It’s just nonsense for people who are too asocial and alien to the human experience to make sense of the world and feel better about themselves by having some sort of binary ‘strict goals’. You’re supposed to be somewhere ‘in the middle’ for best results: kind but not a doormat, confident but not arrogant, engaging but not domineering, etc etc.
Also: unstable and not fit for public release
Alpha means “first”, it does not mean “wolf who fights other wolves while in captivity according to one study.”
Do people not know this?
No, alpha is the anglicization of the first letter of the greek alphabet. It doesn’t mean ‘first’ any more than the letter A does.
You’re wrong according to any dictionary ever printed, sorry.
It has more than one definition, and one of those is “first”, and you must accept that as fact.
In correct. “It” does have many definitions, but none of them are ‘first’.
Gee. It’s almost like language evolves!
Get bent you rape apologist
I think “alpha” males appear naturally in some species, but not in wolves and definitely not in hominids, lol.
I find it fascinating how oblivious people pretend to be about what our natural social hierarchies are, making fringe speculations ranging from proto-capitalism, over alpha male fantasies, to proto-communism.
Maybe it’s too obvious, or too boring, but it’s families. Incidentally, happens to be the same for actual, natural packs of wolves.
I find it most fascinating how they take (supposed) observations from entirely different animals to justify what’s happening with humans.
For a mantis it’s natural to eat her partner right after sex. For mussels it’s natural to never meet their sexual partner. Obviously what’s natural for a mantis is not natural for mussels and vice versa. With that established, why would any of that have an influence on how humans behave?
And to take that further, wolves, different kinds of primates and all sorts of other animals that people draw comparisons from are also wildly different animals from humans and what’s normal for them is not normal for us and vice-versa.
And not only that, but even what’s “natural” for primitive humans has nothing to do with what we are doing. It’s “natural” for humans to live in small packs/clans in the semi-wildernis, not to live in a perfectly safe, air conditioned building, driving to work in a fast, safe, air-conditioned vehicle and then sit motionless in front of a screen in an air-conditioned building for 8-10h.
Nothing of how we live is natural, and finding justifications on how we as humans work in “natural” states is misguided at best.
Silverback gorilla has entered the chat
Apparently there’s some disagreement about whether any of the other modern great apes should be included in the “hominid” definition, though.
No there isn’t, they are. Says right there in hominidae.
You might be thinking of hominin.
Among dogs there is certainly the one dog that has the respect of the other dogs. The other dogs will happily wag their tail and show their belly. The ones that challange it will be chased away. I think each sex in the community has a ‘leader’ of their own.
I think the equivalent in humans are charismatic individuals that command respect over their surrounding.
People who self-proclaim ‘alpha’ usually lack charisma, are agressive, dysfunctional individuals that live in a fantasy. Noone respects them. They may see them as crazy and hence fear them.
You’re probably talking about literally the same: random dogs thrown spacially together where they naturally would avoid each other if they could. Which, in the modern days, they can’t. Especially not when leached.
I observe this in the stray dog population. There is always one calm and confident dog like this.
And? Of course there is. They’re also on a spectrum. Everyone is everything to some degree.
I know, not scientifically real, but you have to admit, there are in fact alpha and beta folks in the human population, both men and women. We used to call them type A and type B personalities, same difference.
Anyway, I’m in some kinda weird half-and-half place. :) “On the spectrum”, if you will. Dominant in some ways, but not enough to stomp people out of my way, empathetic enough to be seen as a “good guy”. Whatever. I’m just happy I didn’t land on either far side. Can you imagine being a wuss and having dreams of “alpha”? The mind recoils.
Anyway, I’m in some kinda weird half-and-half place.
Like everyone else then.
We used to call them type A and type B personalities,
Who’s “we”? A quick glance at Wikipedia gives me the impression that it’s the American tobacco industry and “scientists” on their payroll. Hopefully you are not one of them.
Who’s “we”?
Probably OP Commentor is using the Pluralis Majestatis (the royal we)
There are not only two personalities
both men and women
There are also not only two genders
There’s only two of anything if you define broadly enough. There’s only two kinds of people: • those who have passed a kidney stone and those who haven’t • those who currently have a single testicle and those who don’t
there are two kinds of people, those who can draw conclusions from incomplete data,
… , are the ones who dab while sneezing.
There are two types of people, those who admit they pee in the shower and liars.
Different people have different personalities? That’s how humans work. It’s not neatly categorizable. Not even on a single sliding axis. Multiple sliding axis for different traits is more like it.
Anyway, I’m in some kinda weird half-and-half place. :) “On the spectrum”, if you will.
Hey, maybe people are not binary and everyone is “on the spectrum”? Maybe that’s why trying to put everyone into A and B boxes doesn’t make much sense?
