> Wolf packs don't actually have alpha males and alpha females

> He wrote that what was commonly called the alpha pair . . . led the pack's activities.

Uhhhh...

> "The point here is not so much the terminology, but what the terminology falsely implies: a strictly strength-based dominance hierarchy," he wrote.

Repudiating earlier science, not because it was wrong, but because you don't like how the terminology has come to be used in pop culture, is bad science.

Well, other animals, like primates, do.

And modern corrected versions more or less amount to the same thing, but downplay it based on various subtleties because that's the fashionable thing to do ever since edgelords, the 4chan people, and other plebes have adopted the term.

Not expecting “alpha chimp” to take off from a marketing perspective, even if a cage full of feces-slinging monkeys is a better analogy for those environments anyway.

I would summarize it like this: The social structure of wolves highly depend on their environment. In natural environments wolf packs usually are just families dominated by the parents, whereas forcing larger groups of adult animals to share territory invites more complex dominance hierarchies.

This has been repeatedly discussed for several years now. There's some reality to both "sides."

On the one hand, it does seem clear that, as is often the case, initial research and observation was flawed and incomplete, and parts of it got taken up into the general cultural consciousness where it was then hard to correct or modify them.

On the other hand, many of the people eager to remind everyone of this seem to have ulterior motives. It is either stated or heavily implied that this correction to the original research means instinctive hierarchies aren't a thing, in either animals or humans, which is absurd.

Humans need, intuit, and automatically fall into social hierarchies based on power. Power comes from a complex variety of sources: looks, money, family, physical fitness, intelligence and so on. People respond to power, on an instinctive level. This response can (and should) be tempered to some degree, as should all instincts, but it can't be engineered away.

Thus, the concept of "The Alpha" is true in the sense that people understand and respond to power. They also understand and respond to compassion, duty, and a number of other factors, but social hierarchies based on power are a core part of human psychology, and always will be.

Now, does all this justify people being "jerks?" Depends on what you mean by "jerk." On the one hand, the cultural zeitgeist of the moment is almost certainly too far on the side of allowing and accepting people to be soft and weak. On the other hand, you have to be careful how you define "Power." Being overly egotistical, narcissistic and violent, not having control of yourself, not having proper patience etc are also forms of weakness. As with most things in life, excellence is a matter of finding the perfect point of balance.

> On the one hand, the cultural zeitgeist of the moment is almost certainly too far on the side of allowing and accepting people to be soft and weak.

This screams like a political opinion. This is exactly why people want to believe in the alpha. You're projecting your belief to others and pretending others feel like you. They don't.

Please read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation

>Humans need, intuit, and automatically fall into social hierarchies based on power.

Says who, you?

Just observe how any child is in relation to the parent.

Humans in captivity might similarly organize and behave differently than humans not in captivity. Prisons are an institution that are training inmates to think and behave in a certain way. What are the unintended consequences of this?

Its weird how this piece of science is paraded out as a "gotcha" against the people that use terms like alpha males and alpha females. Those people, most likely, do not care if there is truth to the statement wolves have alphas. They use it to signal their aggressiveness and superiority.

It's sad the extent to which some people have shaped their whole personality around this 'alpha' concept. Some going as far as to tattoo wolves on themselves.

Also the whole culture around alpha and beta males as some sort of excuse for why we tolerate 'jerks' (for lack of a stronger word) as our leaders- as if it is some sort of natural law we must fall in line with. "There must be an aggressive alpha to keep the betas on target and in line."

Seriously interesting article though. I love seeing our understanding of other creatures grow and with it our ability to view them as capable of having families, love and empathy for each other

Luckily people who espouse such beliefs in dominance hierarchies are easier to manipulate because their intentions and motivations are usually so obvious.

Tattooing a wolf on yourself is sending a strong signal.

Considering how much we use "alpha" in regard to human behavior, it's hilarious that the whole reference is based on flawed analysis of captured wolves.

But humans more closely resemble zoo wolves than small families of wolves alone in the wild, which is the situation cited in the article. Zoo wolves do have alphas. Do you interact only with your nuclear family, alone in the wilderness?

The point that mother and daughter in a large pack both give birth to pups, then split later and possibly fight each other for territory reminds me the "Painted Wolf" episode of the Dynasties documentary from BBC. Animals are not much different to us human. When resources are scarce or the bid is high, fights happen even between the closest relatives.

This needs more attention. At the very least, it would give people a reality check on how little we actually know about nature that misconceptions like this can be so widespread for so long.

Robert Evans did a fantastic recount of how this in this Behind the Bastards podcast [1][2] and how this dangerous false premise (similar to vaccines cause autism) has persisted and informed some really toxic ideologies despite being proven inaccurate.

[1]https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... [2]https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...