# Talk:Signalling theory

Adding links to the actual publications would be better... it's impossible to track down the papers with only the name of the author and date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.214.221 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 

All the papers are listed in full in the 'Sources' section at the end of the paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that, mutiple times the year in the references does not fit the bibliography. I would recommend doing as normal, instead of this weird way.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I tryed to fix the references to the usual format. Could not fix all of them since some of them like "Farthing 2005" etc are missing in the Sources list. I used the doi or ISBN number in the Citer tool to generate references. Some of them differs from the Sources list, so that list is corrupt.Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The references have been incorrectly edited: missing second author, inconsistent date, etc. I have tried to apply short-ref styles, but the inline citations cannot be connected to the bibliography when they are divergent. Alcaios (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks much better now, but there are one "Sosis 2000" and two works in the Sources list from the same year and author. The same problem with "Zahavi 1977". Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this sentence from the article is correct:
"The mathematical biologist Ronald Fisher analysed the contribution that having two copies of each gene (diploidy) would make to honest signalling, demonstrating that a runaway effect could occur in sexual selection, depending sensitively on the balance of costs and benefits."
Is there some word missing or misspelled?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to make good sense. The spelling is British but I'd not think it'd be much different in American. What exactly is the difficulty? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a slight difference between the American interpretation and the British interpretation, and it relates to the old dichotomy between frequentist and Bayesian statistics.  Ronald Fisher used the term 'balance' as a frequentist, because he is referring to a ratio.  The technical term in American English should be 'equilibrium'; because common practice is to use a decimal rate based on the percentage or probability of costs vs benefits.  The American usage is more consistent with the usage of stochastic differential equations in population dynamics: a subject where Fisher is credited in this context for his work with J.B.S. Haldane.  User:Chiswick Chap has done a good job maintaining this article.  Does anyone mind if I add a few sentences of explanation in biostatistics, so as to make the article more accessible to the average reader?  It will be great if such a fascinating topic becomes a featured article someday.Yazdandaste (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
As long as the contribution is fully and correctly cited to reliable sources which discuss the difference in interpretation, go right ahead. What we can't do is to state our own interpretation of differences in the field, that would be WP:OR of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Chiswick Chap, for reminding me not to include the technical opinions of our verbal exchange.  Sometimes I do not recognize when I am doing original research, and your pedagogy is appreciated.  I found a good paper which contextualizes the terminological difference in terms of long-term citations attributed to Ronald Fisher; as well as the language of signalling theory.  I will summarize the journal article well; and append my words to this comment chain, as a final check before my contribution is made to this good article on Wikipedia.Yazdandaste (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
That's great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I took my time because this is such a fascinating topic.  I have two citations to add in some more recent developments in the subject.  I would first like to revise a hanging predicate into a whole sentence for the introduction; as it relates to Ronald Fisher in the context of differential equations and biostatistics:
, depending sensitively on the balance of costs and benefits.
would be changed to:
.  The evolutionary equilibrium depends sensitively on the balance of costs and benefits.
In order to assimilate the vocabulary in the citations, with respect to the runaway effect of the ornament model.
Next, I would like to revise the final sentence of the paragraph on sexual selection, because the dispute in question is now 23 years old and at least beginning to resolve:
though the reasons for the apparent redundancy are disputed.
By the use of parallelism in scientific explanation, could read:
and receivers have sometimes evolved multiple trait preferences.(1993-Pomiankowski, Isawa)
The quandary may even seem resolved in terms of how handicap processes affect reproductive success at quasi-equilibrium conditions, where the cost of female choice is small.  I try not to commit my original research to this page, but there is an additional reference to cite recent resolving of the question posed.  I would like to edit the final part of the 'sports handicapping metaphor section':
But the assumption that costs and benefits trade off in an additive fashion is not valid for the survival cost – reproduction benefit tradeoff that is assumed to mediate the evolution of sexually selected signals
