Saved you a click: the whole "alpha wolf/lone wolf" thing, which was never true for wolves[0], and unnecessarily became a template for modern masculinity in the concept of the "alpha male" and related hierarchy[1]. It also inadvertently brought the world the Omegaverse, which I leave as an exercise for the reader.
This is the kind of thing people are talking about when they talk about "toxic masculinity" btw.
I always thought the "alpha male" is the one who calls the shots. That's it. I never saw any relation to animals. Most likely the "alpha animal" model was used as a parallel, but you cannot deny the role. It's self evident almost everywhere. Someone is calling the shots. If you do not obey them there are consequences.
At your workplace that is your boss. If you do not do what is required of you, the consequences are that you get fired. They are real and tangible and unavoidable, if you disobey.
How does disproving the alpha thing in wolves change anything about how we interact? People who hold power over other people will still use it, no matter what we call it. This is a simple game theory issue, changing words and descriptions won't change the fundamentals of it.
The role for what people "incorrectly" called "alpha male" is not one we "agree" on, it's one that is self evident by the power such individual holds in that group. This has nothing to do with what I or you or anyone thinks of it. You can ignore such an individual, or you cannot. If you can ignore them, they do not have that power over you. If you cannot ignore the repercussions then they do indeed have that power over you. That's pretty much all there is to it. Changing what we call it won't change their behavior or the outcome of these kinds of interactions.
For example gorillas do have alpha-males in the group, they are the silverbacks. Not obeying them leads to real consequences.
edit: Just for clarity's sake, I am no fan of "that" masculinity model, I'm just talking about the reality of things, almost everywhere on this planet. Of-course there's all kinds of exceptions but they aren't really important in the grand scheme of things.
I get into arguments about this with my wife, who is a riding instructor but I think has poor "dog sense". That is, when she is helping a friend who is out of town with a dog she goes in the house and yells the dog's name and the dog is cowering in the crate. I just flop down on the bed and the dog comes out of the crate.
I ran with a pack of dogs as a kid and developed "peer" body language instinctively that helps me click instantly with strange dogs but my wife warns me that I'd better watch out with more dominant dogs because I might get attacked. My problem now is that I go out-as-a-fox these days with a hood that people read right but that I think dogs read as "bear".
Saved you a click: the whole "alpha wolf/lone wolf" thing, which was never true for wolves[0], and unnecessarily became a template for modern masculinity in the concept of the "alpha male" and related hierarchy[1]. It also inadvertently brought the world the Omegaverse, which I leave as an exercise for the reader.
This is the kind of thing people are talking about when they talk about "toxic masculinity" btw.
[0]https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-myth-of-the-a...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_and_beta_male
I always thought the "alpha male" is the one who calls the shots. That's it. I never saw any relation to animals. Most likely the "alpha animal" model was used as a parallel, but you cannot deny the role. It's self evident almost everywhere. Someone is calling the shots. If you do not obey them there are consequences. At your workplace that is your boss. If you do not do what is required of you, the consequences are that you get fired. They are real and tangible and unavoidable, if you disobey.
How does disproving the alpha thing in wolves change anything about how we interact? People who hold power over other people will still use it, no matter what we call it. This is a simple game theory issue, changing words and descriptions won't change the fundamentals of it.
The role for what people "incorrectly" called "alpha male" is not one we "agree" on, it's one that is self evident by the power such individual holds in that group. This has nothing to do with what I or you or anyone thinks of it. You can ignore such an individual, or you cannot. If you can ignore them, they do not have that power over you. If you cannot ignore the repercussions then they do indeed have that power over you. That's pretty much all there is to it. Changing what we call it won't change their behavior or the outcome of these kinds of interactions.
For example gorillas do have alpha-males in the group, they are the silverbacks. Not obeying them leads to real consequences.
edit: Just for clarity's sake, I am no fan of "that" masculinity model, I'm just talking about the reality of things, almost everywhere on this planet. Of-course there's all kinds of exceptions but they aren't really important in the grand scheme of things.
I get into arguments about this with my wife, who is a riding instructor but I think has poor "dog sense". That is, when she is helping a friend who is out of town with a dog she goes in the house and yells the dog's name and the dog is cowering in the crate. I just flop down on the bed and the dog comes out of the crate.
I ran with a pack of dogs as a kid and developed "peer" body language instinctively that helps me click instantly with strange dogs but my wife warns me that I'd better watch out with more dominant dogs because I might get attacked. My problem now is that I go out-as-a-fox these days with a hood that people read right but that I think dogs read as "bear".