project”.
Then you literally multiply those three quantities together and it’s the expected value per week of your intellectual work. My mentor says that these are the three most important traits that determine the best scientists.
You might enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan’s satirical light opera “Patience”. In it, there’s a poet that all the women of a village have fallen deeply in love with, except one woman, named Patience, who doesn’t like him; and unfortunately the poet seems interested in Patience and not in any of the other women, who are therefore miserable and moping about it. Patience has never been in love, doesn’t understand it, naively asks questions about it, and is puzzled by the answers. It thus serves as a vehicle to poke fun at various contemporary notions of what love is supposed to be.
(The biggest missing factor in Patience’s model is probably the fact that the maidens’ love is unrequited. Though this is complicated by the fact that some people do enjoy fantasizing about not-necessarily-requited love, at least some of the time.)
Later, Patience gets the idea that love must be selfless… And therefore, it’s improper for her to love someone who has lots of good qualities, because that would benefit her; instead she should marry an awful person, because living with them is absolutely unselfish. So she agrees to marry that poet, Bunthorne, who is vain, posturing, moody, petty, etc. But then Bunthorne promises to reform himself into a good man. Patience is initially delighted by this, but then realizes the implications.
I would say that there is a place, in proper love relationships, for a thing that might at first glance resemble “unselfishness”. But that thing is less “assigning zero value to your own happiness / well-being / etc.” and more “assigning a similar value to your partner’s utility as to your own”, so that e.g. if something costs yourself 10 utils and benefits her 20 utils, you’ll do it (and in a healthy relationship, lots of things like this happen in both directions and it’s net positive for both). But it’s pretty fair to say that general cultural transmission doesn’t make things like this clear.