Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:53:49.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talking to Neighbors: The Evolution of Regional Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kevin J. S. Zollman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In seeking to explain the evolution of social cooperation, many scholars are using increasingly complex game-theoretic models. These complexities often model readily observable features of human and animal populations. In the case of previous games analyzed in the literature, these modifications have had radical effects on the stability and efficiency properties of the models. We will analyze the effect of adding spatial structure to two communication games: the Lewis Sender-Receiver game and a modified Stag Hunt game. For the Stag Hunt, we find that the results depart strikingly from previous models. In all cases, the departures increase the explanatory value of the models for social phenomena.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 69 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

My gratitude is owed to Brian Skyrms, Jason McKenzie Alexander, Sam Hillier, the anonymous referees, and the participants in the Dynamics Seminar at UCI for their assistance. Generous financial support was provided by the School of Social Sciences and the Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences at UCI.

References

Alexander, J. McKenzie, and Skyrms, Brian (1999), “Bargaining with Neighbors: Is Justice Contagious?”, Bargaining with Neighbors: Is Justice Contagious? 96 (11): 588–598..Google Scholar
Aumann, Robert J. (1990), “Nash Equilibria Are Not Self-Enforcing”, in Gabzewicz, Jean Jaskold, Richard, Jean François, and Wolsey, Laurence A. (eds.), Economic Decision Making: Games, Econometrics and Optimization. Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 201–206.Google Scholar
Berninghaus, Siegfried K., and Schwalbe, Ulrich (1996), “Conventions, Local Interaction, and Automata Networks”, Conventions, Local Interaction, and Automata Networks 6:297–312.Google Scholar
Blume, Andreas, DeJong, Douglas V., Kim, Yong-Gwan, and Sprinkle, Geoffrey B. (1998), “Experimental Evidence on the Evolution of Meaning of Messages in Sender-Receiver Games”, Experimental Evidence on the Evolution of Meaning of Messages in Sender-Receiver Games 88 (5): 1323–1340..Google Scholar
Crawford, Vincent P., and Sobel, Joel (1982), “Strategic Information Transmission”, Strategic Information Transmission 50 (6): 1431–1451..Google Scholar
Ellison, Glen (1993), “Learning, Local Interaction, and Coordination”, Learning, Local Interaction, and Coordination 61 (5):1047–1071..Google Scholar
Grim, Patrick, Kokalis, Trina, Alai-Tafti, Ali, Kilb, Nicholas, and Denis, Paul St. (2001), Making Meaning Happen, Research Report #01–02, Group for Logic and Formal Semantics, SUNY, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Grim, Patrick, Mar, Gary, and Denis, Paul St. (1998), The Philosophical Computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lee, In Ho, and Valentinyi, Ákos (2000), “Noisy Contagion without Mutation”, Noisy Contagion without Mutation 67:47–56.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1969), Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nash, John F. (1950), “Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games”, Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games 36 (1): 48–49..Google ScholarPubMed
Nowak, Martin A., Bonhoeffer, Sebastian, and May, Robert M. (1994), “More Spatial Games”, More Spatial Games 4 (1): 33–56..Google Scholar
Nowak, Martin A., and May, Robert M. (1993), “The Spatial Dilemmas of Evolution”, The Spatial Dilemmas of Evolution 3 (1): 35–78..Google Scholar
Robson, Arthur J. (1990), “Efficiency in Evolutionary Games: Darwin, Nash, and the Secret Handshake”, Efficiency in Evolutionary Games: Darwin, Nash, and the Secret Handshake 144:379–396.Google ScholarPubMed
Skyrms, Brian (1996), Evolution of the Social Contract. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (2002), “Signals, Evolution and the Explanatory Power of Transient Information”, Signals, Evolution and the Explanatory Power of Transient Information 69:407–428.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (2004), The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar