Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T05:52:02.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signals, Evolution and the Explanatory Power of Transient Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Brian Skyrms
Brian Skyrms*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
*
Send requests for reprints to the author, Department in Logic and Philosophy of Science, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-5100; bskyrms@uci.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pre-play signals that cost nothing are sometimes thought to be of no significance in interactions which are not games of pure common interest. We investigate the effect of pre-play signals in an evolutionary setting for Assurance, or Stag Hunt, games and for a Bargaining game. The evolutionary game with signals is found to have dramatically different dynamics from the same game without signals. Signals change stability properties of equilibria in the base game, create new polymorphic equilibria, and change the basins of attraction of equilibria in the base game. Signals carry information at equilibrium in the case of the new polymorphic equilibria, but transient information is the basis for large changes in the magnitude of basins of attraction of equilibria in the base game. These phenomena exemplify new and important differences between evolutionary game theory and game theory based on rational choice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 407 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, J., and Skyrms, B. (1999), “Bargaining with Neighbors: Is Justice Contagious?”, Journal of Philosophy 588–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R. J. (1990), “Nash Equilibria Are Not Self-Enforcing”, in Gabzewicz, J. J., Richard, J.-F. and Wolsey, L. A. (eds.), Economic Decision Making, Games, Econometrics and Optimization. North Holland: Amsterdam, 201–206.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, V. (1998), “Noisy Communication and the Evolution of Cooperation”, Noisy Communication and the Evolution of Cooperation 82:110–131.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A., and Weibull, J. (2000), “Neutrally Stable Outcomes in Cheap-Talk Coordination Games”, Neutrally Stable Outcomes in Cheap-Talk Coordination Games 32:1–24.Google Scholar
Blume, A., Kim, Y.-G., and Sobel, J. (1993), “Evolutionary Stability in Games of Communication”, Evolutionary Stability in Games of Communication 5:547–575.Google Scholar
Crawford, V., and Sobel, J. (1982), “Strategic Information Transmission”, Strategic Information Transmission 50:1431–1451.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1990), “Biological Signals as Handicaps”, Biological Signals as Handicaps 144:517–546.Google ScholarPubMed
Kim, Y.-G., and Sobel, J. (1995), “An Evolutionary Approach to Pre-play Communication”, An Evolutionary Approach to Pre-play Communication 63:1181–1193.Google Scholar
Kullback, S. (1959), Information Theory and Statistics. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Kullback, S., and Leibler, R. A. (1951), “On Information and Sufficiency”, On Information and Sufficiency 22:79–86.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969), Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindley, D. (1956), “On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment”, On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment 27:986–1005.Google Scholar
Nydegger, R. V., and Owen, G. (1974), “Two-Person Bargaining: An Experimental Test of the Nash Axioms”, Two-Person Bargaining: An Experimental Test of the Nash Axioms 3:239–250.Google Scholar
Robson, A. J. (1990), “Efficiency in Evolutionary Games: Darwin, Nash and the Secret Handshake”, Efficiency in Evolutionary Games: Darwin, Nash and the Secret Handshake 144:379–396.Google ScholarPubMed
Roth, A., and Malouf, M. (1979), “Game Theoretic Models and the Role of Information in Bargaining”, Game Theoretic Models and the Role of Information in Bargaining 86:574–594.Google Scholar
Schlag, K. (1993), “Cheap Talk and Evolutionary Dynamics”. Discussion Paper, Bonn University.Google Scholar
Schlag, K. (1994), “When Does Evolution Lead to Efficiency in Communication Games?”. Discusssion Paper, Bonn University.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1996), Evolution of the Social Contract. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1999), “Stability and Explanatory Significance of Some Simple Evolutionary Models”, Stability and Explanatory Significance of Some Simple Evolutionary Models 67:94–113.Google Scholar
Sobel, J. (1993), “Evolutionary Stability and Efficiency”, Evolutionary Stability and Efficiency 42:301–312.Google Scholar
Taylor, P., and Jonker, L. (1978), “Evolutionarily Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics”, Evolutionarily Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics 40:145–156.Google Scholar
Van Huyck, J., Batallio, R., Mathur, S., Huyck, P. Van, and Ortmann, A. (1995), “On the Origin of Convention: Evidence from Symmetric Bargaining Games”, On the Origin of Convention: Evidence from Symmetric Bargaining Games 34:187–212.Google Scholar
Wärneryd, K. (1991), “Evolutionary Stability in Unanimity Games with Cheap Talk”, Evolutionary Stability in Unanimity Games with Cheap Talk 39:295–300.Google Scholar
Wärneryd, K. (1993), “Cheap Talk, Coordination and Evolutionary Stability”, Cheap Talk, Coordination and Evolutionary Stability 5:532–546.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A. (1975), “Mate Selection—a Selection for a Handicap”, Mate Selection—a Selection for a Handicap 53:205–214.Google ScholarPubMed
Zahavi, A., and Zahavi, A. (1997), The Handicap Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar