Talk:Handicap principle

Handicap principle has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 5, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

"there was still no empirical evidence for evolutionary pressure for wasteful biology or acts"

Why are we quoting stupid people saying obviously stupid things. Read it again:

"there was still no empirical evidence for evolutionary pressure for wasteful biology or acts"

Are evolutionary biologists allowed to use logic in their profession or has the field just been totally decimated by political correctness now? 2603:8080:2B00:11D4:A7E1:B184:5B55:6999 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

All abuse of anyone is out of order. The statement is factual and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The signal is reliable if the cost to the signaller of producing it is proportionately lower for higher-quality signallers than for lower-quality ones.[1]

Is the "lower" here a mistake?

1) Ordinarily one would think that a handicap / costly-signal is reliable if costs more (gold bars, rolls royce cars, ivy league educations, large tail feathers) but

2) High quality signallers have more resources so the *marginal* cost is lower than to low quality signallers, and this makes the signal reliable in that it indicates who is really high quality.

3) High quality signallers stop signalling earlier.

I can't sign in right now (the two factor email is taking a long time to arrive) but I am timtak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.250.105.182 (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You're partly right. The statement would be clearer in terms of a better cost/benefit ratio: stability requires the high-quality signaller to have either a larger fitness benefit or a lower cost (or both). That means that the marginal cost is lower for the higher-quality signaller. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That was quick. Thank you. I am not sure how, if at all, the article should be changed but, my head is clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.250.105.182 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

But now, a "better cost/benefit ratio" makes a handicap sound a like "a really good pair of leather boots" in Boots theory which few would think a handicap. Confusion. Timtak (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

All natural language carries overtones, associations, and ambiguities: that comes with the territory. Scholars use similar language to the article's when discussing this topic, so there isn't a lot of choice really. Talk of tradeoffs, for instance, has business and engineering overtones: six of one and half-a-dozen of t'other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles