The concept of Alphas and Betas in humans AND wolves is incorrect.

[NameName]

Interesting article, take a read:

 

http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629

[hannahbanana]

Interesting article, thanks for sharing It reminds me of how everyone thinks Bonobo monkeys have sex all the time, even though that was only based on a study of bonobos in captivity and were not like wild bonobos at all.

But I'm a little intrigued here - your title says that the concept of alphas in wolves AND humans is incorrect, but there is nothing you said or anything in this article that addresses humans. True, the concepts and word choice of alphas/betas in humans is based on the flawed observations of wolf packs, but wolves and humans are very different from one another and have different social structure/communications. To disprove one does not disprove the other.

Now, I don't have much experience with alphas/betas in humans, because I usually stick around with people who don't put stock in it, and don't really think much of it myself. Lately I've been trying to view others' behaviors through this lens in order to understand the concept a little better, and I can kind of see where it's coming from, at least in people who are not really self-aware. Most people here seem to take it as a given, but I'm really interested in your reasons as to why it ISN'T true for anyone. I think it would make me better able to see both sides of the topic, since like I said, I haven't really thought about it until recently. Thanks 

[Devon Gibbons]

 

Interesting to know that there is no alpha male or alpha female wolf in a pack, as we know it; I always thought, due to the propagation of false studies of wolves, that wolves lived in packs of unrelated members and thus must fight for dominance and had a natural behavior of being power-lustful. They do not live in those types of groups, but the pack structure is simply one of a family: a mother and a father and children.

 

[MMX2010]

How does pointing out the mis-use of the concept in wolves and dogs proves that it's also mis-used in humans?  (I only quick-skimmed the article, but I didn't see it mention humans at all.) 

[Triumph]

Sorry itsmassive I have to throw the flag that the article is"bullshit".  I've seen enough alpha/beta behavior among dogs and other animals to know for certain that it is a prominent component of pack psychology. 

 

The one thing I will agree with is that the Alpha/Beta paradigm is over emphasized.  Most behavior can be related to survival instinct, and not dominance.

[Devon Gibbons]

Sorry itsmassive I have to throw the flag that the article is"bullshit".  I've seen enough alpha/beta behavior among dogs and other animals to know for certain that it is a prominent component of pack psychology. 

 

The one thing I will agree with is that the Alpha/Beta paradigm is over emphasized.  Most behavior can be related to survival instinct, and not dominance.

If you'd have read the article it specifies its findings are about wild wolf packs, not captive wolves or their domesticated canine brethren. The article makes it a point that the alpha/beta paradigm only occurs in domesticated wolves and further distinguishes domesticated dogs from wolves in that wolves haven't learned helplessness as dogs have in their reliance on humans to get food out of a container. 

[Triumph]

If you'd have read the article it specifies its findings are about wild wolf packs, not captive wolves or their domesticated canine brethren. The article makes it a point that the alpha/beta paradigm only occurs in domesticated wolves and further distinguishes domesticated dogs from wolves in that wolves haven't learned helplessness as dogs have in their reliance on humans to get food out of a container. 

Wild wolf packs... which kind? Timber wolves?  Gray wolves?  Red Eye wolves?  Maybe Asian or European wolfpacks?  Where did she do her research...oh wait what research?

 

If you notice the author links numerous studies she considers outdated, but never links a single piece of her own research.  In other words she spends the entire article refuting the articles of experts while quite clearly ignoring the fact that she is no expert herself.  She super imposes her amateur opinion as fact, and then displays expert research as outdated opinion.

 

I get a little frustrated when other people can't identify such an obvious schemer. 

[Devon Gibbons]

Wild wolf packs... which kind? Timber wolves?  Gray wolves?  Red Eye wolves?  Maybe Asian or European wolfpacks?  Where did she do her research...oh wait what research?

Canis lupus; research cited in article:

"    Although Mech has since renounced the notion of the "alpha wolf," he admits that if you've heard the term, it's likely thanks to his book.

In more recent years, animal behaviorists, including Mech, have spent more and more time studying wolves in the wild, and the behaviors they have observed has been different from those observed by Schenkel and other watchers of zoo-bound wolves. In 1999, Mech's paper "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs"

She gives the article name and the researcher who changed his "alpha" hypothesis. The research paper cited in the article as it is above has a broken link. A simple Google search brings it up

http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf

She super imposes her amateur opinion as fact

 

This is not her opinion. She is not a wolf researcher, she is a journalist. Stop throwing red herrings. Did you read the article before commenting twice saying this was bullshit? Look at the links and citations. She links the one paper as one of particular interest.

 

As to the species of wolf, Mech's research paper is on Canis lupus. You are right, she does not specify the specie in the article with anything other than the term "gray" once, only referring to the article, and uses the nonspecific "lupine" a few times.

 

Here is a quote from the cited paper by Mech, "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs":

In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring alpha, beta, omega animals, etc. With such assemblages, these dominance labels were probably appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity  would usually so arrange themselves.

 

In nature, however, the wolf pack is not such an assemblage. Rather, it is usually a family (Murie 1944; Young and Goldman 1944; Mech 1970, 1988; Clark 1971; Haber 1977) including a breeding pair and their offspring of the previous 1-3 years, or sometimes two or three such families (Murie 1944; Haber 1977; Mech et al. 1998)....

