The Myth of the Alpha Wolf(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The Myth of the Alpha Wolf
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-myth-of-the-alpha-wolf
158 comments
> “If they have one or two older individuals, they are more likely to win—which was not what we’d expected to find.”
This doesn't sound that crazy; maybe the ones able to live that are the ones in packs that are strong enough to win all the time.
This doesn't sound that crazy; maybe the ones able to live that are the ones in packs that are strong enough to win all the time.
Cohen the Barbarian style, I guess? An old barbarian is a deadly barbarian!
"a man who does for a living what Cohen does and nevertheless survives to such an age must be very good at it indeed."
Beware of the old. We've survived. There is a reason the phrase is "Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill."
Beware of the old. We've survived. There is a reason the phrase is "Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill."
> Cohen the Barbarian
this example of autocorrect made me laugh out loud for the first time in days.
please do not correct it.
this example of autocorrect made me laugh out loud for the first time in days.
please do not correct it.
https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Cohen
If you want more laughs, check out the books ;)
If you want more laughs, check out the books ;)
I think it was intended?
I’m interested in some recent research that shows a blood pressure drug, guanabenz, which helps clear latent taxo infections.
>“It turned out all that stuff was mostly wrong,” Mech said. In 2022, his publisher agreed to stop printing the book. Yet, although field biologists no longer use the terms “alpha” and “beta,” they have proved too useful for humans to drop—now we use them in relation to our own groupings and conflicts.
Ok, forget about wolves. What about non-human great apes, like chimpanzees or mountain gorillas, much closer to us genetically than canids? Are their societies not hierarchical, polygynous, and alpha-led?
Ok, forget about wolves. What about non-human great apes, like chimpanzees or mountain gorillas, much closer to us genetically than canids? Are their societies not hierarchical, polygynous, and alpha-led?
Our two closest relatives are the chimpanzee and Bonobo.
The Bonobo is far more interesting. They have a dynamic society, where sometimes it's matriarchal or more balanced. The wiki article is a fascinating read:
> Although a male bonobo is dominant to a female in a dyadic interaction,[46] depending on the community, socially-bonded females may be co-dominant with males[47] or dominant over them, even to the extent that females can coerce reluctant males into mating with them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
Personally I think humans are far closer to Bonobos than chimps in our societal structure. We should allow more dynamic structures to arise, and have more sex along the way.
The Bonobo is far more interesting. They have a dynamic society, where sometimes it's matriarchal or more balanced. The wiki article is a fascinating read:
> Although a male bonobo is dominant to a female in a dyadic interaction,[46] depending on the community, socially-bonded females may be co-dominant with males[47] or dominant over them, even to the extent that females can coerce reluctant males into mating with them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
Personally I think humans are far closer to Bonobos than chimps in our societal structure. We should allow more dynamic structures to arise, and have more sex along the way.
Finally a political platform with some legs.
Sounds like a couple Heinlein settings.
PKop(3)
I keep seeing this and similar claims come up, but they are never backed up by any substance — including in this article.
It's always the same formula, too.
Step 1: Claim that the idea of an "alpha wolf" is a "myth."
Step 2: Explain that packs are usually made up of families.
Step 3:.... Nothing.
Does anyone have any idea what they mean when they say it's a myth? What is the myth? In what way is the idea incorrect?
It's always the same formula, too.
Step 1: Claim that the idea of an "alpha wolf" is a "myth."
Step 2: Explain that packs are usually made up of families.
Step 3:.... Nothing.
Does anyone have any idea what they mean when they say it's a myth? What is the myth? In what way is the idea incorrect?
Well, one of the first quotes in the article:
> As Kira Cassidy, an associate research scientist with a National Park Service research program in Yellowstone, explained, “The wolves generally in those dominant positions are not there because they fought for it. It’s not some battle to get to the top position. They’re just the oldest, or the parents. Or, in the case of same-sex siblings, it’s a matter of personality.”
Suggests the myth is that there's a top wolf in a dominant position in a group because they fought to get there, or were most aggressive. But that that's incorrect because the wolves in the dominant positions are usually just the oldest wolf around, or the parents of the other wolves. She goes on to say there is actually very little fighting within a pack.
Is that the sort of thing you were asking about?
> As Kira Cassidy, an associate research scientist with a National Park Service research program in Yellowstone, explained, “The wolves generally in those dominant positions are not there because they fought for it. It’s not some battle to get to the top position. They’re just the oldest, or the parents. Or, in the case of same-sex siblings, it’s a matter of personality.”
Suggests the myth is that there's a top wolf in a dominant position in a group because they fought to get there, or were most aggressive. But that that's incorrect because the wolves in the dominant positions are usually just the oldest wolf around, or the parents of the other wolves. She goes on to say there is actually very little fighting within a pack.
Is that the sort of thing you were asking about?
The other detail mentioned in the article is that the Alpha Wolf theory came from studies in Zoos, where unrelated animals were kept together in undersized environments, i.e., a setting that was particularly conductive to induce fights.
So like in a corporation, or any other human zoo.
This also gives a clue about what kinds of groups might be able to combat corporate leviathans: Families of related individuals.
This also gives a clue about what kinds of groups might be able to combat corporate leviathans: Families of related individuals.
That gets at what another poster suggested, albeit very obliquely. Thank you!
However, I ultimately don't find that responsive. There's still a pack leader. Whatever term is used for it is a question of human linguistics, not of wolf behavior. I fail to see how the idea of there being an alpha wolf/pack leader/whatever is a myth.
In particular, claiming that alpha wolf is a myth is quite a different thing from claiming that alpha male is a myth. Since dominance relationships in a wolf pack are hardly affected by sex, the latter would be a defensible claim. The former is emphatically not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5126626/#!po=0....
However, I ultimately don't find that responsive. There's still a pack leader. Whatever term is used for it is a question of human linguistics, not of wolf behavior. I fail to see how the idea of there being an alpha wolf/pack leader/whatever is a myth.
In particular, claiming that alpha wolf is a myth is quite a different thing from claiming that alpha male is a myth. Since dominance relationships in a wolf pack are hardly affected by sex, the latter would be a defensible claim. The former is emphatically not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5126626/#!po=0....
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.
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.
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...
> 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?
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.
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.
You are exactly right. Certainly there can still be some criteria upon which the sorting of leader, alphas, follows from.
There is some heuristic which may avoid having to fight it out all the time, but this does not disprove that an alpha exists based on being more fit/dominant/strong/intelligent whatever, even fighting ability! Maybe age, or strength, or assertive personality, etc..all are proxies or different permutations for "fitness" which combine to promote some alpha above the rest. The general point here is that there still can be a hierarchy.
As I said in another comment[0] all of this is propaganda to muddle reality and disprove hierarchies, to re-assert egalitarianism/equality as dominant political ideology.
And a previous comment from yesterday seems applicable[1]... that constant fights don't need to occur to be able to identify and reward alphas even for fighting ability or other proxies of fitness, strength, capability etc shouldn't be surprising.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35308341
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569
There is some heuristic which may avoid having to fight it out all the time, but this does not disprove that an alpha exists based on being more fit/dominant/strong/intelligent whatever, even fighting ability! Maybe age, or strength, or assertive personality, etc..all are proxies or different permutations for "fitness" which combine to promote some alpha above the rest. The general point here is that there still can be a hierarchy.
As I said in another comment[0] all of this is propaganda to muddle reality and disprove hierarchies, to re-assert egalitarianism/equality as dominant political ideology.
And a previous comment from yesterday seems applicable[1]... that constant fights don't need to occur to be able to identify and reward alphas even for fighting ability or other proxies of fitness, strength, capability etc shouldn't be surprising.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35308341
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299569
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.
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
"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.
This is historical revisionism, plain and simple. In Mech's book, it clearly explains that "[t]he original alpha animals in a pack would be the mated pair that produced the young of which the pack is composed." L. David Mech, The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species 69 (2003 ed. Univ. Minn. Press).
