User:Gogulskih/sandbox

Tactical Deception

Tactical Deception (also referred to as functional deception) has already been defined under the subheading "Tactical deception" on the main Wikipedia page Deception in animals. This definition is as follows: "acts from the normal repertoire of [an] agent, deployed such that another individual is likely to misinterpret what acts signify, to the advantage of the agent". In other words, it is the active use of communicative or display skills already employed by the organism in order to mislead another individual. It has been specified in some studies that this is an intraspecific behavior, meaning that it occurs between members of the same species. There are many other kinds of deception meant to fool members of a different species. This type of deceit can also be achieved when the deceiver withholds information by failing to perform an expected action, such as giving a warning call when danger is observed. This sort of deception can be costly to the user in that tactical deception mostly occurs in social animals which may lose trust of fellow group-members when their deceit is discovered.

The ability to employ tactical deception is thought to be either the product of a higher-functioning brain which allows the deceptive individual to project knowledge and beliefs on the target that are different than their own in order to manipulate the target using tools, vocalizations, gestures, or even other members of their family group; or a product of a brain evolved for rapid social learning allowing for quick manipulation of behavior. The brain function attributed to the deceptive individual— whether the ability to predict another's mind or just clever use of learned behavioral cues in order to manipulate behavior— is hotly debated and often changes with the species being observed. In the first scenario, the individual would be acknowledged as having the capacity for Theory of Mind (often seen abbreviated as ToM) which is the ability to attribute mental states (beliefs, knowledge, intents, desires, etc.) to another individual which are different and independent of one's own mental state. The second, often considered the more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon of tactical deception, does not require a higher-functioning brain. It does, however, require specialized evolution of the parts of the brain which may responsible for social learning, such as the neocortex.

Brain Functionality: Brain tissue, which is more abundant in primates relative to body size than in any other mammal except for dolphins, is metabolically expensive. Therefore, there must be a large adaptive benefit for its overdevelopment in these species. The primary difference in brain size across the primates is due to size differences in the neocortex. Investigation into possible biological bases for neocortical development indicates that its evolution is likely very socially influenced and even selected-for in highly social species. In a study designed to use a measurable, direct indicator of social cognition— tactical deception by an individual to manipulate others in a social group— a strong correlation between the rate of social deception and size of the neocortex was discovered. This study involved 18 species (three prosimian, four New World monkeys, seven Old World monkeys, and four ape species) for which neocortex size relative to total brain volume was compared.

Old world monkeys: In addition to the great apes, directly deceptive behavior has been observed in Baboons (Papio ursinus) which are part of the Old World Monkeys. In one of their articles, Byrne and Whiten recorded observations of what they refer to as "intimate tactical deception" within a group of Baboons, and documented examples which they then broke into four separate "types" of deception. The four observed categories of deceptive behavior are as follows: A juvenile using warning screams to gain access to underground food storages which otherwise would have been inaccessible; an exaggerated "looking" gesture produced by a juvenile to avoid attack by an adult male; recruitment of a "fall-guy" (a third party individual used by the deceiver to draw attention or aggression); and using one's own movement pattern to draw group-mates away from food caches. Byrne and Whiten also broke these categories into subcategories denoting the modality of the action (e.g. vocalization) and what the action would have signified if observed in an honest context. They noted whether the individual that had been manipulated was in turn used to manipulate others, what the costs had been to the manipulated individual, and whether or not there were additional costs to third-parties. Byrne and Whiten expressed concerns that these observations might be rarities (more so than deception already would be in these individuals) and not actually common behaviors in the species at all.

New world monkeys: Tufted Capuchin (Cebus apella) monkey subordinates have been found to employ a vocal form of tactical deception when competing with dominant monkeys over valuable food resources. They will use alarm calls normally reserved for predator sightings— either barks (used specifically for aerial stimuli), peeps, or hiccups— to illicit a response in fellow group members and then take advantage of the distraction to pilfer food. In a series of experiments directed by Brandon Wheeler wherein a group of Tufted Capuchin Monkeys was being observed and provided with platforms on which researchers had placed mounds of banana pieces, subordinates were responsible for nearly all of the alarm calls that could be classified as "false". In many of the false alarms, the caller was within two meters of the feeding platform. The event resulted in more dominant individuals reacting to the call by abandoning the platform. On four occasions, the caller then jumped to the platform immediately after the dominant had fled, and in three more cases, the caller made the alarm while on the platform and, when the other group-members were fleeing the platform, the subordinate caller stayed behind to eat.

Costs of tactical deception ADDITION

Because the cost of deception can be high for the deceivers if they are caught, tactical deception is a fairly rare occurrence. It is thought to be more common in forms and species where the cost of ignoring the possibly deceptive act is even higher than the cost of believing; for example, Tufted Capuchin monkeys employing alarm calls as deceptive tools. The cost of ignoring one of these calls could result in death, which may lead to a "better safe than sorry" philosophy even when the arbitrator is a known deceiver.