Is a sentence in error, not technically accurate in the language of mathematical biostatistics.  The explanation that I offered primarily can be summed up as:
The assumption that the balance of costs and benefits is additive, only proves true in the logarithmic basis.  That arithmetic equilibrates to the exponential survival cost and reproduction benefit by the equations of the ornament model.  Under this algebra, a handicap process promotes the development of more ample signals(2014-Tazzyman, Isawa, Pomiankowski), with the population at each generation successively composed as a product.
Please let me know if you want more information about the references, Chiswick Chap.  I look forward to reading your opinion on my potential edits.Yazdandaste (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This is all fine except the paragraph "The assumption that the balance of costs ..." which is definitely too complicated. What does "true in the logarithmic basis" mean? I think it will mean nothing to the ordinary reader. Same for "arithmetic equilibrates", "under this algebra", "successively composed as a product". Please find a way to describe the *result* of the algebraic machinations. The existing "sentence in error" is itself right on the edge of acceptable complexity: we mustn't go further into jargon than that, and we should preferably be simpler and clearer. We could say something along the lines of "It is not quite true that costs and benefits can be added. This is because... <brief simple statement>" (and please leave all the details to the citations). Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I wrote that paragraph specifically to include vocabulary words learnt by an astute American high school student; However, I put the words in the context of graduate level mathematics as used in the citation.  I thought that the complexity of British English fell somewhere between those two levels, but now I remember that the British curricula have more language arts training than maths. Allow me to expound upon what you have deemed too dense.
"true in the logarithmic basis"
refers to a set of equations used in the paper that describe the derivative of the log-variable, with respect to time.  A basis in this sense refers to the equation by a vector of coefficients, adjoined into a matrix by most software used to model differential equations.  I liked this sentence because the usage is still valid in the layman's sense.  If you want me to be less concise for the average reader, then I could equivocally write "true on a logarithmic scale" and succinctly follow with the citation.
"arithmetic equilibrates"
means that the dynamics of the system can be approximated from matrix algebra on the aforementioned equations.
"under this algebra"
means that we have composed a set of operations to include: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division; such that we can use the exponential function and approximations of the number 'e'.
"successively composed as a product"
refers to the iterated multiplication that equates exponentiation in a piece-wise fashion, as alluded to in the next sentence.
My apologies, I did not know that I was doing original research.  Now I understand that the academic standard of conversation does not include the mathematical terminology inherent to modelling software.  I also recognize that there is not a unique academic paper which compounds the usage of that terminology in this context.  Thank you for informing me of those two limitations on speech in this forum, Chiswick Chap.  The brief statement you requested should therefore be: "true on a logarithmic scale.", followed by the 2014 citation of Tazzyman, Pomiankowski, and Isawa.  Please let me know if my planned edit needs anything else in your opinion.Yazdandaste (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just one editor; I didn't say that was WP:OR (though if you think it is, you may well be right); and when you have a citation and a planned edit in mind, it's usually reasonable just to go ahead and WP:BOLDly write it. It can always be adjusted afterwards. As for the mathematical language, it may well be appropriate in a maths article; it's rather less so in a biology one, where few readers will have graduate level maths, and many will not have graduate level biology. I was given the principle, many years ago, of writing "for the geologist": an educated person, used to reading accurate reports and mastering complexity, but with no special knowledge of my domain. Perhaps it's still a good rule of thumb. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand that you are just one editor, but I have brought the idea up in professional context before, to no avail. I consider this exchange an exercise in demeanor, presentation, and cooperation.  I thought that I was okayed to explain in terms of mathematical biology, but I should have tempered my expertise.  I like to imagine the high school audience, because that was my approximate age when I started to read Wikipedia avidly.  Now I will imagine an arbitrary biologist when writing in the subject of biology, as a substitute 'for the geologist'.  My edits will be on the main page soon.Yazdandaste (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-fruit-sperm-giant.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18005.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 

