Deterrence among animals requires reliable advance prediction of fight outcomes

Evidence

In crabs, beetles, flies, and caribou—indeed, in all animals with extreme weapons—deterrence works for very good reasons, and it works only when specific conditions are met. It boils down to choosing battles wisely. It never pays to shy from a fight you might win, but it often pays to walk away from the ones you’re likely to lose. The trick lies in predicting the outcome beforehand. In order to do this, potential combatants must have a reliable method for evaluating each other’s fighting ability. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 598

Categorization

• XREF: Core game-theoretic logic of conflict; connects to the evolution of honest signaling literature (Zahavi, Grafen). — connects to: Fighting is dangerous enough to favor assessment before battle; Deterrence works only when fighters can reliably predict battle outcomes; Surveillance can predict civilian behavior from recurring spatial and social patterns (+6 more)

Related

• Deterrence works only when fighters can reliably predict battle outcomes (similarity 0.95)
• Fighting is dangerous enough to favor assessment before battle (similarity 0.91)
• Most animal confrontations resolve without escalation because threats are assessed first (similarity 0.88)
• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them (similarity 0.85)
• Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle (similarity 0.84)
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. (similarity 0.84)
• Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights (similarity 0.84)
• Fighting is dangerous partly because combat distracts animals from other threats (similarity 0.83)
• Costly advanced weapons deter rivals just like large animal weapons (similarity 0.81)
• Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons (similarity 0.81)
• Weapon evolution and deterrence form a self-accelerating spiral. (similarity 0.80)
• Deterrence logic can justify seeking more horrific retaliatory weapons. (similarity 0.79)
• Resource value and defensibility are relative to each species’ perspective (similarity 0.79)
• Cold War proxy wars functioned like animal display as low-risk sizing-up (similarity 0.79)
• Intense competition without duel structure does not drive weapon evolution. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them #expands (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 966
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 387