The term "random" came from the paper i referred to, in order to predict the behaviors they did not see, they use a math formula that predicts trends. But in order for that formula to be accurate the subject must not be prejudiced, that is, have perferred movements. The subject cannot attract or repell others of its own kind(or any kind). Or the formula will be void. Its not that the formula is so bad, but the researcher, must understand and program the behaviors in order for the formula to work. So I guess it was easier just to say their movements were random.



I agree with Jobi, I think all their behaviors are prejudiced and the do attract and repell others of their own species. Of course I think important parts of the population are weakly to highly gregarious. Whether you want to call them social is up to you. I call them social for ease of understanding.



The problem is, they do call them anti social, loners, etc. Which in my opinion, occurs within a population, but is not an important part of a population. Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]