They seem to compete directly with other sperm, so natural selection operates at that level and maybe others. No need to invoke signalling theory, specially not if the scientists haven't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The scientists wrongly use the word ornament then.--Stankot (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't they? --Stankot (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that the scientists wrongly used the word 'ornament' in their article, but the subject is rather tangentially related to signaling theory.  And, I affirm that Chiswick Chap made the right decision here.  The phrase 'giant sperm' might not be considered appropriate for all ages to every culture of English speakers.  We can annul that bit of information to keep a greater potential audience.Yazdandaste (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The human section refers to "mates" in a way that seems insensitive, given that it's mostly talking about tribal people. Could we either change the phrasing or add more widely representative examples? 72.174.158.241 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The term 'mates' is oddly used in evolutionary biology, even when it applies to humans.  I do not believe that term here complies with the article standard of British English, where 'mates' has a colloquial connotation.  I agree that the article could be made more culturally sensitive by replacing the word 'mates' with 'reproductive partners'.  Such a change would be: more specific; culturally unbiased; and physiologically relevant.Yazdandaste (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Can't say I agree. The term is readily understood, and it's a lot less klunky than the proposed circumlocution, whose tone is reminiscent of a dreary sociology lecture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, some of this content is useful to sociology and psychology.  I do not think the terminological change is absolutely imperative, because this page is in the subject of biology.  In the future, editing the usage at a single point might not hurt; if that edit directly quotes a paper with a politically correct equivocation.Yazdandaste (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The term "mate/s" in its sense from evolutionary biology could be defined and explicitly pointed out in the article so that it is clear to those unfamiliar with the field. Kubis (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Like this?

  
    
      
        
          x
          
            ∗
          
        
        (
        α
        )
        =
        
          
            [
            
              
                ∑
                
                  i
                  =
                  p
                  e
                  a
                  f
                  o
                  w
                  l
                  c
                  r
                  e
                  s
                  t
                
                
                  n
                
              
              
                α
                
                  i
                
              
              
                Σ
                
                  i
                
                
                  −
                  1
                
              
            
            ]
          
          
            −
            1
          
        
        ×
        
          [
          
            
              ∑
              
                i
                =
                1
              
              
                j
                a
                y
                c
                a
                l
                l
              
            
            
              α
              
                i
              
            
            
              Σ
              
                i
              
              
                −
                1
              
            
            
              μ
              
                i
              
            
          
          ]
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle x^{*}(\alpha )=\left[\sum _{i=peafowlcrest}^{n}\alpha _{i}\Sigma _{i}^{-1}\right]^{-1}\times \left[\sum _{i=1}^{jaycall}\alpha _{i}\Sigma _{i}^{-1}\mu _{i}\right]}
  

Editing by comitee at its best.217.248.3.78 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The sentence was garbled. However, papers such as "Enhancing game theory with coevolutionary simulation models of honest signalling" do indeed make use of mathematical models to describe how signalling could work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Honest signalling and costly signalling do not mean the same thing. This is very confused in the article. It should not be. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronk probably dates back earlier than the Afrikaans to Dutch pronk painting of the 1650s or so. Wikiuser0 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you know a reliable source? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Signalling (biology). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Signalling (biology) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Spicy (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I just made a Wikipedia editing account for this issue, so apologies if I went about this incorrectly. Any feedback or help is appreciated.
The source for the following info is "Animism and Language Evolution" by Eldar T. Hasanov on the SSRN platform for not peer-reviewed work. From what I can tell, the author doesn't seem to have expertise in the field and the theory doesn't seem to exist elsewhere in the field. 
I'm unsure if this information was added on accident or if this is reference spamming. Either way, I don't think it belongs here.
"The animistic nature of early humans language could serve as the handicap-like cost that helped to ensure the reliability of communication. The attribution of spiritual essence to everything surrounding early humans served as a built-in hard-to-fake mechanism that provided instant verification and ensured the inviolability of one's speech." WormSpice (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries; you're right this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Let's chop it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)