However, I ultimately don't find that responsive. There's still a pack leader. Whatever term is used for it is a question of human linguistics, not of wolf behavior. I fail to see how the idea of there being an alpha wolf/pack leader/whatever is a myth.
Usually when I hear people talking about "alpha wolf" or similar, the idea is that the individual gets to this position by competing with other individuals, and then winning by using strength or aggression. It's that part the article is suggesting is a myth.
As you say, words are human inventions and people use them in different ways. If that's not the way you are using "alpha wolf", then article may not address how you are using it.
Like, when someone describes themselves as "an alpha", they're generally, well, beyond showing themselves to be somebody to be ignored, also not claiming to be the oldest.
> As for high-ranking [wolf] animals asserting any practical control over subordinates, the nature of the interaction is highly conditional. For example, with large prey such as adult moose (Alces alces), pack members of all ranks (ages) gather around a carcass and feed simultaneously, with no rank privilege apparent (Mech 1966; Haber 1977); however, if the prey is smaller, like a musk ox calf, dominant animals (breeders) may feed first and control when subordinates feed (Mech 1988; National Geographic 1988).
> Similarly, pups are subordinate to both parents and to older siblings, yet they are fed preferentially by the parents, and even by their older (dominant) siblings (Mech et al. 1999). On the other hand, parents both dominate older offspring and restrict their food intake when food is scarce, feeding pups instead. Thus, the most practical effect of social dominance is to allow the dominant individual the choice of to whom to allot food.
> The only other rank privilege I am aware of in natural situations is that high-ranking pups are more assertive in competing for food deliveries by adults and sometimes accompany adults on foraging trips at an earlier age than do subordinates (Haber 1977).
https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastat...
Further, how humans are organized changes massively across cultures and usually there is a shared leadership model - shaman and chief equivalents that tell us nothing about how wolves organize themselves.
Is it really hard to accept that there is another meaning that is in vogue, but you did not consider it instead of doubling down on a false assumption?
Hard disagree. Even in communities who like to throw the term a lot, they get into discussion about which ones are the real alphas and thus they invented stuff like “sigma”.
Real life usage is really diffuse and mostly like the meme version of the “chad”, seems to be about who I personally like or like to be.
There is some heuristic which may avoid having to fight it out all the time, but this does not disprove that an alpha exists based on being more fit/dominant/strong/intelligent whatever, even fighting ability! Maybe age, or strength, or assertive personality, etc..all are proxies or different permutations for "fitness" which combine to promote some alpha above the rest. The general point here is that there still can be a hierarchy.
As I said in another comment[0] all of this is propaganda to muddle reality and disprove hierarchies, to re-assert egalitarianism/equality as dominant political ideology.
And a previous comment from yesterday seems applicable[1]... that constant fights don't need to occur to be able to identify and reward alphas even for fighting ability or other proxies of fitness, strength, capability etc shouldn't be surprising.
Here we have a guy who's been studying wolves for decades, and says it doesn't work like you describe. But you are so certain it works that way, that you say, well, he hasn't proved absolutely with certainty that it _doesn't_. That is not the way scientific knowledge works. The people actually studying wolves for years say it does not in fact work like you are simply assuming it does.
"alpha wolf" is not equivalent to "pack leader", and the 'myth' of the alpha wolf isn't that there is a wolf in charge that you could call "alpha wolf" if you wanted to, but that the leadership role was attained through dominance[1].
As for the reason it is an interesting myth to explore, there are ideologies that build their basis of human interaction around dominance hierarchies e.g. alpha/beta male manosphere stuff, parts of Jordan Peterson's work.
Of course proving or disproving dominance hierarchies in wolves doesn't necessarily mean anything for its applicability to humans, but the connection probably does make it a more clickable topic to write about, especially because proponents of those ideologies often use animal behavior to support their theories.
This also gives a clue about what kinds of groups might be able to combat corporate leviathans: Families of related individuals.
"Alpha" has not implied dominance through cruelty for at least the past couple of decades, if it ever did.
I suspect, though have no evidence, that this revisionism is due to political pressure over perceived "toxic masculinity" adopting "alpha" as a trope. If so, it is extremely distasteful, even dangerous; reinforcing the idea that science should bend to politics is authoritarian, naive, and threatens the survival of any nation where such is done.
> As Kira Cassidy, an associate research scientist with a National Park Service research program in Yellowstone, explained, “The wolves generally in those dominant positions are not there because they fought for it. It’s not some battle to get to the top position. They’re just the oldest, or the parents. Or, in the case of same-sex siblings, it’s a matter of personality.”
Suggests the myth is that there's a top wolf in a dominant position in a group because they fought to get there. But that that's incorrect because the wolves in the dominant positions are usually just the oldest wolf around, or the parents of the other wolves.
That's just the first thing in the article that seemed to address your question, it's a long article with more. Is that what you were asking?