Kane Patrick, Zollman Kevin J S
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 8;10(9):e0137271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137271. eCollection 2015.
The handicap principle has come under significant challenge both from empirical studies and from theoretical work. As a result, a number of alternative explanations for honest signaling have been proposed. This paper compares the evolutionary plausibility of one such alternative, the "hybrid equilibrium," to the handicap principle. We utilize computer simulations to compare these two theories as they are instantiated in Maynard Smith's Sir Philip Sidney game. We conclude that, when both types of communication are possible, evolution is unlikely to lead to handicap signaling and is far more likely to result in the partially honest signaling predicted by hybrid equilibrium theory.
不利条件原理受到了来自实证研究和理论研究工作的重大挑战。因此,人们提出了一些关于诚实信号传递的替代性解释。本文将一种这样的替代性解释——“混合均衡”——与不利条件原理在进化方面的合理性进行了比较。我们利用计算机模拟来比较这两种理论,因为它们在梅纳德·史密斯的菲利普·西德尼爵士博弈中得到了体现。我们得出结论,当两种类型的交流都有可能时,进化不太可能导致不利条件信号传递,而更有可能产生混合均衡理论所预测的部分诚实信号传递。