Alpha definition and discussion

Lady Cell suggested this as a separate topic when another forum post got derailed by it.

I'll start with a few facts.

The idea of 'Alphas' in wolfpacks has been debunked and dismissed by the biologist that first coined the term. Wolf packs are in fact simply extended family units.

Alpha males exist in chimpanzee societies. Chimps also murder for sport and rape.

The other primate that is closest to humans biologically is the bonobo. There are no alpha males in bonobo societies, only alpha females.

Alpha male is a phrase commonly used by PUA/Red Pill folks and other mysogenists.

Alpha qualities as identified by biologists are purely physical.

Alpha as a social rank has no meaning outside of the specific small animal tribe members to which it is attributed. To extend such a simplistic concept to humans where social rank is fluid and determined by a multitude of factors is a foolish oversimplification. We are members of many 'tribes' throughout our lives, and rank within one does not influence rank within another. Consider a CEO in prison, or a prisoner in a job at McDonald's.

Self identifying as 'Alpha' is a sign of insecurity and the need to be ranked. These are not leadership qualities.

I must see Alphas differently

Yes, I noticed your explanation in the other sub. Those kinder, nuturing traits are noted in social heirarchy in primates as well. Some Alpha primates have been noted caring and protecting older and more vulnerable members of the tribe. These more complex interactions aren't fully understood by animal behavior experts, but have been observed.

Lil red wolf, I would be curious to hear what your definition is.

Every man I’ve ever met self claiming as “alpha” has been one or more of the following: arrogant, narcissistic, domineering, abusive, dismissive, cruel, selfish, inconsiderate, rigid, thoughtless and disrespectful.

Such men also seem to be unwilling to engage with a woman who may be more intelligent than them and are unwilling to be wrong or see things from another viewpoint— my way or the highway and if you don’t take my way I’m going to degrade you. These are all things that have happened to me over and over and over again.

I’m thinking my experience and my definition doesn’t match yours—so I really would be curious as to how you’d define them, because as I recall you said they were the best kind of dom. Really would appreciate learning more about your perspective here.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/436950/the-difference-between-a-bully-and-a-true-alpha-male

First is a bit science heavy, but nicely sourced and hints at the complexity of the subject.

The second is more readable, and features the author that brought alpha chimp behavior to pop culture. He also has a TEDMED talk that's enlightening...

Both feature the sort of nuance that flies over the heads of those that self identify as alpha.

First things first. I should have and could have chosen better words in my original. I apologize for your feelings.

On to the topic at hand. As you stated this is a continuation from the forum “struggling in my role as his sub”. I personally don't see any relevance to the question asked . It seems to me deflection and distraction is a common tactic in your posts but oh well.

We will start with the fact that you stated no facts. I will respond in the order you posted.

#1 -- I'm guessing that you are referring to biologist Mech. Correct me If I'm wrong. So many errors here, where is one to start? To begin with all studies even ones that deal with facts are biased. Studies such as these, animal studies, are not only biased but are completely based on opinion and theory. Zero facts. That will be true until the day comes that we learn to converse with said animals. While he is generally considered the one to coin the term alpha with wolves, he was not the first or only one to study them. Why you would reference someone like this to begin with I don't understand. He did a study, made a conclusion. In later years, he says his conclusion was wrong but now he is right. What will it be a few years from now? He made a mistake gain and he was right the first time? Perhaps he was wrong both times and will have a new theory? Oh, wait let's go back to the beginning, I was right the first time, forget everything I said since. Another prominent researchers view --”ethologist Marc Bekoff quickly stepped in. Wolves (and other animals, including humans), display social dominance, he notes; it just isn't always easy to boil dominant behavior down to simple explanations. Dominant behavior and dominance relationships can be highly situational, and can vary greatly from individual to individual even within the same species. It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled, just the simple hierarchical pack structure.” What any of this has to do with the original question, I have no idea It was necessary though to show your not stating facts. Its theory and opinions Nothing else.

#2 -- Alpha males exist in chimpanzees and they murder and rape. To begin with I would have to question your sources. Even is this is true, who cares? How is this relevant to the question asked? There are plenty of human alpha males that murder and rape There is also plenty of submissive human males that murder and rape and plenty of human males that fit every description in between that murder and rape.

#3 -- alpha male is commonly used by every intelligent being in the world. Again pointless

#4 -- psychologists will disagree with your biologist. You know why? Because no facts.
Again even if it was true, who cares. Nothing to do with the question that was asked

#5 -- Your opinion and nothing more Its clear its not based on anything factual but you are entitled to it. Again who cares? Completely irrelevant to the question asked.

#6 -- I didn't see anywhere in the original post that someone said they were an alpha male. Please show me if I missed it. Not leadership qualities? Your opinion but we have already addressed that. Also one does protest too much.

Again apologies for hurting your feelings In the future though If you cant logically respond to question asked please refrain from doing so. Yes I have the right to ask this. You gave it to me when you told people not bring up old threads,

Have a great day.

Wow. So much wrong here. Let's dig down.



It wasn't related, so I started a separate thread. You're right back to ad hominem attacks. This isn't going to go well for you.




Yes, Mech. He's condsidered the leading expert in the field. More to the point, if you're going to discuss science, you have to accept it, or at least some commonly agreed upon facts. Your ramble above is a complete rejection of the scientific method. Hypothesis, observation, analysis, conclusion. Not "opinion and theory". Your dismissal is reminiscent of evolution deniers attacking science.

Anywhoo.. back to Mech.



Unlikely. If you are actually familiar with his work, you'll know that his original conclusion, and those of the others you mentioned were based on captive populations of wolves, and thus aren't considered valid.





That much is clear.. to fill you in, the original question was the definition of Alpha and how it's used, and your citation does not dispute Mech.



See above. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the very science you're trying to cite...




My original point was a comparison between alpha behavior in chimps and bonobos. The behaviors mentioned are well documented. If you disagree, the onus is on you to cite and source.




No, it isn't. Also, that's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, and the term is relatively new. See the second link in my follow up post... Once again, the author who introduced the term clearly states that it's commonly misunderstood and misused.



I can't even parse that; science sucks because science, fuck facts?



No problem..



You haven't hurt my feelings yet. You continually bring it up in an attempt to dismiss what are logical counterpoints.

Once again, your response is illogical, full of fallacies and more of a personal attack than a discussion. The fact that you need to reach into the wayback machine and cite an old comment of mine that I'd almost forgotten seems to suggest that your feelings are the ones that have been hurt.

This discussion is about the term alpha and those that self label there. You've once again turned it into a personal attack on me. Get over it.

@savida.
How I see what an Alpha Dom is. They do not have to prove who they are, they are the strong warrior that goes into battle as others run away. Defend those close to them. Are reserved as to who they are. Do not like praise because to them it is just who they are. They nurture and are loving. They guide and care strongly.

If they must prove that they are Alpha and must announce it, they are not an Alpha.

@lilredwolf

I’m not sure exactly what I’d call that, honestly. A leader that protects and nurtures? I’m not really sure I have a word.

But fair enough. Thanks for sharing your definition. I hope others end up chiming in with their definitions.

I agree that power doesn’t come from saying you have it though.

Its interesting to look at with how human societies used to function in tribes and still do in some places. Women have actually been see to be the what we would call the role of a man. A lot of our functioning comes from ancient greek times. Its an interesting concept, personally I don't think 'alpha' is really a thing mainly because a lot of men hide behind the term who are as sav described them, that has been my experience too. People do use the term Alpha to refer to something I would say slightly differently which is someone who watches leads and guides people (to me this is a Top) but also is head of the community (I have also seen people in this position who shouldn't be and it can become seriously unsafe), the issue usually comes when they are questioned, im very inquisitive and like to know how to help so I ask... when that's met with the phrase 'what would a sub know' or belittling of your ideas to keep that place of being at the head of that community its concerning, personally I walk its not worth the damage. Interestingly there is a part of being human that has always looked up to someone or something a leader (which is what I call them, but I test them to see if they are too) consider past human civilisations they usually looked up to a concept or a person or a god (again ancient Greece or ancient Egypt) ect.. there does seem to be a part of being human in which we look upwards, im not sure why ? But over ancient history we have. This leaves me wondering sometimes if its a natural reflex to look up at people like that which is why sometimes people can get to that place without being fully vetted and checked or are and then over time it doesn't work but the hang onto power. Just ponderings …