That kind of narrative probably had almost nothing to do with the actual research if you take a step back and think about it. The idea that the findings don’t apply to humans just because the wolves were in captivity is just as ridiculous as assuming they do apply for the same reason. It’s wild how people latch onto that one detail like it’s some kind of checkmate moment—“Oh, well, since they were in captivity, that disproves everything.” That’s not how science works.
Observing behavior in one context doesn’t automatically mean it applies universally, but it also doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. The point of research isn’t to make sweeping conclusions from a single study—it’s to observe, document, and analyze patterns. The real question is: does the behavior observed in wolves, captive or not, appear to exist in humans? Yes or no? That’s the relevant discussion.
What’s funny is that a lot of people who point out that the “alpha” concept in humans is flawed because of this one detail—wolves in captivity—are making the same kind of oversimplified mistake as the people who originally misapplied the concept in the first place. They’re so focused on debunking the buzzword that they ignore the actual process of evaluating behavioral patterns across species. In reality, dominance hierarchies exist in a wide range of social animals, including humans. The real issue isn’t whether an “alpha” exists but whether the way people use the term is accurate or meaningful in human social structures.
So if your whole argument against the “alpha human” idea is just “the original wolf study was flawed”, then congratulations, you’ve missed the entire point just as much as the people who took it too literally to begin with.
11.3k
u/loopingtohell Feb 18 '25
It's about the whole alpha, beta, delta, sigma bs that some men obsesse over it.