"Alpha" has not implied harsh dominance through cruelty for at least the past couple of decades, if it ever did.
Indeed, Mech's book even notes the alpha taking the pack's fears and desires into account. "If wolf government is strictly autocratic, one would expect to see pack members always following the leader blindly.... Strict autocracy is ruled out by an observation that I made on Isle Royale.... The island's pack of sixteen wolves was headed across the ice of Lake Superior from Isle Royale toward the mainland, some twenty miles away. The wolves had gotten about one and one half miles from the northeast tip of the island when dissension among them became evident. Although most of the wolves appeared unwilling to continue, the leader seemed determined. Several times he returned to the hesitant pack and apparently tried to urge the members on. They continued for another half mile or so until they came to a section of rough and jagged ice. After testing this, the pack returned to Isle Royale. I had the distinct impression that it was the hesitancy of most of the pack members that stimulated the leader to turn back." Id. at 75-76. The current criticism of the term "alpha" is a straw man that mischaracterizes the original work's claims about pack leadership. "Alpha" in Mech's book isn't about unbridled "fighting" or "aggression," it's about kin relationships and social capital and taking care of the pack. The current view is not meaningfully different from the view in the book.
I suspect, though have no evidence, that this revisionism is due to political pressure over perceived "toxic masculinity" adopting "alpha" as a trope. If so, it is extremely distasteful, even dangerous; reinforcing the idea that science should bend to politics is authoritarian, naive, and threatens the survival of any nation where such is done.
"Alpha" has not implied harsh dominance through cruelty for at least the past couple of decades, if it ever did.
Indeed, Mech's book even notes the alpha taking the pack's fears and desires into account. "If wolf government is strictly autocratic, one would expect to see pack members always following the leader blindly.... Strict autocracy is ruled out by an observation that I made on Isle Royale.... The island's pack of sixteen wolves was headed across the ice of Lake Superior from Isle Royale toward the mainland, some twenty miles away. The wolves had gotten about one and one half miles from the northeast tip of the island when dissension among them became evident. Although most of the wolves appeared unwilling to continue, the leader seemed determined. Several times he returned to the hesitant pack and apparently tried to urge the members on. They continued for another half mile or so until they came to a section of rough and jagged ice. After testing this, the pack returned to Isle Royale. I had the distinct impression that it was the hesitancy of most of the pack members that stimulated the leader to turn back." Id. at 75-76. The current criticism of the term "alpha" is a straw man that mischaracterizes the original work's claims about pack leadership. "Alpha" in Mech's book isn't about unbridled "fighting" or "aggression," it's about kin relationships and social capital and taking care of the pack. The current view is not meaningfully different from the view in the book.
I suspect, though have no evidence, that this revisionism is due to political pressure over perceived "toxic masculinity" adopting "alpha" as a trope. If so, it is extremely distasteful, even dangerous; reinforcing the idea that science should bend to politics is authoritarian, naive, and threatens the survival of any nation where such is done.
Who created the idea of an alpha? A human. It's a human word for a concept a human thought up. There's nothing biological or sociological to suggest it's even a real trope in animals. Even in mountain gorilla troops and other primates where there appears to be a single large adult male leading the group, it turns out from study that it's more of a profunctory role and the whole group is more involved with decisions. The idea of an alpha leader really comes more from human societies, as there's actual sociological evidence there, whereas with animals it usually comes down to a more mixed hierarchy.
I don't think this is true. Humans, like other mammals, have fairly clear hierarchies. What's interesting (and what the article argues) is that these hierarchies aren't based on brute strength or ability to win a fight or aggressiveness (though these can be factors). But this doesn't change the fact that animals have clear hierarchies.
I don’t think anyone uses alpha/beta terminology to simply mean “the hierarchy”, and I find it disingenuous that you keep arguing as such.
The common interpretation is that “an alpha” is someone/thing that can take over a group by being the strongest (where strength in wolves is domination through physical strength, and humans in social domination). This is the myth. Hierarchies exist, but not for this reason.
The common interpretation is that “an alpha” is someone/thing that can take over a group by being the strongest (where strength in wolves is domination through physical strength, and humans in social domination). This is the myth. Hierarchies exist, but not for this reason.
The comment I responded to explicitly questions hierarchies in nature. It suggests that leadership is "perfunctory" and that "with animals it usually comes down to a more mixed hierachy".
I'm really not being facetious here -- you may be helped along by one of the definitions of "myth".
> A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence
The institution here is wolf packs; the popular belief or story is, well, exactly that. A story, which sprung out of a research study that the actual researcher has admitted was fallacious.
The popular belief is also fairly odd; it has nothing to do with wolves, but rather, with the need for humans (specifically men) to sort themselves into imaginary groups. Nobody besides scientists and naturalists ever really cared about wolf packs.
> A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence
The institution here is wolf packs; the popular belief or story is, well, exactly that. A story, which sprung out of a research study that the actual researcher has admitted was fallacious.
The popular belief is also fairly odd; it has nothing to do with wolves, but rather, with the need for humans (specifically men) to sort themselves into imaginary groups. Nobody besides scientists and naturalists ever really cared about wolf packs.
A very imperfect analogy:
Imagine alien scientists had studied humans, but only in prison, and then created a model of social behaviour around their observations of prison gangs with a lot of fights to establish hierarchies and who has preferential access to resources.
Only later they study humans outside prison and discover that actually humans - in this hypothetical scenario - are most often organised in farm households/families with a husband and wife leading the household, their children and in richer/bigger households maybe a few farmhands, maids and grandparents around.
They discover that the social patterns in extended families are very different from the patterns in prison gangs, children usually don’t fight their parents for the leadership role, sometimes the head of the household gets the nicest piece of meat, but sometimes in times when food is rare the youngest children are also fed first….
So the models and terminology these alien scientists developed to describe human social behaviour and roles are only fitting for a very specific artificial scenario - prisons - and they try to discourage the old terminology like “gang leader” and start to use new terminology like “head of household” in their work.
Imagine alien scientists had studied humans, but only in prison, and then created a model of social behaviour around their observations of prison gangs with a lot of fights to establish hierarchies and who has preferential access to resources.
Only later they study humans outside prison and discover that actually humans - in this hypothetical scenario - are most often organised in farm households/families with a husband and wife leading the household, their children and in richer/bigger households maybe a few farmhands, maids and grandparents around.
They discover that the social patterns in extended families are very different from the patterns in prison gangs, children usually don’t fight their parents for the leadership role, sometimes the head of the household gets the nicest piece of meat, but sometimes in times when food is rare the youngest children are also fed first….
So the models and terminology these alien scientists developed to describe human social behaviour and roles are only fitting for a very specific artificial scenario - prisons - and they try to discourage the old terminology like “gang leader” and start to use new terminology like “head of household” in their work.
I think TFA addresses this pretty clearly. The idea of the alpha wolf is that within a pack, through a series of fights, the most aggressive and assertive animal rises to a leadership position. In the wild, what's actually observed is that the leadership positions are the parents, with infighting an extremely rare phenomenon.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Does anyone have any idea what they mean when they say it's a myth?
It's all right there in the article. The "alpha wolf" idea was promoted back in 1970 by a researcher named David Mech in his book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species". Mech continued studying wolves, realized that his earlier theory was mistaken, and actually asked his publisher to stop printing his own book. It is Mech himself who "claims" that his own "idea of an alpha wolf" is a myth, because of his continued research into wolves in the wild, which demonstrated that "packs are usually made up of families", and the alpha/beta structure found in groups of wolves in captivity is simply a recreation of the family.
There is no Step 3 because it would be very strange to say, "this guy who has spent his whole life studying wolves understood them much better 50 years ago than he does now, so we ought to keep using his old, obsolete theory instead of his newer, better-informed one".
It's all right there in the article. The "alpha wolf" idea was promoted back in 1970 by a researcher named David Mech in his book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species". Mech continued studying wolves, realized that his earlier theory was mistaken, and actually asked his publisher to stop printing his own book. It is Mech himself who "claims" that his own "idea of an alpha wolf" is a myth, because of his continued research into wolves in the wild, which demonstrated that "packs are usually made up of families", and the alpha/beta structure found in groups of wolves in captivity is simply a recreation of the family.
There is no Step 3 because it would be very strange to say, "this guy who has spent his whole life studying wolves understood them much better 50 years ago than he does now, so we ought to keep using his old, obsolete theory instead of his newer, better-informed one".
Why not go to the original myths author's explanation directly.
https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/
Wolf.org also has resources related to the topic and they no longer use the term.
https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/
Wolf.org also has resources related to the topic and they no longer use the term.
There is no explanation there. There is no articulated reason why "dominant breeder" (the new preferred term) is more accurate.
The term "alpha" literally just means "first," as it has meant for millennia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals
If wolves truly have no dominance hierarchy at all, then you can claim that the idea of there being an "alpha" or "first" is a myth.
In any situation beyond that, this is just pseudoscientific pandering nonsense trolling for clicks.
The term "alpha" literally just means "first," as it has meant for millennia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals
If wolves truly have no dominance hierarchy at all, then you can claim that the idea of there being an "alpha" or "first" is a myth.
In any situation beyond that, this is just pseudoscientific pandering nonsense trolling for clicks.
No multiple sources have explained that 'alpha' implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle.
Here is another.
https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
You are offering a false dichotomy and suggesting that gaining dominance through force or challenge is the only path to authority.
Also a 'dominance hierarchy' can exist without the need for contest or battle.
If you have worked around dogs outside of the silly 'alpha' concept you will notice that dominant members can impact the behaviors of other members with a simple look or by withholding attention and positive reinforcement.
This is why real professional dog training for working dogs is almost exclusively positive reinforcement these days.
Fear and intimidation is a rather poor training method for domestic dogs.
Of course if you want to discard the original meaning of 'alpha' as presented by the people who originally coined the term for your own personal definition no evidence they offer that their previous research was wrong will fit you expectations.
'Alpha' was specifically coined to describe their misunderstanding of behavior at the time and doesn't simply imply 'first' in their context.
Dominance and aggression are separate behaviors that may have intersection but gaining status through aggression tends to result in unstable relationships and is incredibly expensive to males in species where it is a predominant method of gaining status.
Wolves rarely gain status within their group through aggression, thus labeling the primary breeding pairs as 'alpha' by default is scientifically incorrect.
Most of the status of the breeding pair was gained through breeding and not aggression and in reality true aggression is simply not typically tolerated by the dominant members of the pack.
Here is another.
https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
You are offering a false dichotomy and suggesting that gaining dominance through force or challenge is the only path to authority.
Also a 'dominance hierarchy' can exist without the need for contest or battle.
If you have worked around dogs outside of the silly 'alpha' concept you will notice that dominant members can impact the behaviors of other members with a simple look or by withholding attention and positive reinforcement.
This is why real professional dog training for working dogs is almost exclusively positive reinforcement these days.
Fear and intimidation is a rather poor training method for domestic dogs.
Of course if you want to discard the original meaning of 'alpha' as presented by the people who originally coined the term for your own personal definition no evidence they offer that their previous research was wrong will fit you expectations.
'Alpha' was specifically coined to describe their misunderstanding of behavior at the time and doesn't simply imply 'first' in their context.
Dominance and aggression are separate behaviors that may have intersection but gaining status through aggression tends to result in unstable relationships and is incredibly expensive to males in species where it is a predominant method of gaining status.
Wolves rarely gain status within their group through aggression, thus labeling the primary breeding pairs as 'alpha' by default is scientifically incorrect.
Most of the status of the breeding pair was gained through breeding and not aggression and in reality true aggression is simply not typically tolerated by the dominant members of the pack.
> No multiple sources have explained that 'alpha' implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle.
Uhhhh...
> The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature, at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,”...
You are directly contradicting the author you're claiming to support.
This isn't an episode of Dr. Who. Time travel does not exist. Two things cannot cause one another over the course of a fifty year span.
Either the concept of "alpha wolf" arose from Mech's work (in which case it didn't imply anything because it was a wholly new term), or it didn't (in which case it wasn't his idea and him repudiating it doesn't carry the weight you think it does).
Uhhhh...
> The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature, at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,”...
You are directly contradicting the author you're claiming to support.
This isn't an episode of Dr. Who. Time travel does not exist. Two things cannot cause one another over the course of a fifty year span.
Either the concept of "alpha wolf" arose from Mech's work (in which case it didn't imply anything because it was a wholly new term), or it didn't (in which case it wasn't his idea and him repudiating it doesn't carry the weight you think it does).
yea it’s basically bc masculinity (courage, independent thinking) = bad to people in power so they publish this kind of crap all day every day
I'm female and I'm courageous and an independent thinker. The question is always: what does it take to prove it, to those who think those traits mean "masculinity" and therefore I can't possibly have them.
If I tell you "men are stronger than women", do you think that showing me a strong woman will invalidate my claim?
I'm sorry, are we talking about physical strength or courage and independent thinking? I'm confused.
Wait, who's talking about what? Who are you?
[deleted]
weird thing to suggest that courage and independent thinking are masculine traits
“The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.” - Eric Hoffer The True Believer
Is it wrong or is it true? What's weird is your choice of words.
Claims about masculinity are often defined in opposition to ideas about femininity.
The claim that woman cannot be courageous or independent thinkers is wrong.
And as for societal ideals, specifically in response to a post showing that the concept of being a leader through aggression is also wrong.
Aggression is often a response to fear.
Aggression is a secondary emotion, typically a response to pain or fear.
I personally view aggressive behavior and the attempt to gain status through aggression as a reason to pity someone far more than it ever makes me respect them.
If aggression is your primary method of gaining status you are not courageous, you are weak and lashing out.
I pity those people because they tend to undervalued their own merits and instead of having the courage to lead by example or to be confident in their positions they have to resort to methods ranging from name calling to physical violence.
A true leader doesn't need to resort to unrestrained fear based responses to gain or maintain status.
By definition those who have to resort to aggression are weak and full of self doubt.
Actions based on fear are not the actions of confident individuals but the actions of cowards resorting to letting fear drive their lives.
Which is exactly why the original studies found 'alpha' behaviors in stressed populations.
If you read the above papers you will find that in wolves, submission for the betterment of the pack takes much more courage than aggression.
Incels tend to like the 'alpha' concept because it is justification for not stepping up and accepting that they have caused many of their own problems.
It is only viewed as 'courage' to other individuals with low self worth.
If you truly believe that aggression is courageous I sincerely suggest you work on looking at the examples of truly courageous people and not seeking the approval of low esteem individuals who make other low self esteem individuals feel better by idealizing fear based outbursts. Bullies are pitiful creatures who have to resort victimizing others to feel better about themselves.
Typically people who yield to bullies don't respect them and those who aren't filled with self doubt simply pity them.
Aggression for personal gain is a sign of weakness and doesn't relate to the concepts you mentioned.
The claim that woman cannot be courageous or independent thinkers is wrong.
And as for societal ideals, specifically in response to a post showing that the concept of being a leader through aggression is also wrong.
Aggression is often a response to fear.
Aggression is a secondary emotion, typically a response to pain or fear.
I personally view aggressive behavior and the attempt to gain status through aggression as a reason to pity someone far more than it ever makes me respect them.
If aggression is your primary method of gaining status you are not courageous, you are weak and lashing out.
I pity those people because they tend to undervalued their own merits and instead of having the courage to lead by example or to be confident in their positions they have to resort to methods ranging from name calling to physical violence.
A true leader doesn't need to resort to unrestrained fear based responses to gain or maintain status.
By definition those who have to resort to aggression are weak and full of self doubt.
Actions based on fear are not the actions of confident individuals but the actions of cowards resorting to letting fear drive their lives.
