Alpha males

TIL I am an alpha male after all...

Hey hey hey!

We're Werewolves, not Swearwolves

Also: unstable and not fit for public release

Weird how that attracts a certain crowd

I think "alpha" males appear naturally in some species, but not in wolves and definitely not in hominids, lol.

Silverback gorilla has entered the chat
Apparently there's some disagreement about whether any of the other modern great apes should be included in the "hominid" definition, though.
- No there isn't, they are. Says right there in hominidae.
  You might be thinking of hominin.
I find it fascinating how oblivious people pretend to be about what our natural social hierarchies are, making fringe speculations ranging from proto-capitalism, over alpha male fantasies, to proto-communism.
Maybe it's too obvious, or too boring, but it's families. Incidentally, happens to be the same for actual, natural packs of wolves.
- I find it most fascinating how they take (supposed) observations from entirely different animals to justify what's happening with humans.
  For a mantis it's natural to eat her partner right after sex. For mussels it's natural to never meet their sexual partner. Obviously what's natural for a mantis is not natural for mussels and vice versa. With that established, why would any of that have an influence on how humans behave?
  And to take that further, wolves, different kinds of primates and all sorts of other animals that people draw comparisons from are also wildly different animals from humans and what's normal for them is not normal for us and vice-versa.
  And not only that, but even what's "natural" for primitive humans has nothing to do with what we are doing. It's "natural" for humans to live in small packs/clans in the semi-wildernis, not to live in a perfectly safe, air conditioned building, driving to work in a fast, safe, air-conditioned vehicle and then sit motionless in front of a screen in an air-conditioned building for 8-10h.
  Nothing of how we live is natural, and finding justifications on how we as humans work in "natural" states is misguided at best.

Counterpoint:

Humans in a civilized (meaning urbanized) society... are domesticated, are basically in captivity, from the comparative framework of wild animals.

CounterCounterpoint:

Using studies on captive wolves as a fundamental basis for how human societies do or should work...

... Is maybe really stupid compared to, I don't know, using Sociology as a basis to understand human societies.

Sociology being the field that focuses on the social dynamics of uh, humans, which are markedly different from wolves, and other distinct, largely non sapient animals.

Its uh, kinda in our name, homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans in a civilized (meaning urbanized) society… are domesticated, are basically in captivity, from the comparative framework of wild animals.
What about urban existence resembles captivity? You aren't constrained geographically or denied personal autonomy. In fact, you have significantly more freedom and autonomy precisely because you're at the hub of a large, well-developed collection of infrastructure and accumulated resources.
I would not consider a human in a city any more "in captivity" than a duck in a lake.
Its uh, kinda in our name, homo sapiens sapiens.
So nice they named us twice
- You aren't constrained geographically or denied personal autonomy.
  Nation-State Borders.
  Sorry, you can't leave Gaza, you're not allowed to.
  You need a ticket to attend this concert.
  You will be arrested or shot on sight if you enter this facility without authorization.
  Sure, you can download a movie, but thats a crime, so really, you can't.
  Sure, you can hack into a Tesla and drive off with it, but thats also a crime, so really, you can't.
  Whites Bathroom on the Left, Negroes on the Right.
  Japanes heritage in the 1940s?
  Off to a concentration camp, all your property is forfeit.
  Hispanic, or even just brown skinned in current year?
  Same.
  Only the Preist may enter the Holy of Holies.
  etc etc.
  ...
  And even less overt things than that:
  You can't go to this club, this bar, this concert dressed like that, talking like that.
  No, you cannot go outside nude, thats generally a crime.
  You can't say those words, love that person, speak that language, have that opinion or belief, not without social ostricisization or even incarceration.
  ...
  In fact, you have significantly more freedom and autonomy precisely because you're at the hub of a large, well-developed collection of infrastructure and accumulated resources.
  Sure, if you're in the global top 1% to 5 % of people wealthy enough to afford all those things that you can now do via the exploitation and reduction of freedom of the other 99% to 95%.
  Everyone else has to go back to work, or they get evicted, starve and die.
  The duck can fly away and never return, if it wants to.
  A human can only do that to the extent it has money.
  ... We just live in a more complicated Zoo with more rules, that we built for ourselves, compared to ourselves 100,000 years ago.
  I am not saying there are no upsides to civilization.
  I am just saying you maybe need a different frame of reference to see the differences, the downsides.
You have to use parables to teach moral concepts to most people. Sociology is very valuable as a science, but if you come at the general public with unvarnished findings you are going to have a bad time, few will listen to you.
The old alpha male trope is a parable that serves some narrow interests. The newer counter parables about how that is BS are based in observations from sociology, later generations of more rigorous animal behavior studies and related fields.
You are correct that good scientific work is the source of what we need. The equally difficult truth is that those findings will only make their way into general consciousness through parables.
This one weird fact drives nerds crazy, but for newer, better ideas to take hold in society they have to be translated into simple stories.
- You have to use parables to teach moral concepts to most people.
  This one weird fact drives nerds crazy, but for newer, better ideas to take hold in society they have to be translated into simple stories.
  As a person with a career in data analytics...
  You are completely correct.
  When talking to non nerds, non autists, non data wonks...
  Yep, 100% you absolutely must be able to present your data as a narrative of some kind if you want to have any hope of most people having any reaction other than confusion or their eyes glossing over.
  I have learned this the hard way in my own life, and its why people like Sagan and Nye and Tyson were/are science communicators, which is a different skillset from being an actual scientist in whatever field.

It's just nonsense for people who are too asocial and alien to the human experience to make sense of the world and feel better about themselves by having some sort of binary 'strict goals'. You're supposed to be somewhere 'in the middle' for best results: kind but not a doormat, confident but not arrogant, engaging but not domineering, etc etc.

Among dogs there is certainly the one dog that has the respect of the other dogs. The other dogs will happily wag their tail and show their belly. The ones that challange it will be chased away. I think each sex in the community has a 'leader' of their own.

I think the equivalent in humans are charismatic individuals that command respect over their surrounding.

People who self-proclaim 'alpha' usually lack charisma, are agressive, dysfunctional individuals that live in a fantasy. Noone respects them. They may see them as crazy and hence fear them.

You're probably talking about literally the same: random dogs thrown spacially together where they naturally would avoid each other if they could. Which, in the modern days, they can't. Especially not when leached.
- I observe this in the stray dog population. There is always one calm and confident dog like this.
i mean we've got that one cat that beats up all the other cats and dogs in the neighborhood and everyone knows to keep their distance. pecking order I think it's called.

I guess. I was able to engage in real conversation on Reddit and still do here, sounds like you've not really trying.
You're on a 1 day old account with only 4 comments. You haven't even tried to have a conversation yet. You're also on the lemmy.world instance which is as close to Reddit as Lemmy gets, so what would you expect? Maybe try a different instance that's closer to what you're looking for.

Alpha means "first", it does not mean "wolf who fights other wolves while in captivity according to one study."

Do people not know this?

No, alpha is the anglicization of the first letter of the greek alphabet. It doesn't mean 'first' any more than the letter A does.
- You're wrong according to any dictionary ever printed, sorry.
  It has more than one definition, and one of those is "first", and you must accept that as fact.
- I'm right still, you are wrong! Alpha is not problematic in any way. It's in the Bible (the best selling book on Earth, at least at one time), it's used in pop culture while not referring to the study in any way. So now annoying people use "alpha" just like "king" and "prince" and "the best" and "the greatest".
  You'll all get over it soon, as usual. I promise.
  p.s as per your question, yes I do know of it, as stated in my post that you responded to. I'm sorry that referring to it was an inadequate indicator that I knew of it, so I'm guessing your question is a joke? I mean, it's obvious.
Gee. It's almost like language evolves!
- Get bent you rape apologist
- It does! However, alpha still means "first", as it always has. The word predates the study by centuries.

I know, not scientifically real, but you have to admit, there are in fact alpha and beta folks in the human population, both men and women. We used to call them type A and type B personalities, same difference.

Anyway, I'm in some kinda weird half-and-half place. :) "On the spectrum", if you will. Dominant in some ways, but not enough to stomp people out of my way, empathetic enough to be seen as a "good guy". Whatever. I'm just happy I didn't land on either far side. Can you imagine being a wuss and having dreams of "alpha"? The mind recoils.

Anyway, I’m in some kinda weird half-and-half place. :) “On the spectrum”, if you will.
Hey, maybe people are not binary and everyone is "on the spectrum"? Maybe that's why trying to put everyone into A and B boxes doesn't make much sense?
There are not only two personalities
both men and women
There are also not only two genders
- There’s only two of anything if you define broadly enough. There’s only two kinds of people: • those who have passed a kidney stone and those who haven’t • those who currently have a single testicle and those who don’t
Different people have different personalities? That's how humans work. It's not neatly categorizable. Not even on a single sliding axis. Multiple sliding axis for different traits is more like it.
Anyway, I'm in some kinda weird half-and-half place.
Like everyone else then.
We used to call them type A and type B personalities,
Who's "we"? A quick glance at Wikipedia gives me the impression that it's the American tobacco industry and "scientists" on their payroll. Hopefully you are not one of them.
- Who’s "we"?
  Probably OP Commentor is using the Pluralis Majestatis (the royal we)