4 ms·

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 gro

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.

rsynnott 4y ago
... 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.
- highduc 4y ago
  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.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    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/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastat...
    - highduc 4y ago
      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.
      - vaidhy 4y ago
        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?
        highduc 4y ago
        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.
        licebmi__at__ 4y ago
        >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.
PKop 4y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35308341 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  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.

rsynnott 4y ago

... 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.

highduc 4y ago
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.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  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/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastat...
  - highduc 4y ago
    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.
    - vaidhy 4y ago
      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?
      - highduc 4y ago
        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.
        licebmi__at__ 4y ago
        >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.

PKop 4y ago

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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35308341 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569

jrochkind1 4y ago
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.