Which is exactly why the original studies found 'alpha' behaviors in stressed populations.
If you read the above papers you will find that in wolves, submission for the betterment of the pack takes much more courage than aggression.
Incels tend to like the 'alpha' concept because it is justification for not stepping up and accepting that they have caused many of their own problems.
It is only viewed as 'courage' to other individuals with low self worth.
If you truly believe that aggression is courageous I sincerely suggest you work on looking at the examples of truly courageous people and not seeking the approval of low esteem individuals who make other low self esteem individuals feel better by idealizing fear based outbursts. Bullies are pitiful creatures who have to resort victimizing others to feel better about themselves.
Typically people who yield to bullies don't respect them and those who aren't filled with self doubt simply pity them.
Aggression for personal gain is a sign of weakness and doesn't relate to the concepts you mentioned.
Do you have any evidence you can provide that it is true?
If it was true, would it be weird to mention it?
I was a bit confused too! But then I noticed the subtitle of the article: "The model of aggression and dominance has infected human society. But new research shows how wrong we got it." After reading it I have figured out the answers to your questions.
> Does anyone have any idea what they mean when they say it's a myth?
They mean that men shouldn't strive to be assertive and dominant.
> What is the myth? In what way is the idea incorrect?
The myth is that you can read news without getting constantly bombarded by inane agendaposting.
> Does anyone have any idea what they mean when they say it's a myth?
They mean that men shouldn't strive to be assertive and dominant.
> What is the myth? In what way is the idea incorrect?
The myth is that you can read news without getting constantly bombarded by inane agendaposting.
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they aren't. One experiment in very unnatural conditions showed these results. They were not observed in subsequent studies that were better designed. Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research?
> You can't prove a negative.
Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now.
Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now.
Yeah, for some reason people say "you can't prove a negative" but mean "you can't prove a universal". Any positive assertion can be trivially restated as a negative assertion, so it would be impossible to prove anything if it were impossible to probe a negative. Any negative assertion can likewise be trivially restated as a positive assertion.
Hell, "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative -- so it's tautologically impossible to prove that you can't prove a negative (either because it's false or because it's true).
Hell, "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative -- so it's tautologically impossible to prove that you can't prove a negative (either because it's false or because it's true).
> Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now.
Sure in situations where you can see 100% of my beds, but the only meaningful context for that phrase is when you're trying to generalize information to learn about more than one thing in the world. You know... What studies do. The whole point of the scientific method. So what burden of proof would you recommend beyond subsequent observational studies in wolf behavior not showing this phenomena? Or were you just using a deliberately obtuse interpretation of that phrase for pure pedantry?
Sure in situations where you can see 100% of my beds, but the only meaningful context for that phrase is when you're trying to generalize information to learn about more than one thing in the world. You know... What studies do. The whole point of the scientific method. So what burden of proof would you recommend beyond subsequent observational studies in wolf behavior not showing this phenomena? Or were you just using a deliberately obtuse interpretation of that phrase for pure pedantry?
It's meant in the context of accusations where the accused is asked to prove they didn't do it. "Can you prove you didn't throw away the murder weapon somewhere nobody can find it?". Well, no, you can't.
Also, more appropriately, in the sense of the problem of induction (see Hume). You can't prove that there are no black swans, until you've observed a black swan.
And, no, if you asserted that an adult elephant is sleeping in the OP's bed right now, they wouldn't be able to disprove it to you.
Also, more appropriately, in the sense of the problem of induction (see Hume). You can't prove that there are no black swans, until you've observed a black swan.
And, no, if you asserted that an adult elephant is sleeping in the OP's bed right now, they wouldn't be able to disprove it to you.
The problem of induction doesn't have anything to do with negation, and it's just as unsolved for positive statements. And nobody who says 'you can't prove a negative' is trying to say 'empirical science is founded on unjustified inferences and we take law-like behavior completely for granted'. In fact they're often, as here, trying to demarcate legitimate scientific inquiry from somehow malformed scientific questions, when the problem of induction is as serious a problem for the former as it is anywhere.
Not negation, but refutation, and yes, you can refute a false induction given an observation that contradicts it. But you cannot prove a positive induction, no matter the evidence.
I forget what we were arguing about. Please go ahead and have the last word and thanks for the exchange.
I forget what we were arguing about. Please go ahead and have the last word and thanks for the exchange.
I was just pet peevin' about a phrase that I think is unfortunate because it itself is very misleading and often gets used in place of or alongside much clearer, better arguments. :)
But I'm tired of it, too, by now. Thanks for your engagement as well, even though I took us on a detour!
But I'm tired of it, too, by now. Thanks for your engagement as well, even though I took us on a detour!
I can't reply to that comment but I only skimmed it anyway. I called you out for pedantry because your response was pedantic. I can see how you would be frustrated by that and your text-wall comment confirms it. Maybe you should read the text at the other end of the link I posted, evaluate in good faith whether or not you were being pedantic, and then honestly consider what your comment added to the conversation beyond feeding your smugness. Have a nice day.
Edit: The text is so short I'll just post it here.
"A pedant (/ˈpɛd.ənt/ PED-ent) is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning."
Edit: The text is so short I'll just post it here.
"A pedant (/ˈpɛd.ənt/ PED-ent) is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning."
[deleted]
My initial (and so far only, which is not a coincidence) reply to your comment didn't address most of what you wrote, and really honed in on just that first phrase. (I'm sure that's frustrating.) I guess one way to explain why I did that is to just call me a pedant.
But another is to actually look at the rest of your comment. And you might also ask why my 'pedantic' reply is the only one your comment got at all, as of time of writing. Let's review:
> The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they aren't. One experiment in very unnatural conditions showed these results. They were not observed in subsequent studies that were better designed. Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research?
There are a few observations about norms in the scientific community, which might be a bit useful and relevant.
But this?
> Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research?
Fully half your comment was rhetorical questions that serve only to dress another person down— pure ingroup signaling, snark, and moralism. You're unlikely to get the kind of engagement you imagine you deserve with an approach like that, whether from pedants or anyone else.
I can understand finding yourself riled up by this topic. I can't claim that I never indulge in snark. But seriously, I didn't respond to the rest of your comment or even really address you directly in my reply because your post told me that talking to you would be unpleasant and hostile.
You've called me out for pedantry, which is what we call it when someone's corrections seem trivial to us. But the comment I was replying to was all about correcting someone else's thinking, and it was frankly uglier than it was interesting. The same turned out to be true of your subsequent comments in the wider thread as well— not seriously engaging with you was very much the right call for me.
I hope at least some of this has been useful, but either way you won't get another reply from me.
I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
But another is to actually look at the rest of your comment. And you might also ask why my 'pedantic' reply is the only one your comment got at all, as of time of writing. Let's review:
> The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they aren't. One experiment in very unnatural conditions showed these results. They were not observed in subsequent studies that were better designed. Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research?
There are a few observations about norms in the scientific community, which might be a bit useful and relevant.
But this?
> Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research?
Fully half your comment was rhetorical questions that serve only to dress another person down— pure ingroup signaling, snark, and moralism. You're unlikely to get the kind of engagement you imagine you deserve with an approach like that, whether from pedants or anyone else.
I can understand finding yourself riled up by this topic. I can't claim that I never indulge in snark. But seriously, I didn't respond to the rest of your comment or even really address you directly in my reply because your post told me that talking to you would be unpleasant and hostile.
You've called me out for pedantry, which is what we call it when someone's corrections seem trivial to us. But the comment I was replying to was all about correcting someone else's thinking, and it was frankly uglier than it was interesting. The same turned out to be true of your subsequent comments in the wider thread as well— not seriously engaging with you was very much the right call for me.
I hope at least some of this has been useful, but either way you won't get another reply from me.
I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
[deleted]
It’s invisible.
Everyone saying it's completely a myth is ignoring one question:
Suppose there's a leader who's the oldest, their spouse is gone, and he/she has 6 littermates who "follow" him/her. Then the leader dies. Which of the littermates becomes the new leader?