He goes on in more detail about the dynamics of the family pack structure from here; and again, in his paper he says "The degree to which these arguments apply to other species [non-lupus] no doubt varies considerably and is beyond the scope of this article."

 

Regarding the wolves, he studied "among members in free-living packs based on a literature review and 13 summers of observations of wolves on Ellesmere Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. "

[Triumph]

 

This is not her opinion. She is not a wolf researcher, she is a journalist...

Wait what?  So, it's not opinion because she's a journalist?  Therefore it is fact, even though she is not a wolf researcher?

 

Please call into Stef's show and make that argument. 

 

There's a lot of other things wrong with your reply.  I doubt it is wolves that you are really arguing about anyways.  Perhaps the reason you are defending her article is because there are people who hate the idea that they qualify as a Beta.  It probably makes some people feel better to attack the source of the Alpha concept. 

[Devon Gibbons]

This is not her opinion.

 

So, it's not opinion (?)

That was quite irrational. That is not my point; my point is the concept of family rather than Alpha/Beta dynamics is not her idea. It has been widely discussed in wolf pack dynamics research by educated and experienced wolf researchers. It's better described as theory than opinion due to its basis on evidence.

 

My argument is not about the existence or absence of "Alpha and Beta" behavior in humans. It is for wolves, and solely wolves. I quoted the researcher and the research paper she cited in the article which I myself cited as well and quoted in my last post which, apparently you decided to ignore.

 

I am quite angry at you right now, because I am being kind, while you end up saying:

 

There's a lot of other things wrong with your reply.  I doubt it is wolves that you are really arguing about anyways.  Perhaps the reason you are defending her article is because there are people who hate the idea that they qualify as a Beta.  It probably makes some people feel better to attack the source of the Alpha concept. 

"There's a lot of things wrong with your reply." - ok, what? What is wrong with my actual reply? Quote me.

 

"I doubt it is wolves that you are really arguing about" - nope, I am arguing about wolves. I believe you mistook the purpose of her paper. It is not to discount the Alpha/Beta paradigm altogether, esp regarding humans, as you seem to think it is. I sincerely do not agree it is people she is talking about, and I never said it was about people in any of my responses, did I? But, again, there is no progress like a wise man's doubt; go on:

 

"Perhaps the reason you are defending her article is because there are people who hate the idea that they qualify as Beta." - All I gotta say is straw man. I am not defending the article, I am defending reason. If you do not submit to reason and evidence, gtfo.

 

"It probably makes some people feel better to attack the source of the Alpha concept." - Let's move the topic from wolves to people, as you'd prefer. Do you believe you are an Alpha?

[Triumph]

blah blah blah

 

Betas like you are so adorable when they bare fangs at an Alpha.  I haven't had this much fun since I played with a newborn kitten

 

keep going

[luxfelix]

I had a couple of classes where I was the only guy... does that count as alpha? 

 

Maybe we're alpha sometimes and beta other times depending on where we're at, who we're with, and what we're doing?

 

(Why is this a controversial topic again?)

[Devon Gibbons]

Betas like you are so adorable when they bare fangs at an Alpha.  I haven't had this much fun since I played with a newborn kitten

 

keep going

Did you kill the kitten?

[Lars]

Perhaps the mainstream usage of the words "alpha" and "beta" in relation to wolves is incorrect, but that doesn't exactly challenge the notion of prioritized courtship in humans.

[MMX2010]

 

 

Maybe we're alpha sometimes and beta other times depending on where we're at, who we're with, and what we're doing?

 

 

 

In this great interview, Krauser says there's no such thing as alpha males and beta males; there are only alpha behaviors and beta behaviors.  This is why a beta can, through intense self-work and self-reflection, improve his life by re-discovering his own alpha behaviors. 

 

 

----------------------

 

In this lovely article, Rollo offers only a somewhat (!) disagreeing opinion. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/01/the-myth-of-the-good-guy/

 

The article's closing paragraph blew me away: "There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.  That’s the Man who Just Gets It."

 

-------------------------

 

And in this third awesome article, the author explains what "The Man Who Just Gets It" looks like when he unleashes himself out onto the world. 

 

http://redpillzen.com/king-world/

[JonnyD]

Why is the aggressive, jerk type guy defined as the Alpha in the first place? What is the evidence that these types survived in ancient times? What is the evidence that they were the most productive, that they were the ones who brought in the most resources?

 

This article is an interesting read: http://markmanson.net/power-in-vulnerability/

 

 

Going back to the evolutionary perspectives we discussed in Chapter 1, vulnerability makes perfect sense as an indicator to women of a male’s status and fitness. Let’s say there’s a tribe of 20 men, all hunter gatherers, all men with more or less equal possessions (or lack thereof).

 

Some of the men in the tribe are constantly reactive to what the other men tell them. They don’t admit faults. They change their behavior and what they say to win the approval of the other men. When something doesn’t go their way, they look to blame someone else. What would this say about their status in their tribe? If they’re basing all of their behavior on the approval of the other men and are constantly covering for their weaknesses, it says that they’re low status, not trustworthy, needy, and probably not going to be a dependable father.

