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 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.

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.

> 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.