Maybe the pack disperses? Otherwise there's a fight. Please explain how that's incorrect.
Suppose there's a leader who's the oldest, their spouse is gone, and he/she has 6 littermates who "follow" him/her. Then the leader dies. Which of the littermates becomes the new leader?
Maybe the pack disperses? Otherwise there's a fight. Please explain how that's incorrect.
In what animals does this actually happen? Can you give actual examples, please?
This was a nice, deeper dive into this topic. I'd recently come across the idea the the pack structure with an "alpha" wolf wasn't scientifically accurate while reading "Inside of a Dog"[0]. The book obviously focuses more on things from the dog side, contrasting them with wolves, but did include a brief discussion on the common incorrect thinking of wolf families as being "alpha-dominated packs". It did mention the Mech and Schenkel work, including nothing that Mech was up front and outspoken about the fact that his original published findings on the topic was found to be incorrect.
[0] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Inside-of-a-Dog/Alexa...
[0] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Inside-of-a-Dog/Alexa...
The article states that dominance as indicated by “alpha” status is a bad term. However after reading it feels even more appropriate. The term is often not used in a family context but among professional or social circles. When family bonds don’t exist, this terminology seems apropos.
I do appreciate that the article reminds us that the wolf is most often not a vicious animal. Having known people who’ve kept wolves, they’re amazing and family oriented animals with capacity for care and compassion. Often even more than dogs since they’re smarter and haven’t had the wild bred out. The fact that such an animal would become comfortable and exchange love with a human while ignoring their desire to be free is amazing!
Wolves are greatly misunderstood and demonized in mass media - most recently “the Grey” with Liam Neeson.
I do appreciate that the article reminds us that the wolf is most often not a vicious animal. Having known people who’ve kept wolves, they’re amazing and family oriented animals with capacity for care and compassion. Often even more than dogs since they’re smarter and haven’t had the wild bred out. The fact that such an animal would become comfortable and exchange love with a human while ignoring their desire to be free is amazing!
Wolves are greatly misunderstood and demonized in mass media - most recently “the Grey” with Liam Neeson.
blair braverman (sled dog champion) says something similar about aggression and leadership in sled packs -- the actual leadership skill is 1) when you put a dog at the front, do they run or do they get confused. 2) when the terrain is difficult, are they motivated to find a path
[deleted]
Neat related video if interested: Meet the White Wolf Pack of Ellesmere Island | White Falcon, White Wolf (Part 2) | BBC Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTDlGSIYvZs
Hunters that are also dog lovers, which would be most if not all of them, that hunt wolf would, if it were allowed, licensed and in season, also hunt children.
> When Mech published his book, even after more than a decade of field research, he had only once come within fifteen feet of a free-range wolf
> while he was on Ellesmere that “it dawned on me the need to tell the world about this alpha stuff. Because it’s nonsense.
so basically both the original and the myth are one anectdote each? he even say:
> It makes no sense up here.
how this special community of wolves generalize to other? article doesn't care enough to say.
does the researcher say at some point?
is there anyone doing actual research with data that can be repeated, instead of deriving principles from natural observations? I thought we were past Aristoteles&co.
> while he was on Ellesmere that “it dawned on me the need to tell the world about this alpha stuff. Because it’s nonsense.
so basically both the original and the myth are one anectdote each? he even say:
> It makes no sense up here.
how this special community of wolves generalize to other? article doesn't care enough to say.
does the researcher say at some point?
is there anyone doing actual research with data that can be repeated, instead of deriving principles from natural observations? I thought we were past Aristoteles&co.
Did you read the full article? It says that current researchers don't ascribe to there being a struggle to become alpha male/female (long before Mech tried to get his booked to be stopped publishing). There is long paragraphs about how packs are really organised, which are presumably based on scientific studies. However in laypeople the myth still persists.
As a side note, you seem to dismiss research through observation of natural behavior. How else are you going to do it?
As a side note, you seem to dismiss research through observation of natural behavior. How else are you going to do it?
> presumably
that's the whole point. everyone seem to presume, nobody seems to bring data. few special cases here, few special cases there.
that's the whole point. everyone seem to presume, nobody seems to bring data. few special cases here, few special cases there.
dammit, you've really got a bee in your bonnet...
The article is summarizing a lifetime of observation-based research
https://wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-info/in-depth-resource...
The article is summarizing a lifetime of observation-based research
https://wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-info/in-depth-resource...
> is there anyone doing actual research with data that can be repeated, instead of deriving principles from natural observations?
I can’t imagine a way to do a controlled reproducible experiment looking at the social behaviour of wild animals. It’s not like any of this could be observed in a lab environment.
There are a lot of subjects that can only be studied through natural observation.
I can’t imagine a way to do a controlled reproducible experiment looking at the social behaviour of wild animals. It’s not like any of this could be observed in a lab environment.
There are a lot of subjects that can only be studied through natural observation.
>I can’t imagine a way to do a controlled reproducible experiment
The question isn't "what would happen if", but "what's the behavior as exhibited", so you don't need to do a "controlled experiment". You just need to observe and accurately describe the kind of pack dynamics and behavior seen.
Observation is enough for this, and there are tons of studies done exactly that way on animals, some of them lasting decades, from gorillas to meerkats and from dolphins to mice...
The question isn't "what would happen if", but "what's the behavior as exhibited", so you don't need to do a "controlled experiment". You just need to observe and accurately describe the kind of pack dynamics and behavior seen.
Observation is enough for this, and there are tons of studies done exactly that way on animals, some of them lasting decades, from gorillas to meerkats and from dolphins to mice...
natural observations can range from personal diaries to rigorous data collection at scale with cross validation and identification of confounding factors to the point where theories can be tested against the data from the field
the wording of the article and your reply hints at this research being of the first type.
the wording of the article and your reply hints at this research being of the first type.
> how this special community of wolves generalize to other? article doesn't care enough to say.
Parents and children. Wolf packs are just a family of related animals.
Parents and children. Wolf packs are just a family of related animals.
> is there anyone doing actual research with data that can be repeated
It's impossible to have a controlled environment to study a phenomenon in an uncontrolled environment. As soon as you put these wolves in captivity, you're not measuring the same thing. And good luck repeating an experiment with wild wolves in nature.
It's impossible to have a controlled environment to study a phenomenon in an uncontrolled environment. As soon as you put these wolves in captivity, you're not measuring the same thing. And good luck repeating an experiment with wild wolves in nature.
> Mech had relied on research done on captive wolves.
But it describes wolves in captivity pretty well! Most references about "alpha" I seen were from a dog behavior. Pack of dogs has a hierarchy and follows orders.
Pick-up originated from dog training. Maybe that is how this term got applied to people.
But it describes wolves in captivity pretty well! Most references about "alpha" I seen were from a dog behavior. Pack of dogs has a hierarchy and follows orders.
Pick-up originated from dog training. Maybe that is how this term got applied to people.
Lions do have a alpha and primates right? It might be just extrapolation
But I think there should be enough public wildlife wolf documentaries and videos to be presented as data on how wolves live or others
But I think there should be enough public wildlife wolf documentaries and videos to be presented as data on how wolves live or others
Documentaries are great way to communicate to the public, but they aren't data.
If you just looked at a random 10hr of raw footage of wolves, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Most of it would be uneventful, only experts would even be able to recognize which wolf is which ,and it wouldn't be representative anyway (because it's much easier to capture wolves when they're doing certain behaviours, and because 10hrs isn't a large enough sample for rare but critical behavours).
Documentaries must carefully select what shots to show, and provide voice-over explaining what is going on. This means they are really just using footage to explain the documentary creator's understanding, not proving or discovering anything.
If you just looked at a random 10hr of raw footage of wolves, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Most of it would be uneventful, only experts would even be able to recognize which wolf is which ,and it wouldn't be representative anyway (because it's much easier to capture wolves when they're doing certain behaviours, and because 10hrs isn't a large enough sample for rare but critical behavours).
Documentaries must carefully select what shots to show, and provide voice-over explaining what is going on. This means they are really just using footage to explain the documentary creator's understanding, not proving or discovering anything.
Wolves are wonderful animals. I think they got a bad reputation because farmers really don’t like it when they kill off their livestock. But there are a bunch of tiktok channels that show that wolves are basically large dogs, and that you really don’t need to fear them when they’re cared for.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRvP7g42/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRvPKqCk/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRvP7g42/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRvPKqCk/
I'm usually more measured in my comments here, but oh well.
This is horse shit. Do NOT interact with wolves. They're beautiful and majestic. They also absolutely don't deserve the damage that can come from food from humans or habituation, and you don't deserve the risk (from attack, from disease, from a park ranger who's pissed that yet ANOTHER tourist is ignoring all of the postings to leave wild animals alone.)
Bison near you? Get the fuck away. Wolf? Get the fuck away. Chipmunk? Seriously, stop interacting with wildlife. If you feed wildlife, you're an asshole. If wildlife is put down because a TikTok video got you attacked, you're an asshole. If yet another bear is relocated because you helped habituate it, you're an asshole. (And if you're wondering, there are usually a lot of laws around how people shouldn't interact with wildlife. For good reason.)
Leave no trace. Let wildlife be wild. Leave it the fuck alone.
This is horse shit. Do NOT interact with wolves. They're beautiful and majestic. They also absolutely don't deserve the damage that can come from food from humans or habituation, and you don't deserve the risk (from attack, from disease, from a park ranger who's pissed that yet ANOTHER tourist is ignoring all of the postings to leave wild animals alone.)
Bison near you? Get the fuck away. Wolf? Get the fuck away. Chipmunk? Seriously, stop interacting with wildlife. If you feed wildlife, you're an asshole. If wildlife is put down because a TikTok video got you attacked, you're an asshole. If yet another bear is relocated because you helped habituate it, you're an asshole. (And if you're wondering, there are usually a lot of laws around how people shouldn't interact with wildlife. For good reason.)
Leave no trace. Let wildlife be wild. Leave it the fuck alone.
Well said but another statement is missing :
Move to a new house near wild fauna and flora ? You’re an asshole, leave it the fuck alone.
Expending suburbs and creating new one is taking over some life territory.
Move to a new house near wild fauna and flora ? You’re an asshole, leave it the fuck alone.
Expending suburbs and creating new one is taking over some life territory.
Hear, hear. It's wonderful that we still have these majestic creatures on Earth, but part of what's so wonderful is that they were here before we were.
You set up a straw man and berated it about a bunch of things I didn’t say, just so you know.
Can you find a quote you disagree with, and then explain why you disagree with it? That usually clarifies situations like this.
For example, the “when cared for” is an important qualifier in my statement.
Can you find a quote you disagree with, and then explain why you disagree with it? That usually clarifies situations like this.
For example, the “when cared for” is an important qualifier in my statement.
Dogs, in almost almost every interaction with a human, are pets. Wolves are not basically big pets. That's the concept I'm berating.
I can see how your comment is not about habituating wolves, but it feels like I have to be extra charitable to read it that way even knowing your intent.
I can see how your comment is not about habituating wolves, but it feels like I have to be extra charitable to read it that way even knowing your intent.
Sure, how about "wolves are basically large dogs" ? That is provably false. If you deny that, you're just ignorant of the research.
Dogs might have descended from wolves and can even interbreed with them, but they're not the same.
Dogs might have descended from wolves and can even interbreed with them, but they're not the same.
At a basic level, wolves are closer to dogs than they are to humans or bears. “Basically” doesn’t mean “equivalent.”
I’m trying to let the insults roll off me, but saying I’m horse shit and ignorant for two things I didn’t say is a bit much. I think that’s enough HN for the day. Have a nice weekend.
I’m trying to let the insults roll off me, but saying I’m horse shit and ignorant for two things I didn’t say is a bit much. I think that’s enough HN for the day. Have a nice weekend.
If you had just said that, you wouldn't have gotten all those insults. Language.
This would also apply: "lions are closer to house cats than they are to humans or bears." So would you say "lions are basically large house cats" ?
This would also apply: "lions are closer to house cats than they are to humans or bears." So would you say "lions are basically large house cats" ?
The TikToks you linked are examples of what the parent comment is talking about: people interacting with wild animals as if they were pets.
He runs a wildlife sanctuary. The video takes place within that context. I should probably have clarified that bit, but I thought the fences made it clear.
Wolves are significantly different from dogs. They don't form bonds with humans or other species, they aren't dependent on humans for food, they're true carnivores, they're better problem solvers than dogs, they have smaller litters once a year, their packs are more cohesive family units, they're shy, they don't play past the juvenile stage. Wolves and Dogs are like a Hell's Angel and an actor playing a Hell's Angel.
You don't have to fear wolf attacks because we just aren't something they are familiar with, but if they're really hungry they'd have no qualms over turning a couple humans into lunch, and you can't just scare them off.
You don't have to fear wolf attacks because we just aren't something they are familiar with, but if they're really hungry they'd have no qualms over turning a couple humans into lunch, and you can't just scare them off.
There's a famous experiment I just saw on Nature again, where two puppies, one dog and one wolf, both raised identically around humans, are given a test:
Find the treat that the human points at. The dog puppy follows the cue, while the wolf does not.
That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the wolf, but it's genetically less likely to defer and learn from the human.
Find the treat that the human points at. The dog puppy follows the cue, while the wolf does not.
That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the wolf, but it's genetically less likely to defer and learn from the human.
I've seen similar research that shows the converse, as well: wolves are more likely than dogs to learn how to solve puzzles by watching other canines work the puzzles.
It was in some dog documentary on Netflix. Wish I could remember the name!
Anyway I think that tendency to attune to us, generalized to other contexts, is part of what makes dogs so wonderful. It's not just a matter of being able to direct them explicitly, but the fact that they're interested in what we're doing, how we're feeling, what we want, etc.
All of that varies with each individual dog, of course. But it's obvious that generally, wolves and humans aren't as fit for each other as dogs and humans are.
It was in some dog documentary on Netflix. Wish I could remember the name!
Anyway I think that tendency to attune to us, generalized to other contexts, is part of what makes dogs so wonderful. It's not just a matter of being able to direct them explicitly, but the fact that they're interested in what we're doing, how we're feeling, what we want, etc.
All of that varies with each individual dog, of course. But it's obvious that generally, wolves and humans aren't as fit for each other as dogs and humans are.
Yeah. I'd love to go on a wolf-watching trip, like I did a grizzly-watching trip on Kodiak Island. We made dogs out of wolves via selective breeding, albeit not always consciously.
Ah so the dogs have instruction fine tuning.
I'm sorry but they're demonstrably not, there have been numerous studies that show domesticated dogs and wolves have significant evolutionary divergence.
Even wolves that have been crossbred over several generations with dogs to get a more wolflike appearance tend to be exceptionally difficult to manage, have been well-known to attack other pets, can be very destructive, and ultimately most people want them because of how they look.
People who believe that wolves will reciprocate human affection and somehow magically ignore all of their instincts are people who tend to overly anthropomorphize what are at heart wild animals.
Even wolves that have been crossbred over several generations with dogs to get a more wolflike appearance tend to be exceptionally difficult to manage, have been well-known to attack other pets, can be very destructive, and ultimately most people want them because of how they look.
People who believe that wolves will reciprocate human affection and somehow magically ignore all of their instincts are people who tend to overly anthropomorphize what are at heart wild animals.
I volunteered at a wolf sanctuary for a while. Do not make the mistake of thinking the tame ones are dogs. You can’t train them like dogs. They do not respect human authority. They are extremely strong and bite hard. They are incredibly dangerous if cornered, scared, or pissed off.
In general, unless you know what you’re doing, just don’t.
Most of the time, you’re just fine handling a tame wolf if trained properly. It’s that time you make the mistake of thinking you can ignore what they want that will get you hurt.
In general, unless you know what you’re doing, just don’t.
Most of the time, you’re just fine handling a tame wolf if trained properly. It’s that time you make the mistake of thinking you can ignore what they want that will get you hurt.
That's a bizarre standard to judge an animal by. Do you think bears and moose, or wolves not habituated to humans, are less "wonderful" because you can't cuddle with them?
I think so. If you can’t cuddle with an animal then they’re significantly less wonderful. Majestic, perhaps, but there’s nothing like fluffy cuddles.
Bears are sometimes pretty cool. There’s a lady on tiktok that scratches one behind the ears with a rake whenever it shows up. Which is apparently a frequent thing for her. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5qd55/
Somehow she trained it to sit… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5yDQk/
But I don’t think bears are domesticatable through selective breeding, whereas there’s some evidence that wolves are.
Bears are sometimes pretty cool. There’s a lady on tiktok that scratches one behind the ears with a rake whenever it shows up. Which is apparently a frequent thing for her. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5qd55/
Somehow she trained it to sit… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5yDQk/
But I don’t think bears are domesticatable through selective breeding, whereas there’s some evidence that wolves are.
Not all animals are able to be domesticated, right? Wolves are, so something must separate them from other un-domesticatable animals.
"farmers really don’t like it when they kill off their livestock."
You say that like it's shameful for them to feel that way.
Pet owners really don't like it when wolves kill off their dogs & cats, either.
You say that like it's shameful for them to feel that way.
Pet owners really don't like it when wolves kill off their dogs & cats, either.
We have coyotes in the suburb I live in. They will stalk pets, and if you leave them out overnight say good bye to fluffy.
The people who have lived here a while pay no nevermind. But new locals always fill nextdoor with coyote sightings. I mean, yeah, you can hear them basically every night.
The people who have lived here a while pay no nevermind. But new locals always fill nextdoor with coyote sightings. I mean, yeah, you can hear them basically every night.
> Pet owners really don't like it when wolves kill off their dogs & cats, either.
Right. I have some affection for wolves and coyotes because of their resemblance and relatiom to domestic dogs... but I also don't want them near my home any more than they have to be, and I avoid them at parks, because they will 100% kill and eat dogs like mine. They do it all the time.
Right. I have some affection for wolves and coyotes because of their resemblance and relatiom to domestic dogs... but I also don't want them near my home any more than they have to be, and I avoid them at parks, because they will 100% kill and eat dogs like mine. They do it all the time.
I don't see anything in what you quoted about how the farmer should be ashamed to feel that way. I didn't read it that way at all.
It's because the person went out of their way to say that the bad reputation is because of the farmers' feelings, rather than just the fact that wolves kill the livestock. Compare:
> He went to jail for hitting her
> He went to jail because she didn't like that he hit her
This makes it sound like she would or should sometimes like to be hit, rather than being straightforwardly the victim of a crime, or straightforwardly because the person committed a crime
> He went to jail for hitting her
> He went to jail because she didn't like that he hit her
This makes it sound like she would or should sometimes like to be hit, rather than being straightforwardly the victim of a crime, or straightforwardly because the person committed a crime
You don't? How about "I think they got a bad reputation because farmers really don’t like it when they kill off their livestock."
so, "bad reputation" is unfortunate, X caused it, but it's unwarranted to read that as "X is unfortunate"? It seems like a reasonable inference.
so, "bad reputation" is unfortunate, X caused it, but it's unwarranted to read that as "X is unfortunate"? It seems like a reasonable inference.
Yeah. It’s always interesting to see how people fill in the blanks.
The wolf in that first video didn't sound happy to be there...
Some dogs, notably rottweilers, make similar vocalizations even when relaxed. Search for 'rottie rumble’ to find clips with examples.
I don't know anything about wolves really, but with dogs, most individual components of body language are pretty ambiguous. For example,
All of that is to say that if someone who works at a respectable wolf habitat/rescue tells me that a growl-y vocalization from a wolf is not always aggressive, I don't have a hard time believing that.
(I'd love to learn more about wolf body language and how it differs from that of domestic dogs!)
I don't know anything about wolves really, but with dogs, most individual components of body language are pretty ambiguous. For example,
- many dogs will rapidly wag their tails just before getting into a vicious fight (it doesn't just mean 'happy')
- dogs will generally bare teeth as a warning/threat, but some will also show their teeth as a greeting (Google 'heeler smile')
- some stress/calming signals (e.g., pulling ears back or lowered tail) can occur as normal parts of safe, mutual play
All of that is to say that if someone who works at a respectable wolf habitat/rescue tells me that a growl-y vocalization from a wolf is not always aggressive, I don't have a hard time believing that.
(I'd love to learn more about wolf body language and how it differs from that of domestic dogs!)
Agree in theory, my read on that particular situation is that the human was shading arrogant/taunting, and the male was a bit jealous verging towards pissed.
My dog has played a few times with a rescue mutt (bit of rottie in there?) who growls pretty loud in the heat of the moment. Was frightening to hear, but shes not aggressive at all.
My dog has played a few times with a rescue mutt (bit of rottie in there?) who growls pretty loud in the heat of the moment. Was frightening to hear, but shes not aggressive at all.
It’s why I hope they’ll be accepted back into society someday. The risks seem minimal with proper care, and right now their options are captivity or wilderness. But they’re where dogs came from; a few generations of selective breeding to reduce adrenaline response would do the trick.
But the growls are kind of cute, and probably sound a lot more ominous than they are. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5LQGC/
But the growls are kind of cute, and probably sound a lot more ominous than they are. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5LQGC/
What? Wolves have massively more powerful bites than dogs, right?
Probably more worrisome to me is taking for granted the way we've bred dogs to be gentle, calm, good-natured, etc. Most people don't do much to train their pet dogs or even learn to communicate with them. We more or less get away with that, societally, because dogs are insanely good-natured. Dogs give us so much 'for free'. I think without that, like when people just keep wolves as pets, things look a LOT dicier.
Humans have one of the most deadly bites too. Just because something is dangerous, it’s tempting to shun it. But the danger is relative to the frequency of problems.
(If this is a “citation needed” situation: https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-human-bites/b...)
(If this is a “citation needed” situation: https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-human-bites/b...)
wilderness?
there's no wilderness... it's all somebody's backyard.
there's no wilderness... it's all somebody's backyard.
True, but 28 years ago they were reintroduced into Yellowstone. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRv5NTNU/
One major criticism of invasion biology is that the definition of "invasive" is most often an assessment of impact on commercial interests rather than ecological impacts. There are many situations where these are actually diametrically opposed definitions. Dandelions for example are extremely "invasive" but actually benefit local ecosystems by loosening soils and reducing topsoil loss. Because our agricultural practices are dependent on sterilized, lifeless soils these soil protectors are then seen as pests. This is actually the case with many "weeds".
The most damaging thing you could ever do to soil is expose it to direct sunlight. The whole point of annuals is that they come up to protect the soil from the harmful radiation that kills the soil ecosystems. That's why annuals seeds can survive in soils for sometimes even decades. They're not meant to displace anything. They're meant to be there when there's some sort of "disturbance" (in nature this could be a fire or a mudslide or a windstorm that knocks over some important shade-providing trees, but in Western agriculture this is basically all of our farming) and kickstart the process of ecological succession
If you let your lawn get overgrown by weeds it might look terrible the first year (tho I personally think it looks much more beautiful than the green deserts we spend so much money trying to maintain). But the second year you'll start to get some perennials and a lot less of the weedy annuals. Maybe some grasses will start. Eventually the soils will have developed so that they transformed from bacteria-dominated to fungal dominated and mycorrhizal networks will allow much more hardy plants to grow including shrubs and eventually even trees. These advanced soils hold up to 50x as much water and plants who've made mycorrhizal associations are much more resistant to pests, droughts, freezes, etc and have access to a much larger network of nutrients. So that means you'll have to spend much less time maintaining, watering, fertilizing, etc. In fact fertilization with nitrogen impedes the formation of mycorrhizal associations so, if your goal is a long term garden, "leave it the fuck alone" is actually a very effective strategy.