[Triumph]

Sorry I'm late to reply.  Apparently I've been murdering kittens somewhere O_o

 

The first point I am going to make, has little effect on the broad argument put forth by the article or those of us who have posted in this thread.  But it is quite potent in illustrating the lack of sophistication imbedded in both.  And it is simply that Gray Wolves are extinct.  The author's only direct reference to breed, as well as a certain other internet warrior's, both took the bait in referencing a rather unscientific taboo when they associated the researched behavior with Gray Wolves.  

 

For those that don't know, Gray Wolves was the name of the breed of wolves that existed in the lower 48 states until they were hunted to extinction in the 19th century.  What little remains of their lineage was absorbed into Canadian Timber Wolves.  Since then those genetics have been diluted to nonexistence amongst the Timber Wolf populations, what was once called Gray Wolves no longer exist.  Today, the name Gray Wolf is mistakenly interchanged with Timber Wolf.

 

Now I have gone through that lengthy explanation, to explain why I instantly disregarded the Article linked as an Editorial and not a scientific article.  Scientific articles are meticulous about the language they use.  They also highlight specific portions of the scientific research they are use to support their claim and not to provide links to studies they are debasing without direct contradictory evidence. 

To give an example, if she had wrote, "During a study of three wolf packs in West Yellowstone, in 2002-2005, by Dr. ImaWolfexpert, he observed no aggressive dominant behavior among the individual members of the packs, not even during feeding."  That would have been actual scientific statement used to support her assertions.  Then a proper link could have followed it.

 

But you don't see that.  Her arguments are weak but appealing to any person who has felt wrongly judged by the Alpha/Beta standard.  Linking a couple out of context scientific articles to readers who don't have the specific knowledge to decipher them , is fairly common place misdirection in modern journalism.  It is an editorial piece buried within a hollow shell of facts and research to give it the appearance of science.  But honestly, unless you are a baby face internet warrior with an IQ of 50, terribadd photoshop skills, and a thumb up his butt, you are going to catch on to the fact the author is full of shit and question the article's validity.

 

I think itsmassive linked a poor article and said as much, but I think he did something quite valuable in questioning the use of the alpha/beta stigma in human society.  It's a good subject, quite unworthy of the trolling this thread has received.  It wasn't long ago that Stef called Robin Williams an alpha male, something almost all of us would agree too.  However contrasting someone like Robin Williams with the stereotypical alpha in wolves, the comparison falls apart.  Middle aged to older male, average height, average build, amazingly humorous and witty are not the marks of a hyper aggressive & physically impressive alpha male in a wolfpack.  The pros and cons of such comparisons are a worthy topic.  Just not in reference to that wolf article.

 

If certain idiots want to keep arguing with me over trivial questions like, why don't we see male pups in wolfpacks trying to assert their dominance over their father as the new Alpha so that they can then fuck their own mother, I just going to link articles on inbreeding.  Then question if you weren't a victim of a brother sister pair yourself, before dismissing you completely.  Social animals like wolves have complicated behaviors based on multiple driving forces making the specifics of their behavior hard to identify.  It is why you need top grade research, and not armchair speculation by journalists distributed their articles as facts to inflame preexisting prejudices among the vulnerable or just the idiotic.   

 

Hopefully a few, will find some value in this post and reexamine some of the flaws in the linked article that you may have missed or pointing out some that I missed. 

Anyways later.

[luxfelix]

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/01/the-myth-of-the-good-guy/

 

 

Thanks for the post. I saw this on your #GamerGate topic reply post and found it helpful in clarifying alpha-beta and male-female dynamics in this topic.

 

I always pictured someone like Henry Reardon from Atlas Shrugged as an alpha example, "alpha" as another word for leader.

 

In my case, I grew up with the abundance mentality described in the video, having attended a high school with a significantly higher female demographic.

 

In the links you posted, there's a differentiation between "alpha cads" and "the man who just gets it" (true alpha). Maybe that's where the controversy comes from, a misunderstanding?

[MMX2010]

 

 

In the links you posted, there's a differentiation between "alpha cads" and "the man who just gets it" (true alpha). Maybe that's where the controversy comes from, a misunderstanding?

 

Yes, but that's just one controversy.

 

A second controversy is whether alpha men can lead women to become better, in order to build a better culture.  Alpha cads cannot, but true alphas can.

 

A third controversy is whether true alphas should lead women to become better, in order to build a better culture. 

 

And a fourth controversy is whether a true alpha should lead modern women in his culture to become better, in order to build a better culture OR whether he should move to countries that respect masculinity more, thereby making his job easier. 

 

If you're a beta male, you have to go through all four of those controversies simultaneously before you can just peacefully accept the existence of alpha and beta male behaviors. 

 

But you can only go through those controversies by becoming alpha first.  This fuels the "alpha cad versus true alpha controversy".  And it spirals from there.

[luxfelix]

So even past a misunderstanding, there's still a matter of ego, efficiency, and efficacy.

 

And by alpha traits, we're talking about leadership, charisma, and integrity?