Also seen on Ars, it seems that bees when searching for consensus on big decisions will try to quiet dissenters by head-butting them. Enough head butts cause an individual to stop dancing for a while. This allows the remaining dancing scouts to come to a single, unanimous decision. - https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/bees-reach-consensus...

What's amazing is that honeybees will almost always choose the best option for a new home within an area where options are explored. They do this because scouts individually analyze an option before signaling their approval through a dance. In other words, they don't just take the word of another bee, they confirm and each "voter" is highly-informed. The idea painted in this article I believe is more for helping to resolve deadlocks when there are more than one high-quality choice. There are lessons even we can take away from the democratic process honeybees use to choose a new home.

Some bees lie about what they've scouted though

I genuinely can't tell if this is meant metaphorically or literally. Assuming the former, lying suggests a level of consciousness that I don't expect bees to have.

Though it depends whether it is intentionally a lie. If a bee suffers some memory loss or otger failure of cognition causing them to think their position was better / worse it isn't intentional.

I think the definition of a "lie" implies intention. If one says something that is not true which they genuinely believe to be true, that is a "mistake" rather than a "lie".

So the scenario you are describing sounds totally plausible, but I would phrase it as the bee making a mistake rather than lying. =)

It's not even necessarily a mistake. If one bee values proximity to apple trees higher than proximity to peach trees and another bee values the opposite, then they can have honest and valid differences of opinion about two nesting sites.

Now we are confusing tge subject. The semantics of the words lie and mistake are a distraction.

> Some bees lie about what they've scouted though

I am highly doubtful that the source of this information was able to distinguish between a liar and a bee that made a mistake. Which is my original point with the semantics problem addressed.

That's just like consensus processes in humans!

Wow, that's very interesting!