The claim that "alpha" is defined as requiring violence or assholery is incorrect, and this is backed by scientific studies, dictionary definitions, and leadership psychology research. Here’s why:

1. Official Dictionary Definitions Oxford English Dictionary (OED): Alpha (in social contexts):

   "A person who assumes a dominant role in a particular group, especially one who is respected or influential."

Oxford English Dictionary - Alpha Definition

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Alpha (as in 'Alpha Male/Female'):

   "The most dominant, powerful, or assertive person in a particular group."

Merriam-Webster - Alpha Definition

Nowhere in these definitions does it state that an alpha must use violence or aggression to gain dominance.

2. Scientific Studies on Leadership & Alpha Behavior Study: Dominance Hierarchies in Social Animals Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). "Winner and Loser Effects and the Structure of Dominance Hierarchies." Behavioral Ecology, 8(5), 583-587.

   "Dominance hierarchies in animal and human groups are often established through social signaling, resource control, and cooperation rather than brute force."

Dugatkin, 1997

Study: Leadership Without Aggression in the Animal Kingdom Smith, J. E. et al. (2016). "Obligate Sociality Without Cooperation: Insights From Other Taxa." Behavioral Ecology, 27(1), 1-14.

   "Alphas are often those who exhibit superior social intelligence, cooperation, and decision-making ability rather than reliance on aggressive behaviors."

Smith et al., 2016

These studies explicitly state that alphas do NOT require violence to gain or maintain their status.

3. Leadership Psychology: Alphas Lead Without Coercion Goleman, D. (1995). "Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ." Bantam Books.

   "True leaders, or ‘alphas’ in human social dynamics, are those who possess high emotional intelligence, resilience, and ability to influence without coercion."

Goleman, 1995

Bass, B. M. (1990). "From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision." Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

   "Successful leadership is based on vision, respect, and strategy. Coercion and force are indicative of weak leadership rather than true dominance."

Bass, 1990

These sources define "alpha" as a leader who influences others positively, not through aggression.

4. Debunking the Claim That "Alpha" = Violence L. David Mech (1999). "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs." "The term 'alpha' is often misunderstood. In both animals and humans, successful leadership is based on intelligence, decision-making ability, and social bonding—not brute force."

Mech, 1999

This refutes the claim that alpha = inherently violent.

Final Conclusion: The Definition of "Alpha" Does NOT Require Violence Dictionaries define "alpha" as dominance through leadership, not necessarily aggression. Scientific studies show that dominance in social animals is often achieved through cooperation and intelligence. Leadership psychology research confirms that true human "alphas" lead through respect and influence, not assholery. The idea that "alpha" = "violent dictator" is a pop culture myth, not backed by science or formal definitions.

I just checked your #2 Dugatkin. I am only able to access the abstract [0] (though interested in the full article as you appear to be quoting from part of it which is not publicly available).

It does not at all represent itself as even taking a specific side on the meaning of "alpha" let alone testify to an academic consensus of any decisive proof one way or the other. It doesn't even have anything to do with the study itself at all.

The line you quoted seems more like an aside. The study was apparently about a simulated game theoretic model, and even refers to the units in the simulation as "combatants". It is an attempt to model and simulate "winner effects" and "loser effects" in tandem over time. It's mostly interested in contrasting this approach with models that only deal with "winner effects" or "loser effects" but not their simultaneous dynamics.

It ends with a modest expression of hope to spur future similar studies and is not even pretending to venture anything like a final definition of "alpha", let alone represent the full weight of academic consensus on that question. Citing it for that purpose feels like drive-by quote mining.

0. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article-abstract/8/6/583/208...

> These sources define "alpha" as a leader who influences others positively, not through aggression.

No? Look:

Your Merriam-Webster quote (although I can't find it online)

"the most dominant, powerful, or assertive person"

That's not becoming a leader by being helpful and getting people's trust.

It's instead dominance and assertiveness, that's something else.

I think you mistakenly what to have the word "alpha" mean the same thing as "leader". But I think that's not how people in general look at these words.

Dugatkin, "Winner and Loser Effects and the Structure of Dominance Hierarchies" was an interesting read this morning. Thanks for the reference.

The main thing I take away from the paper is that (in computer simulations) bigger winner effects and bigger loser effects lead to strongly defined hierarchies. Fewer subjects have ambiguous positions.

I'm not sure the paper speaks much to which strategies (e.g. violence vs cooperation) are more common or effective.

Right, it seems to entirely abstract away the nature of the interactions themselves, and is modeling how changes to position in hierarchy unfold over time with repeated wins or losses. It's not speaking to the nature of the interaction itself, and so not really taking sides on whether it does or doesn't involve such things as force, toughness, etc.

Violence is an effective strategy. One of many. It's not stable but it has been used successfully in human history. The thing is you can't have a society that's constantly violent all the time forever and ever. Those tend to self select via natural selection.

You can have societies be temporarily violent like how Americans slaughtered and killed Native Americans and took over the continent. The formation of the USA comes from this type of effective violence. Who would be the alphas in this case? the native americans? Or the ones that invaded? I know I'm a bit on the nose here, but this is just reality.

You still seem to confuse concepts of dominance and leadership, similarly how your opponents in the debate confuse dominance and violence.

But I would agree with them that leadership does not require dominance.

Strange take.

Violence is like a key on a piano. You were born with it. You can choose not to play that note, but it is always there, it is never not there.

You can choose to play great melodies without the violence note. You can choose to play melodies with the violence note. You can be forced in a corner and have no option but to hammer the violence key until the strings scream.

> Official Dictionary Definitions Oxford English Dictionary (OED): Alpha (in social contexts): "A person who assumes a dominant role in a particular group, especially one who is respected or influential."

Do you have a link for this definition? I'm unable to find it or the one you attribute to Merriam-Webster on their websites.

(Their websites are shit. I'm curious about the dates around those definitions.)

>you see ‘alpha’ as a synonym for ‘leader’

I mean that's all true enough, but their point, at least narrowly read as a general observation about animals, stands. There are ample examples in nature of dominance hierarchies, even if wolves aren't one of them.

Of course, as you note, looking to these examples as a basis for a personal ethos for tough guy psychology is error riddled in so many ways you could write a book unpacking it all. (E.g. why choose other animals remote from the lineage of apes to which we belong, why for that matter not just study humans in the first place, why hitch any ethos to what happens in nature, why not look at what it says about people who seem to need to indulge in this search, etc.)

It's good to show that this argument fails on its own terms with its own chosen example, but getting into that kind of back and forth risks implicitly agreeing that it would be right to think that way, should such an example be found in nature. And those examples do exist in nature even if not necessarily with wolves.

But as you noted that doesn't have anything to do with better or worse, right or wrong, and is completely lacking in self-awareness about the actual psychological dynamics that causes people to need these kinds of narratives.