From the literature review section of an article by David Mech, a researcher OP mentions (the whole article is worth reading, and available online here):

> 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...

What I was trying to tell you is that people mean "the boss" when they say alpha. They refer to how we are organized, the name alpha is meant to tell you which one of us, in any random social group, gets the most vs the others. Far various reasons. Now, maybe alpha is not the correct word as it doesn't translate to us from wolves, but that still doesn't change how humans are organized in groups. It's fair to mention the detail, doesn't change anything in human behavior. Humans will just move on to the next word that transmits the idea.

You are purposely conflating two points - how does the leader gets selected (when we call someone alpha) and whether there is a leader. You are also assuming that alpha gets the most.

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?

I'm not conflating them, I was explaining why the word "alpha" is used as it is. Everybody knows its meaning. Just because you can cite some historical examples it means nothing for what's happening around the world, in all cultures. Almost everywhere the most able human, environment permitting, will always use any advantage to get "the best things" or more than others. You can't cancel the concept itself, or try to shame those who do it. It doesn't work. It's dependent on the environment itself. As long as it permits it, it will happen. It's just game theory. You can dance around this concept as much as you want, won't change what's happening practically.

>Everybody knows its meaning.

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.