Those weedy annuals depend on nitrogen that comes in easy to access forms but fungal dominated soils tend to have nitrogen in harder to access forms like ammonium (mainly due to the advancement of the soil food web into more complex organisms) so that means that the "weeds" will eventually work themselves out of a job (or at least until the next major "disturbance").
It's really a problem that solves itself and the more you fight that harder you need to fight.
I might've strayed from the original point but I think there's a similar lesson with wolves. Wolves drastically decrease the number of disease vectors (e.g. rats or deer with ticks) in an ecosystem and also balance out other predators that take their place like birds of prey. The more we fight them the more we have to come up with solutions for all the side effects of their absence (e.g. large deer populations leading to reduced vegetation that stabilizes river banks or the increase in diseases)
The most damaging thing you could ever do to soil is expose it to direct sunlight. The whole point of annuals is that they come up to protect the soil from the harmful radiation that kills the soil ecosystems. That's why annuals seeds can survive in soils for sometimes even decades. They're not meant to displace anything. They're meant to be there when there's some sort of "disturbance" (in nature this could be a fire or a mudslide or a windstorm that knocks over some important shade-providing trees, but in Western agriculture this is basically all of our farming) and kickstart the process of ecological succession
If you let your lawn get overgrown by weeds it might look terrible the first year (tho I personally think it looks much more beautiful than the green deserts we spend so much money trying to maintain). But the second year you'll start to get some perennials and a lot less of the weedy annuals. Maybe some grasses will start. Eventually the soils will have developed so that they transformed from bacteria-dominated to fungal dominated and mycorrhizal networks will allow much more hardy plants to grow including shrubs and eventually even trees. These advanced soils hold up to 50x as much water and plants who've made mycorrhizal associations are much more resistant to pests, droughts, freezes, etc and have access to a much larger network of nutrients. So that means you'll have to spend much less time maintaining, watering, fertilizing, etc. In fact fertilization with nitrogen impedes the formation of mycorrhizal associations so, if your goal is a long term garden, "leave it the fuck alone" is actually a very effective strategy.
Those weedy annuals depend on nitrogen that comes in easy to access forms but fungal dominated soils tend to have nitrogen in harder to access forms like ammonium (mainly due to the advancement of the soil food web into more complex organisms) so that means that the "weeds" will eventually work themselves out of a job (or at least until the next major "disturbance").
It's really a problem that solves itself and the more you fight that harder you need to fight.
I might've strayed from the original point but I think there's a similar lesson with wolves. Wolves drastically decrease the number of disease vectors (e.g. rats or deer with ticks) in an ecosystem and also balance out other predators that take their place like birds of prey. The more we fight them the more we have to come up with solutions for all the side effects of their absence (e.g. large deer populations leading to reduced vegetation that stabilizes river banks or the increase in diseases)
Would you mind sharing how/where did you learn that ? Just dropped my engender job to search a meaningful life and it seems sharing/applying this kind of knowledge would totally match.
Any book, author, academic or private course would be helping. Thanks.
There is a myth of the myth of the alpha wolf. Onсe in several years a media outlet deсides to tell people about "the myth of the alpha wolf" that people supposedly believe in. And it never makes sense beсause few to no people believe in or care about "alpha wolves". A cursory search on Google and Reddit reveals that most people who talk about alpha wolves either talk about a metalcore band or present a yet another article that "dispels" the "myth" of the alpha wolf. Sometimes an article proclaims to speak about "the myth of the alpha male", but it always turns out to be a bait-and-switch for an article that talks about "the myth of the alpha wolf".
I thought the "alpha male" idea, as applied to humans, was an analogy to the concept of alpha wolves (as opposed to dominance hierarchies in non-human primates). You always hear about the pack leader, or the lone wolf, never the alpha macaque, right?
So, dispelling that myth in wolves may be an attempt to shake off the pseudoscientific idea that this concept can be used to describe human social structures.
Of course, not being based in science in the first place, a scientific appeal has no chance of changing anything. Which is why it gets rewritten every few years.
So, dispelling that myth in wolves may be an attempt to shake off the pseudoscientific idea that this concept can be used to describe human social structures.
Of course, not being based in science in the first place, a scientific appeal has no chance of changing anything. Which is why it gets rewritten every few years.
That's not a scientific appeal, that's just a weird argument based on a sort of an etymological fallacy.
Like "The Wolf of Wall Street"
It wasn't even called "The Alpha Wolf of Wall Street"!? "Wolf" just means a fierce and predatory person because wolves were for a long time the main threat to livestock and people, cf. "a wolf in sheep's clothing", a phrase which origin goes back to Bible.
The terminology morphed to p people (alpha males) despite absolutely no indication that it applies to wolves or humans (except prisons). That’s the myth.
Presumably, scientists (David Mech in case of wolves and Frans de Waal in case of humans) aren't dumb or mischievous, so they wouldn't make up something there was no indication of. There probably was an indication that they based their opinions on.
Maybe there is a myth of "alpha males", but the article doesn't expose it, it doesn't even talk about it beyond a single sentence.
Maybe there is a myth of "alpha males", but the article doesn't expose it, it doesn't even talk about it beyond a single sentence.
> And it never makes sense beсause few to no people believe in or care about "alpha wolves".
The last fifty or so years of western literature beg to differ.
The last fifty or so years of western literature beg to differ.
What literature do you refer to?
On a literal level: pretty much any supernatural story involving a werewolf.
On a metaphorical level: pick your favorite male-focused self help pop psychologist. There's a reason the phrase "sigma male grindset" was coined to make fun of these people.
On a metaphorical level: pick your favorite male-focused self help pop psychologist. There's a reason the phrase "sigma male grindset" was coined to make fun of these people.
What does it have to do with caring about alpha wolves?
If there was an overall cultural ambivalence about the concept of alpha wolves, they would not appear with such frequency in western literature.
Why wouldn't they? What does any of that have to do with alpha wolves?
Are you seriously going to claim that "few to no people believe in or care about "alpha wolves"" given the enormous representation of the concept in the last fifty years of western literature?
I honestly have never seen "the enormous representation of the concept ["alpha wolf"] in the last fifty years of western literature", yes. In fact, I don't see much representation of wolves in the western literature, let alone particular types of wolves. Even such exciting creatures as werewolves seem to be far less popular than vampires.
Google Ngram Viewer shows some initial interest starting around 1965, plateauing until '74, relatively low until '87, and rising pretty steadily from there (with a small dip in growth around '03, and a meteoric rise since then). This seems to support the argument of it being common in western literature of the last 50 years.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=alpha+wolf&yea...
TV Tropes also has a good collection of occurrences in popculture, including literature.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlphaAndBetaWolv...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=alpha+wolf&yea...
TV Tropes also has a good collection of occurrences in popculture, including literature.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlphaAndBetaWolv...
Ok, so according to Google Ngram Viewer there is a bunch of widely unknown romantic novels about werewolves that mention alpha werewolves. And according to TV Tropes there is fanfiction that constructs elaborate hierarchies with all sorts of castes including Psi and Chi. That's hardly "the enormous representation." Well, at least now kids who learn biology by reading Omegaverse fiction can unlearn horrible misrepresentations they were led to believe in!
What would you need to be shown as evidence?
Toxoplasma gondii never ceases to amaze and scare me. I'm one of the many humans with an identified infection of it (over 25 years ago.)
Also super interesting part of this article:
> “We found that even more important than pack size was whether a pack had an old individual, male or female,” she said. At six years old, a Yellowstone wolf is considered an elder—only about one in five lives to that age. “If they have one or two older individuals, they are more likely to win—which was not what we’d expected to find.”