Weapon expense is what keeps signals of fighting ability honest

Evidence

For animal weapons to be honest signals, they must be expensive—exorbitantly expensive. So expensive, in fact, that only the top-condition males can afford them. Costs keep signals honest. If anybody could afford big weapons, then all males would have them, and differences in weapon size would be meaningless. Only when most males cannot possibly afford them will big weapons provide reliable signals of fighting strength. Then, and only then, will it pay for males with small weapons to walk away. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 601

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to handicap principle and honest signaling theory from evolutionary biology; also parallel to status signaling in human social settings. — connects to: Weapon costliness keeps signals honest by excluding weaker males; Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights; Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 370 (+6 more)

Related

• Weapon costliness keeps signals honest by excluding weaker males (similarity 0.92)
• Weapons evolve only when reproductive benefits exceed costs (similarity 0.89)
• Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights (similarity 0.88)
• Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle (similarity 0.88)
• Poor-quality males pay steeper costs for large weapons and so invest less (similarity 0.87)
• Bigger weapons usually fail because their costs outweigh their benefits (similarity 0.87)
• Military size honestly signals a state’s fighting strength just as animal weapons do (similarity 0.87)
• Weapon costs follow the same handicap economics in nations as in individuals (similarity 0.87)
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit (similarity 0.86)
• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them (similarity 0.86)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.86)
• Weapon growth widens the gap between the best- and worst-armed males. (similarity 0.86)
• Only a minority of males can afford to build full-size weapons (similarity 0.86)
• Weapon evolution needs both competition and economically defensible resources (similarity 0.86)
• Weapon escalation ends when costs outweigh benefits and cheaters invade (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Weapon costs follow the same handicap economics in nations as in individuals #corroborates (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 924
• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 966
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit #corroborates (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 21
• Clumped sparse resources make territorial fighting pay off reproductively #expands (0.50)
• Armor evolution tracks a benefit-cost trade-off identical to that shaping animal weaponry #exemplifies (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 62