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.