Steve Reed posted some interesting commentaries on when and when-not rat choice
assumptions seem to work, both in people and animals. Yesterday's NY Times had a
fascinating story on lions and their behavior in groups that was based on a
longish research project involving direct observation.

Bottom line conclusion was that certain lions "always" were leaders and bold in
their protection of the pride's territory. Other lions were "always" more
cowardly and hung back in dangerous situations letting the more courageous lions
bear the brunt of the protecting duties. OK, so far no real application to
anything. But what was important for rat choice was that contrary to rat choice
predicitions/expectations, there were no sanctions for the cowards, nor were
there any special benefits for the heros. Jerky lions got to free ride; heroic
lions wound up getting into dangerous and deathly situations far more
frequently.

Conclusion? Probably not much more than that the implicit assumptions of rat
choice, especially concerning group norms, don't work with lions. But more
broadly, lion behavior suggests far more complexity in life than a lot of the
rat choice assumptions can build in.

T.J. Pempel