Deterrence works only when fighters can reliably predict battle 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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

What if there was a way to tell who was going to win before entering into dangerous battle? If a male could discern that he was likely to lose beforehand, he might opt to just walk away. A male ceding a fight outright forfeits the chance of mating, but he lives to fight another day. Walking away when he might have won would be crazy, but ceding fights he would have lost saves time, energy, and risk. This is particularly true for the smaller contestants in poorer condition, since they’re the ones most likely to be maimed in the fray. The trick, of course, is to accurately predict who’s likely to win, and to do that, rivals must have an easy way to size each other up. They need a conspicuous indicator of the fighting ability of potential competitors. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 370 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Fighting is dangerous enough to favor assessment before battle; Deterrence among animals requires reliable advance prediction of fight outcomes — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 598; Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 370 (+11 more)

Related

• Deterrence among animals requires reliable advance prediction of fight outcomes (similarity 0.95)
• Fighting is dangerous enough to favor assessment before battle (similarity 0.93)
• Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle (similarity 0.88)
• Most animal confrontations resolve without escalation because threats are assessed first (similarity 0.85)
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. (similarity 0.84)
• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them (similarity 0.84)
• Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights (similarity 0.83)
• Males that assess rivals before fighting survive and reproduce better. (similarity 0.81)
• Fighting is dangerous partly because combat distracts animals from other threats (similarity 0.81)
• Weapon evolution and deterrence form a self-accelerating spiral. (similarity 0.79)
• Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons (similarity 0.79)
• Costly advanced weapons deter rivals just like large animal weapons (similarity 0.79)
• Intense competition without duel structure does not drive weapon evolution. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Deterrence among animals requires reliable advance prediction of fight outcomes #corroborates (0.85) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 598
• Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle #expands (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 370