This is a great piece by @StefanFSchubert critiquing "just so" signaling explanations for human behavior.
But we can strengthen his argument by exploring the difference between two forms of signaling: handicaps and cues.🧵
But we can strengthen his argument by exploring the difference between two forms of signaling: handicaps and cues.🧵
https://twitter.com/StefanFSchubert/status/1260896540929019906
When you hear signaling explanations for human behavior, they're normally accompanied by the same example from biology:
Male peacocks grow large tales as a costly, impossible-to-fake demonstration of their fitness.
It's assumed that human signaling follows the same pattern.
Male peacocks grow large tales as a costly, impossible-to-fake demonstration of their fitness.
It's assumed that human signaling follows the same pattern.
But scientists have studied the peacock's tale precisely because it's so *weird.*
Evolution generally disfavors wasteful expenditure of resources purely for the purpose of signaling.
High-cost handicaps like that of the male peacock are exceptions — not the rule!
Evolution generally disfavors wasteful expenditure of resources purely for the purpose of signaling.
High-cost handicaps like that of the male peacock are exceptions — not the rule!
Most animal signaling is performed with "cues," not handicaps.
A cue is a trait that first evolved for a non-signaling purpose.
Observing the trait allows information to be transmitted, without resources being wasted on signaling.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev…
A cue is a trait that first evolved for a non-signaling purpose.
Observing the trait allows information to be transmitted, without resources being wasted on signaling.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev…
My favorite example of cue-based signaling comes from male tigers.
They grow as large as possible to maximize their lethality, not for the purpose of signaling.
But their stature then allows them to demonstrate their fitness to females.
The signal is a free bonus, so to speak.
They grow as large as possible to maximize their lethality, not for the purpose of signaling.
But their stature then allows them to demonstrate their fitness to females.
The signal is a free bonus, so to speak.
People often say that reliable signals have to be costly.
That's simply untrue: a reliable signal must be costly to *fake*, but it needn't be costly to *send.*
If you can accurately measure pre-signaling sunk costs, then signaling can be completely free!
That's simply untrue: a reliable signal must be costly to *fake*, but it needn't be costly to *send.*
If you can accurately measure pre-signaling sunk costs, then signaling can be completely free!
Keep these principles in mind the next time you read an article that uses signaling theory as an explanation for human behavior.
You'll almost certainly find that it conflates cues and handicaps.
If it assumes that signals have to be costly, you'll know it's misinformed.
You'll almost certainly find that it conflates cues and handicaps.
If it assumes that signals have to be costly, you'll know it's misinformed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
