One of the ways in which Game Theory has been applied to Evolutionary Biology is through the development of Signaling Theory. Here, the concept goes, prey and predators or potential mates communicate with each other using signals like calls or dances or pretty feathers and the outcomes of those signals can be modeled in such a way that equilibrium is struck between “honest” and “dishonest” signals. This, in turn, means that evolutionary pressure in certain directions remains stable.
For example, the theory goes, prey detects a predator and calls out. The call lets the predator know they have been detected and therefore the prey is more alert, harder to catch, and thus not worth pursuing further. (This assumes an idealized situation – other factors might override this system, like hunger, abundance of prey, etc.)
This is called an “honest signal” because the prey actually detected the predator. However, this also puts pressure for prey animals to randomly “call out” even when they have not detected a predator since that should discourage any undetected predators in the vicinity. But what the math of signaling theory suggests is that this will push the system out of equilibrium. It creates evolutionary pressure for the predators to begin ignoring the calls, which they will do until the entire signaling system breaks down and becomes replaced with a new system which, once again, “values” honesty and attains equilibrium.
The same model can be applied to mating behaviors. For example (again, the theory goes), a male peacock’s feather display is an “honest” signal because the more spectacular, the more healthy and well-fed the bird and thus the more “worthy” of mating. It’s hard to see how, in this case, a “dishonest” signal could even exist. Without the necessary prosperity, it would be very hard for a male to produce the signaling feathers at all. It is hard to fake feathers.
However, the difficulty of faking prosperity in the significantly more complex human world is, ironically, significantly less complex. (I am assuming that prosperity is at least one factor under consideration in human mating decisions. If you don’t accept that, then we can agree to disagree and the rest of this essay will be of no interest to you).
Prior to the internet, a good pair of shoes, a bit of jewelry, and anyone could “be” a successful entrepreneur at a party. Now all it takes is a website, a few fake profiles, and anyone can achieve that same effect in the eyes of the world. In fact, sending “dishonest signals” is so prevalent in the internet age we created a new term for it: “Catfishing.”
Which brings us to Jerome Powell. If the core of honest signaling for mating is a display of actual prosperity and The Fed keeps interest rates very low for an extended period of time, thus allowing more people more access to more easy debt, does this cause that signaling system to break down?
Of course, there is an economic signaling system that this impacts too and it’s really what lies underneath all the discussion since the subprime mortgage crisis about the pros and cons of cheap debt. In the simplest of terms, that crisis was exactly the kind of breakdown of signaling mentioned above in the predator/prey relationship (no pun intended). There have been dozens of articles written about this which are well beyond my ability to understand, but the takeaway is that interest rates have an impact on the “honest signaling” of economic prosperity.
And if they do that, then it doesn’t seem much of a leap to think that they might impact “honest signaling” in mating too. After all, that friend we all have now who was “Catfished” demonstrates quite clearly that dishonest signaling in mating is real on the internet. So why not in the real world too? Buying that house you can’t afford? Or that car? Or running up those credit card bills with LVMH? Last year, for example, more than 50% of millennials, reported buying something on credit that they “couldn’t afford” in the last six months.
I’m sure none of this debt-based “catfishing” strikes anyone reading this as a surprise. “Of COURSE people do this,” is probably the response. But OK then: that also means that recent easier access to debt is changing our evolution by exerting pressure on our mating habits. By making “dishonest signaling” simpler, actual prosperity is less relevant to human mating decisions.
(Note that this is not a value judgement about which survival technique is “better” – perhaps in the modern world we have created for ourselves, “actual prosperity” is less relevant to survival than “perceived prosperity.” Although I will make a value judgement that if that’s true, it strikes me as quite a sad statement about the present day.)
All of which has to lead us to the unavoidable conclusion that yes, in fact, Jerome Powell can impact human evolution!