Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrochkind1 | Hacker News Reader

Well, one of the first quotes in the article:

> 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, or were most aggressive. 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. She goes on to say there is actually very little fighting within a pack.

Is that the sort of thing you were asking about?

View on HN

The other detail mentioned in the article is that the Alpha Wolf theory came from studies in Zoos, where unrelated animals were kept together in undersized environments, i.e., a setting that was particularly conductive to induce fights.

So like in a corporation, or any other human zoo.

This also gives a clue about what kinds of groups might be able to combat corporate leviathans: Families of related individuals.

That gets at what another poster suggested, albeit very obliquely. Thank you!

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.

In particular, claiming that alpha wolf is a myth is quite a different thing from claiming that alpha male is a myth. Since dominance relationships in a wolf pack are hardly affected by sex, the latter would be a defensible claim. The former is emphatically not.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5126626/#!po=0....

The article says it's a myth that the leader gets there by competing with other wolves, not that it's a myth there is a leader, true. I think it's suggesting that many people have ideas about what an "alpha wolf" is that are mistaken. If someone doesn't have those ideas and "alpha wolf" doens't mean those things to them, then fine. The article doesn't get much into what the role of this dominant wolf is like, I suspect there are other popular but mistaken ideas there too as well.

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 the article may not address how you are using it.

> I fail to see how the idea of there being an alpha wolf/pack leader/whatever is a myth.

"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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy

The best reinterpretation I’ve seen is to consider “alphas” as software releases rather than wolves. Ie, it’s a prototype not ready for interaction with the public, for internal testing until the bugs are worked out.

I think the "but it's a myth" thing resulted from the need to deny parts of human group behavior, that are not flattering for "lesser" individuals from said group, in the hopes that it invalidates their "lesser" position in that group. We're trying to "censor" a non-flattering concept (for some) without addressing the actual issue, namely that they do have a leader of sorts, a more privileged position. Gets the best/most food if need be, etc.

... Is the human behaviour you're talking about being lead by the oldest available person? That's how wolves work.

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.

The word alpha is an approximation (in human terms) for certain privileges the group leader has, over the rest of the pack. You can name it or actively not name it either way. We use words to transmit ideas. But sure, if you want to be more precise you can make the distinction more finely between humans and wolves behavior.

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.

You are exactly right. Certainly there can still be some criteria upon which the sorting of leader, alphas, follows from.

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.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35308341

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569

The way science works, if you have a theory, like "fitness promotes an 'alpha' above the rest", you need to find evidence to support it. You don't just come up with a way you think the world works, and insist it works that way because it's _possible_ that the findings don't _disprove_ it.

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.

This is historical revisionism, plain and simple. In Mech's book, it clearly explains that "[t]he original alpha animals in a pack would be the mated pair that produced the young of which the pack is composed." L. David Mech, The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species 69 (2003 ed. Univ. Minn. Press).

"Alpha" has not implied harsh dominance through cruelty for at least the past couple of decades, if it ever did.

Indeed, Mech's book even notes the alpha taking the pack's fears and desires into account. "If wolf government is strictly autocratic, one would expect to see pack members always following the leader blindly.... Strict autocracy is ruled out by an observation that I made on Isle Royale.... The island's pack of sixteen wolves was headed across the ice of Lake Superior from Isle Royale toward the mainland, some twenty miles away. The wolves had gotten about one and one half miles from the northeast tip of the island when dissension among them became evident. Although most of the wolves appeared unwilling to continue, the leader seemed determined. Several times he returned to the hesitant pack and apparently tried to urge the members on. They continued for another half mile or so until they came to a section of rough and jagged ice. After testing this, the pack returned to Isle Royale. I had the distinct impression that it was the hesitancy of most of the pack members that stimulated the leader to turn back." Id. at 75-76. The current criticism of the term "alpha" is a straw man that mischaracterizes the original work's claims about pack leadership. "Alpha" in Mech's book isn't about unbridled "fighting" or "aggression," it's about kin relationships and social capital and taking care of the pack. The current view is not meaningfully different from the view in the book.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com