Peacocking Theory explained
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:34 pmPeacocking Theory explained
Ok so I’m writing this because I’m tired of see aspiring afc’s in plaid coats and hats…as well as Ed Hardy shirts. This is a topic that is briefly mentioned in “the game” and VAH and several other places however no one ever fully explains it. It is based on the evolutionary behavior science theory (Evolutionary game theory specifically adaptive dynamics) of Signaling Theory and it’s something that you may not be familiar with however you probably know a lot about already.
The gazelle's leaping behavior, the nestlings' begging, the expensive suit - all of these things are signals. All are intended to convey information about a signaler, to a signal receiver. For humans, the fancy suit - like a fast car, an expensive bottle of wine, or a precious gemstone - indicates some property or quality of the signaler. In this case, that property might be the relative wealth of an individual.
Gazelles may be doing something similar with their jumping or "stotting" displays. Biologists have argued that the stotting display serves as a signal of quality to potential predators. "I'm a strong and healthy gazelle," the display demonstrates. "See how high I can jump? It would be a waste of your time and energy to chase after me!" Baby birds, through their begging behavior, may be informing their parents about how badly they need to be fed. Additional examples are easy to find. Bull elk signal their quality to rivals and to potential mates with a large rack of antlers and a loud bugling call. A peacock's fine tail serves to advertise the high quality of its bearer to potential mates.
These signals share an additional feature: all are costly to produce and send. Expensive suits, fast cars, wine, or jewelry are not cheap in terms of that all-important human currency, money. Similarly, the stotting display is expensive - albeit in a different sort of currency - to the gazelle. By leaping up and down, a gazelle is expending the very energy that it will need desperately should a chase ensue. Squawking to one's parents takes energy and may also alert predators to the location of a nest; producing and bearing a huge flashy tail is also energetically expensive, not to mention risky when predators are around.
Why do so many different species of animals all use signals that are inherently expensive, in a wide range of different signaling contexts? Why not simply "whisper" the message to the intended receiver, rather than producing an elaborate and costly display? And why do these expensive signals seem to be so convincing to the intended signal receivers?
-Carl T. Bergstrom Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Washington
Honest signaling theory
Mr. Bergstom goes on to pose the question how do we know that this “signal” is honest from the other part. That in a nut shell is what is referred to as “shit tests” or “congruency checks” in the community. So evolutionarily women are used to being lied to and they will subconsciously check your story out that you present with your signals.
Now that you have the back story on to Peacocking; what you are being told is Peacocking theory is actually a theory by a researcher named Amotz Zahavi the Theory is actually called the handicap theory and goes something like this.
The handicaps (like a large peacock’s tail) are more believable because nature has screened out the weaker of the species by making them much more susceptible to predators. Therefore the peacocks with large tails that remained represented a smaller portion but much higher percentage of “good genes”.
So where does wearing plaid jackets and fuzzy hats come into all of this? Well Mystery is by nature a very social guy. He has all the other signals of a social guy and by wearing something ridiculous that would be a hindrance in a social setting he has become “stronger” socially. See it’s not the clothes that are attractive or the outlandish style. It’s the congruence behind it, he already is super social and well liked at the places he frequents or he brings friends which has the same effect. Then the “weakness” comes forth as strength in the perceptions of others.
Example:
Super stern and short with people, but works as a red cross volunteer for children. Comes across as the Strong silent type.
Shy and quiet but with super good looks….Comes across as humble and intelligent.
Outlandish personality, but has many high value friends. Comes across as fun and exciting, mystery, Johnny Knoxville, ect.
Owns many nice things...comes across as rich and powerful.
By thinking about what is your most powerful trait and then sending "signals" to the opposite sex that some how that trait was even harder to acquire for you. You make yourself even more attractive.
What other things can you guys think of that are Peacocking in this new “enlightened” definition?
-Rockstar
Ok so I’m writing this because I’m tired of see aspiring afc’s in plaid coats and hats…as well as Ed Hardy shirts. This is a topic that is briefly mentioned in “the game” and VAH and several other places however no one ever fully explains it. It is based on the evolutionary behavior science theory (Evolutionary game theory specifically adaptive dynamics) of Signaling Theory and it’s something that you may not be familiar with however you probably know a lot about already.
The gazelle's leaping behavior, the nestlings' begging, the expensive suit - all of these things are signals. All are intended to convey information about a signaler, to a signal receiver. For humans, the fancy suit - like a fast car, an expensive bottle of wine, or a precious gemstone - indicates some property or quality of the signaler. In this case, that property might be the relative wealth of an individual.
Gazelles may be doing something similar with their jumping or "stotting" displays. Biologists have argued that the stotting display serves as a signal of quality to potential predators. "I'm a strong and healthy gazelle," the display demonstrates. "See how high I can jump? It would be a waste of your time and energy to chase after me!" Baby birds, through their begging behavior, may be informing their parents about how badly they need to be fed. Additional examples are easy to find. Bull elk signal their quality to rivals and to potential mates with a large rack of antlers and a loud bugling call. A peacock's fine tail serves to advertise the high quality of its bearer to potential mates.
These signals share an additional feature: all are costly to produce and send. Expensive suits, fast cars, wine, or jewelry are not cheap in terms of that all-important human currency, money. Similarly, the stotting display is expensive - albeit in a different sort of currency - to the gazelle. By leaping up and down, a gazelle is expending the very energy that it will need desperately should a chase ensue. Squawking to one's parents takes energy and may also alert predators to the location of a nest; producing and bearing a huge flashy tail is also energetically expensive, not to mention risky when predators are around.
Why do so many different species of animals all use signals that are inherently expensive, in a wide range of different signaling contexts? Why not simply "whisper" the message to the intended receiver, rather than producing an elaborate and costly display? And why do these expensive signals seem to be so convincing to the intended signal receivers?
-Carl T. Bergstrom Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Washington
Honest signaling theory
Mr. Bergstom goes on to pose the question how do we know that this “signal” is honest from the other part. That in a nut shell is what is referred to as “shit tests” or “congruency checks” in the community. So evolutionarily women are used to being lied to and they will subconsciously check your story out that you present with your signals.
Now that you have the back story on to Peacocking; what you are being told is Peacocking theory is actually a theory by a researcher named Amotz Zahavi the Theory is actually called the handicap theory and goes something like this.
The handicaps (like a large peacock’s tail) are more believable because nature has screened out the weaker of the species by making them much more susceptible to predators. Therefore the peacocks with large tails that remained represented a smaller portion but much higher percentage of “good genes”.
So where does wearing plaid jackets and fuzzy hats come into all of this? Well Mystery is by nature a very social guy. He has all the other signals of a social guy and by wearing something ridiculous that would be a hindrance in a social setting he has become “stronger” socially. See it’s not the clothes that are attractive or the outlandish style. It’s the congruence behind it, he already is super social and well liked at the places he frequents or he brings friends which has the same effect. Then the “weakness” comes forth as strength in the perceptions of others.
Example:
Super stern and short with people, but works as a red cross volunteer for children. Comes across as the Strong silent type.
Shy and quiet but with super good looks….Comes across as humble and intelligent.
Outlandish personality, but has many high value friends. Comes across as fun and exciting, mystery, Johnny Knoxville, ect.
Owns many nice things...comes across as rich and powerful.
By thinking about what is your most powerful trait and then sending "signals" to the opposite sex that some how that trait was even harder to acquire for you. You make yourself even more attractive.
What other things can you guys think of that are Peacocking in this new “enlightened” definition?
-Rockstar