Talk:Cheating (biology)

Humans and bees

Supposedly, "killer" Africanized bees are a result of the differences between the biological relationships between humans and honeybees in Africa and elsewhere. In other parts of the world, notably Europe and America, honeybees have a symbiotic relationship with human beekeepers, who take honey but provide a safe hive and protection for bees. African honeybees have developed to deal with humans "stealing" honey rather than beekeeping, and as a result are more aggressive.

The difference between human/honeybee relationships in Europe and America, and those in Africa, seem to form some kind of example regarding cheating. --FOo 08:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very good example and I don't think it should be included in the article. Peter G Werner 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating is...

In biology, cheating is a form of social behavior in which the cheater refrains from cooperation and thereby gains a fitness benefit. He exploits the cooperative behavior of others, but the term is not interchangeable with exploitation. Resource exploitation such as herbivory and predation are not social behaviors and it does not make much sense calling them a form of cheating. --The Ecologist 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect

The Prisoner's dilemma is a tit for tat strategy that helps to avoid cheaters. When one organism cooperates, the other cooperates. When one organism cheats, the other organism cheats.

This is incorrect. A "Prisoner's dilemma" is a type of a game (situation), not a strategy. "Tit for tat" is a strategy where a person chooses the same strategy as the other person in the game in the previous round. In a static setting "When one organism cooperates, the other cooperates. When one organism cheats, the other organism cheats" is a description of a game characterized by multiple equilibria and coordination failure - which is not a characteristic of a Prisoner's Dilemma.

The examples given in the section are also not examples of a PD (and appear to be incorrect even in their own context, for example "Producers benefit when scroungers are common. " - this seems to be wrong (the model appears to be the same as a classic rent-seeking model in economics)).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some love

Unsure where to start. A lot of large blocks of text with very specialized language. 132.60.240.130 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article persistently uses language that attributes intent (to create a consequence) to a behavior

No organism with intelligence below primates and whales/dolphins "cheats" in order to pass on its genes. Motives and intentions are not necessary to explain the evolution of ANY behavior. Is eating done because an organism "selfishly" wishes to prolong its life? I doubt it. Animals that have no significant amount of thought about starvation will eat because they get hungry. To explain why a behavior exists, we need only show that the consequence of the behavior is that the very genes that program the behavior will be passed on to a subsequent generation and so will continue to exist in the future after every organism that NOW possesses those genes (and the behavior that is caused by those genes) has died. A combination of genes COULD exist such that the lion programmed by those genes is incapable of experiencing hunger. By operation of random chance, it is possible that a lion with those genes might ACTUALLY be born someday. When that happens, we will find that the lion does not eat. We do not need to assume that the lion has enough schooling in biology to understand that it will die if it does not eat. Nor do we need to assume that the lion would RATHER live a long life than live a short one. The lion will die soon, before it has mated with another lion. The genetic combination for a non-eating lion will NOT be passed on into the next generation. THAT is why lions who don't eat can exist only if phenomenally long-shot odds come up in a genetic dice-roll, and THAT is why there will never be a significant population of such lions. Meanwhile, the lions who eat (for no other reason than that eating is what feels good to them to do, in their ignorance of the fact that eating enables them to pass on the genes for eating) will live long, have children, and pass on the genes for eating. There's absolutely NO NEED to believe that the lions, NOR THEIR GENES, have any "selfish" intents at all, let alone a selfish intent to pass on the genes. Further, there's no need to assume that Mother Nature or God or "Laws Of Evolution" have any intent to design every creature so that it lives and reproduces. ALL of evolution would happen in exactly the same manner as we've seen it happening if there's nothing at all that INTENDS for it to happen, just as its possible for a computer-virus to spread around the world even if no programmer ever intended that code to BE a virus. Things continue to happen when it's in their nature to continue to cause their own continued happening, not because they, or some external guiding hand or law of inevitability, WANT something to go on happening. Since evolution would pan out exactly the same as if there's no conscious intent or purpose anywhere, we should not use evolution's results to argue that such conscious intent or purpose exists.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]