 One of Skyrms’ signature uses of evolutionary game theory is to explain the origins of various “fair” solutions to the Nash bargaining problem (1996 [2014]: Chapter 1). As we have seen above, different axiomatic solution concepts can recommend different solutions to the same bargaining problem. However, even if one endorses the arguments in favor of a particular solution concept, this doesn’t yet show that the actual claimants engaged in a bargaining problem would tend to follow this solution. This is because a typical bargaining problem will often have a large number of equilibria each of which is likely to be more favorable to some and less favorable to others. Accordingly, one might doubt that actual claimants could settle into any equilibrium, let alone an equilibrium that characterizes an outcome we would regard as fair.