Game Theory
During the mid-seventies Maynard-Smith borrowed a theory developed by the Pentagon to predict when an animal should fight to defend a resource. Since then, the predictions of game theory has been tested in a variety of animals, from spiders and birds through humans. Although the birds in our above example defend their territories with little danger to themselves over much of the breeding season (through territorial calls), one-on-one confrontations and all-out fights are common during the early procurement of territories. Although it is expensive and risky to assess, obtain, and defend a territory, it is even more costly in reproductive fitness to have a low quality territory, or none at all. The payoff is in reproductive fitness while the expense is measured in potential loss of fitness (through injury, cost of display, etc.).

Borrowing the terms hawks and doves from the military, hawks are expected to fight for a resource and will injure or kill their opponents. The up side of being a hawk is that you'll get all the resource. The down side is that you may be injured or killed. Doves, on the other hand, only display (sing, bluff, etc.) and do not engage in fights to the death. The up side is that doves don't get killed, but they may not get a resource.

* As an example, let's assume that the winner gets +50 points, and that the loser of a confrontation gets 0 points. Injury costs either -100 points, and the cost of display is -10 points. These scores are a measure of fitness. The payoff matrix for these scores is sown in figure 5.
* Looking at a Hawk-Hawk confrontation, each bird has a 50% chance of winning or losing; thus the benefit of winning or losing is multiplied by 0.5 (in the matrix: 0.5(50)+0.5(-100)). The payoff for a Hawk-Hawk confrontation is -25 points.
* For a Hawk-Dove pairing, the Hawk always wins and, since the Dove runs off, the Hawk is in no danger of being injured. The payoff is therefore +50.
* Doves don't attack so a Dove-Hawk confrontation never takes place (the payoff is 0).A Dove-Dove confrontation is again a 50:50 chance of winning. The upside of winning is calculated as 0.5(50-10); while the cost of losing is 0.5(-10); either way, the winner or loser will have to bear the cost of display.

If a population were composed entirely of doves, then the score averages out to +15 points.If, however, a mutation occurs that produces a hawk behavioral type (excess testosterone production, for example), the mutant hawk will always win against doves and gain 50 points. Therefore, a population of all doves is not an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) since a single hawk genotype will quickly start to take over.

A population of all hawks doesn't work either since the average score is -25 and any dove mutation will do better (0 is better than -25). All hawk is not an ESS either.

A mix of hawks and doves should be stable when the average score for a hawk is equal to the average score for a dove. This point is (for the above payoffs):

H = -25h + 50(1-h)
Where: h is the proportion of hawks in the environment and
D = -0h + 15(1-h)

This stable situation occurs when hawks are 0.5833 of the population and doves are 0.4167. Figure 6 shows the results of varying the Hawk:Dove proportions. Note that 100% hawks or 100% doves doesn't work, although a population weighted toward a high proportion of hawks will be stable.

Let's add a new strategy: Bourgeois: be a hawk if you own the territory, a dove if you do not. This strategy makes sense. If you already have gone to the work of assessing and obtaining a territory, you should work to defend it. If you don't own a territory, then you are unsure of the quality and shouldn't fight to obtain it. A population where Bourgeois own half of the territories is shown in figure 7. Note that a population that is entirely Bourgeois is an evolutionary stable strategy. Figure 8 shows the success of bourgeois as the proportion of hawks increases in the environment. Note that, except at low proportions, bourgeois manages to outdo hawks and that bourgeois always is better than dove.

To each his own

Strong and strong... a weak personality is repelling, it is almost predatory to be with a weak personality, and feels wrong.


two strong personalities have something to push against...and to grow.

"two strong personalities have something to push against...and to grow."

Like hips?

It 'seems' like people who are weaker in personality tend to date more often in the long term. Maybe it's because they aren't as picky? Maybe because there will always be less 'chiefs' than 'indians' so there are less options? Who knows.

For me, even friendships with people who are weaker start to aggravate me after a while. People who never seem to have a strong opinion about anything, who never argue with you (even friendly debating), people who never get worked up or excited or angry ... just bore me to tears after a short while. When I dated people like that, it was worse. I could usually deal with it for a while, but after some time I might as well have been single for all the input or work they put into anything when they knew someone else was there to make all the decisions if they didn't. Can't stand that doormat personality, the 'bury your head in the sand' or 'flee' response is just... revolting.

I have a very strong personality and it usually comes back to bite me in the arse because some men "LOVE" that in a woman in the beginning and then when the chips are down say that I am "too strong" for them. I have a good mind, believe in being honest and working hard, don't hurt people (intentionally) and expect the same from my SO. When their real personality comes out, it is used against me that I am being "unrealistic in my expectations".


If you can't keep up with me, stay on the porch and don't waste my time.

Having the type of forwardness that can alarm quiet, gentle people, I avoid them. I need someone that can put me in my place sometimes to challenge me and keep my head from exploding. Besides, a woman that can throw it back at you is just plain sexy

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I have a fairly strong personality. Sassy, rambunctious at times, and headstrong. Then again, there are times when I can do a complete 180 and be quiet and reserved.

Pretty much, if I'm not challenged, I get bored. Keep me on my toes or keep on going.

Clarify please. Sounds insulting kinda.

I am not sure Mirror. I have had some very passionate relationships with strong personalities like me but I have also had some bad experiences from the same.

I think it depends on what areas of strength the personality has and how well it meshes with the other personality.

I know with my strong personality I cannot have a weak personality because I will unintentionally bull doze over them. I always feel bad when I do that to someone.

I think to be able to answer the question accurately it needs a little clarification... Strong as in unshakable in belief? As in confrontational? As in well thought/spoken? Closeminded?

What determines a 'strong' personality Mirror? Should I assume that a 'weak' one is the opposite, if there is such a thing?

Never confuse neuroses with personality.