In the 150 years since Schwendener, biologists have tried in vain to
grow lichens in laboratories. Whenever they artificially united the
fungus and the alga, the two partners would never fully recreate their
natural structures. It was as if something was missing—and Spribille might have discovered it.
He has shown
that largest and most species-rich group of lichens are not alliances
between two organisms, as every scientist since Schwendener has claimed.
Instead, they’re alliances between three. All this time, a second type of fungus has been hiding in plain view.
been over 140 years of microscopy,” says Spribille. “The idea that
there’s something so fundamental that people have been missing is
He (Darwin) pointed at how in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by cooperation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as to mutually support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community.
Mutual Aid; A Factor of Evolution : Peter Kropotkin
Paraphrasing ‘The Descent of Man’ Charles Darwin
Recent studies have found that crocodiles and their relatives are highly intelligent animals capable of sophisticated behavior such as advanced parental care, complex communication and use of tools for hunting.
New University of Tennessee, Knoxville, research published in the journal Ethology Ecology and Evolution shows just how sophisticated their hunting techniques can be.
Crocodiles and alligators were observed conducting highly organized game drives. For example, crocodiles would swim in a circle around a shoal of fish, gradually making the circle tighter until the fish were forced into a tight “bait ball.” Then the crocodiles would take turns cutting across the center of the circle, snatching the fish.
Sometimes animals of different size would take up different roles. Larger alligators would drive a fish from the deeper part of a lake into the shallows, where smaller, more agile alligators would block its escape. In one case, a huge saltwater crocodile scared a pig into running off a trail and into a lagoon where two smaller crocodiles were waiting in ambush – the circumstances suggested that the three crocodiles had anticipated each other’s positions and actions without being able to see each other.
Vladimir Dinets. Apparent coordination and collaboration in cooperatively hunting crocodilians. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 2014; 1 DOI: 10.1080/03949370.2014.915432
Arriving home from work to find your partner toiling away in the
kitchen, odds are you’ll jump in and help. That’s human nature. But if
you’re flat out ordered to help? That’s a different story.
Remove the perception of choice and you’re in fact more likely to
recoil from cooperation and go a different direction altogether. Maybe
you suddenly have other plans for dinner.
The intricacies of free will — and how a belief in the notion, or
lack thereof, impacts our behavior — are examined in a new study by UC
Santa Barbara psychologists John Protzko and Jonathan Schooler. Their
findings appear in the journal Cognition.
The results show that while people are intuitively cooperative,
challenging their belief in free will corrupts this behavior and leads
to impulsive selfishness. However, when given time to think,
participants are able to override the inclination toward self-interest.
“Challenging a person’s belief in free will corrupts the more
automatic and intuitive mental processes,” said corresponding author
Protzko, a postdoctoral scholar in Schooler’s META (Memory, Emotion, Thought, Awareness) Lab
in UCSB’s Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences. “Our study
suggests that a challenge to an individual’s belief in free will can
shift this default mechanism — at least temporarily — to become
intuitively uncooperative and cause an individual to act in their own
To test why discounting the existence of free will increases the
likelihood of uncooperative behavior, Protzko and Schooler recruited 144
people to play an economic contribution game called Public Goods.
Subjects chose how much of their own “money” to put into a public pot.
Their contributions were doubled and the communal pot was evenly divided
among the players. They were also able to keep the money they didn’t
In one of two manipulations used to determine why behavior changes
when free will is challenged, the investigators placed time constraints
around participant contributions to the public pot. This, in essence,
influenced the players’ sense of free will. Some subjects were told they
must read instructions and decide how much to donate within 10 seconds;
others were told to wait 10 seconds before making their decision.
A separate manipulation was presented in the guise of an unrelated
pilot study to see if reading certain passages alters mood. The passage
argued that neuroscience had recently proved that our decisions, or what
we perceive as decisions, are made by complex brain interactions before
we have conscious access to them. Control participants read an article
on whether nuclear energy is environmentally friendly.
The researchers then assessed the degree of belief participants had
in free will by asking them to rate, on a 1-100 scale, their agreement
with the statement, “I have free will.” Those who read the neuroscience
article agreed significantly less (75.6) than those who read the control
“Challenging a person’s belief in free will did not seem to provide
them with a conscious justification for uncooperative behavior,” Protzko
said. “If it did, we should have observed fewer contributions when
people were given adequate time to think about their decision on the
amount to contribute.
“It’s very damaging to hear that we don’t have free will,” said
Protzko. “Discounting free will changes the way we see things. Yet given
time, we recover and go about our lives as though nothing were
If you come across a young cuckoo in a bird’s nest this
summer, you’ll be witness to one of the most bizarre sights in nature.
Cuckoo chicks are interlopers in the nests of other species, and they
can be seen being frantically fed by their unwitting foster parents even
though they’re often many times larger than their hosts.
It makes you wonder: why on earth does this bird expend so
much energy raising such clearly unrelated offspring? Or, more
accurately, why haven’t all the species victimized by the cuckoo evolved
some form of defense against this nest parasitism? The clue comes from
thinking about this puzzle in terms of costs and benefits.
Raising a cuckoo chick often comes at an obvious cost.
Common cuckoo chicks, for example, famously remove any host eggs or
young from the nest within days of hatching. Chicks of some other cuckoo
species will grow up alongside their host’s own offspring, yet they
still remove competition. Magpie chicks often die of starvation when
sharing a nest with great spotted cuckoo chicks, because the cuckoos beg
to be fed more intensely. […]
By looking at the relationship between these species differently, the study, led by Daniela Canestrari,
reveals that crows do not defend themselves because they actually
benefit from having a cuckoo in the nest. Combining data collected over
16 years with careful field experiments, the study shows that nests
containing cuckoos produce more crow chicks than those without. Better
yet, the authors show how this entirely counter-intuitive end point
When disturbed, great spotted cuckoo chicks emit copious
amounts of a sticky, smelly substance. The authors tested the novel
hypothesis that this stinky substance deters predators from the nest. If
cats and hawks were given tasty pieces of chicken meat that were
smeared with the cuckoo’s excretion, these typical nest predators were
repelled. This indicates that the cuckoo’s excretion is a very powerful
defense mechanism, likely to save both cuckoo and crow chicks alike if a
predator comes calling.
First is Shinya Oda, who is the Tower Co-Op. Shinya is in elementary school, and usually hangs out in an arcade in Akihabara. He wants the “powers” that the Phantom Thieves of Hearts have.
The Star Co-Op is represented by Hifumi Togo, who goes to a public school, Kosei High. She holds a championship title for female shogi player, and is constantly interviewed for the world of shogi and her mom. However, her success has caused her to earn the title of “Too Beautiful Shogi Player”. The progtagonist meets her in a church.
The next one was mentioned previously in Part 1, his name is Yuki Mishima. He goes to Syujin High and is classmates with the protagonist and Anne. He is the Moon Co-Op, and a member of the Volleyball Club. It seems that he supports the Phantom Thieves, as he created a poll asking whether or not people believed in their existence. After a certain incident, he reduces contact with the protagonist.
The final Co-Op is Toranosuke Yoshia, who represents The Sun. He is noted for giving speeches outside of Shibuya Station, but has lost seven elections. Few people will listen to him, but his speeches are actually good. He wants to face Japan’s issues with seriousness.
It is also rumored that your team members will be Co-Ops, just like they were Social Links in P3/P4. So far, the three rumored ones are: