Loftus et al. (2020) propose that task specialization within social groups is mechanistically underpinned by repeatable individual variation in task-independent behaviors, and that positive feedback loops stabilize individual differences in both classes of behavior, leading to “task-based behavioral syndromes.” The proposed framework seeks to explain variation in task specialization not attributable to age and morphology. The utility of their framework hinges upon the assumption that “task-dependent” versus “task-independent” behaviors are functionally distinct. If both represent expressions of the same “character” (sensu Wagner 2001), the framework would be of limited use, regardless of whether task-independent behaviors are defined as behaviors “not involved in carrying out a task” and “measured when individuals are not participating in a task” (Loftus et al. 2020). Consider an example of a “task-based behavioral syndrome” existing because animals that are relatively aggressive toward group members (a task-independent behavior) also defend the nest (a task-dependent behavior). Would such patterns really help understand how repeatable variation in task differentiation (nest defense vs. other tasks) originated? Would it offer a new explanation for why this variation exists, or would it rather just demonstrate that individuals are repeatable in aggressiveness across multiple situations? The same problem has characterized adaptive personality research, where initial models could only “explain” the emergence of repeatable behavior after assuming that individuals were already repeatable in some other phenotypic trait (“state”) (Wolf and Weissing 2010). This issue was addressed by incorporating positive feedbacks between state and behavior, thereby offering a mechanistic explanation for the development of repeatable differences in behavior (Sih et al. 2015). Do Loftus et al. (2020) merely imply that the same mechanism can explain the emergence of repeatable differences in task differentiation in social groups? Those are questions that require attention to further novel research in this area.

中文翻译：

---

任务专业化和社会选择：对Loftus等的评论。

Loftus等。（2020）提出社会团体内的任务专业化由与任务无关的行为中可重复的个体变异机械地支撑，并且正反馈回路稳定了两类行为中的个体差异，从而导致“基于任务的行为综合症”。拟议的框架试图解释任务专业化的变化，而不是年龄和形态造成的。他们的框架的实用性取决于以下假设：“与任务无关”与“与任务无关”的行为在功能上是不同的。如果两个表述都代表同一个“字符”（sensu Wagner，2001年），则该框架的用途将受到限制，无论是否将与任务无关的行为都定义为“不参与执行任务”和“在个人未参与任务时进行衡量”的行为（Loftus等人，2020年）。考虑一个存在的“基于任务的行为综合症”的例子，因为对群体成员具有相对侵略性的动物（与任务无关的行为）也捍卫了巢穴（与任务相关的行为）。这样的模式真的有助于理解任务分化（巢状防御与其他任务）的可重复变化是如何产生的吗？它会为这种变化为什么存在提供新的解释，还是仅仅证明个人在多种情况下的攻击性是可重复的？适应性人格研究也有同样的问题，最初的模型只能假设个体在某些其他表型特征（“状态”）上已经是可重复的，因此只能“解释”可重复行为的出现（Wolf and Weissing 2010）。通过整合状态与行为之间的积极反馈来解决此问题，从而为行为中可重复性差异的发展提供了机械的解释（Sih等人，2015年）。Do Loftus等。（2020年）仅意味着相同的机制可以解释社会群体任务分化中可重复性差异的出现？这些问题需要关注该领域的进一步新颖研究。通过整合状态与行为之间的积极反馈来解决此问题，从而为行为中可重复性差异的发展提供了机械的解释（Sih等人，2015年）。Do Loftus等。（2020年）仅意味着相同的机制可以解释社会群体任务分化中可重复性差异的出现？这些问题需要关注该领域的进一步新颖研究。通过整合状态与行为之间的积极反馈来解决此问题，从而为行为中可重复性差异的发展提供了机械的解释（Sih等人，2015年）。Do Loftus等。（2020年）仅意味着相同的机制可以解释社会群体任务分化中可重复性差异的出现？这些问题需要关注该领域的进一步新颖研究。