[disown]

> Wild wolves are social but not particularly hierarchichal.

This is simply a lie. All wolf packs are strictly hierarchical. Meaning there is no wolf pack without a hierarchy.

> A typical wolf pack is formed of a couple and their offsprings.

Which forms a hierarchy.

> The idea that wolf pack have complex fixed hierarchical structure

Who said they had a "complex" "fixed" hierarchical structure? It's rather simple and obvious.

> Wolves are however both social and used to complex interactions involving social dominance.

"complex", "social dominance". Which is it? You say they don't have complex hierarchy and then claim complex interactions involving social dominance. What do you think social dominance exists to create?

Wolf packs have hierarchy like human families have hierarchy.

[brmgb]

> This is simply a lie. All wolf packs are strictly hierarchical. Meaning there is no wolf pack without a hierarchy.

Tone it down a bit. You should inform yourself. I gave you the name of the author to read, Mech, in my previous post.

Wolf packs are not hierarchical. You have the parents leading because well they are the parents taking care of their offsprings and that's it. The rest of the group has no fixed hierarchy.

> complex", "social dominance". Which is it? You say they don't have complex hierarchy and then claim complex interactions involving social dominance.

Wolves have situational and individual dependants relationship some involving dominance. For example parents tend to harass their young when they approach the age of leaving. Some youngs situationaly fight other youngs but you can't establish a ranking of individual in a wild pack. That wouldn't make much sense.

I have complex relationships with my friends. They sometimes involve dominance. Yet we don't have a hierarchy.

> Wolf packs have hierarchy like human families have hierarchy.

Human families don't have hierarchy. Young children are subordinate to their parents until they come of age, a bit like in a wolf pack actually.

I am starting to understand your confusion.

[disown]

> Tone it down a bit.

What was wrong with my tone?

> You should inform yourself.

I did and I am.

"Wolfpacks are established according to a strict hierarchy, with a dominant male at the top and his mate not far behind."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/g/gray-wo...

> I gave you the name of the author to read, Mech, in my previous post.

I'm not going to read a book for this. That's so silly. If you are the one making an outrageous claim, cite the claims yourself. It's like you claiming that the earth is flat and then demanding I read some book to "inform" myself.

> Some youngs situationaly fight other youngs but you can't establish a ranking of individual in a wild pack.

Actually, the fighting is establishing a rank.

> That wouldn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. Just because you say it doesn't make sense don't make it true.

> Human families don't have hierarchy.

Yes we do. Parents at top and then kids ( pretty much by age ). Ever heard of patriarchy/matriarchy?

> Young children are subordinate to their parents until they come of age

Oh so there is a hierarchy?

> I am starting to understand your confusion.

I don't have any confusion. You are confused. You say there is no hierarchy and then use words describing a hierarchy.

[brmgb]

> What was wrong with my tone?

We are not on reddit. You can't start a reply by "This is a lie" and follow with preposterous claims.

> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/g/gray-wo...

Most of what you read in the popular press on wolf pack is bull. That's litteraly the subject of my original comment. That's based on flawed research on captive wolves from the 70s.

> disown 1 day ago | parent | on: Excess protein enabled dog domestication during se...

> Tone it down a bit.

What was wrong with my tone?

> You should inform yourself.

I did and I am.

"Wolfpacks are established according to a strict hierarchy, with a dominant male at the top and his mate not far behind."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/g/gray-wo...

> disown 1 day ago | parent | on: Excess protein enabled dog domestication during se...

> Tone it down a bit.

What was wrong with my tone?

> I'm not going to read a book for this. That's so silly. If you are the one making an outrageous claim, cite the claims yourself. It's like you claiming that the earth is flat and then demanding I read some book to "inform" myself.

It's not a book. It's an article by one of the most prominent researcher on the subject we are discussing: "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Laborin Wolf Packs" [1]. I was written in 1999 and has hundred of citations so I don't despair in the information reaching the general public one day.

What's happening here is you telling me the earth is flat as we have known for centuries and me telling you to go read Gallileo.

> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/g/gray-wo...

Like most of what you read in the general press on wolf pack, that's bull. That was the point of my original post by the way. Journalists apparently stopped following research in the 70s on this.

> Actually, the fighting is establishing a rank.

No, it's not. Once again, please, read the paper I linked.

> Yes we do. Parents at top and then kids ( pretty much by age ). Ever heard of patriarchy/matriarchy?

That's complete non sense by the way. You will be hard press to find any research supporting that.

> Oh so there is a hierarchy?

Oh but certainly, if you mean children being subordinated to their parents, yes, there is a hierarchy. Thankfully, my original post mentioned "complex fixed hierarchical structure" and I will hasard that you are clever enough to understand it implies I am not talking about the link between parents and immature children common to basically every mammals.

What people usually think of however (you included given your answer) when they speak of wolf pack hierarchy is a fixed segmentation with alpha on top followed by beta finishing with omega and an individual ranking. This part simply doesn't exist in the wild.

> I don't have any confusion. You are confused. You say there is no hierarchy and then use words describing a hierarchy.

I am going to be frank. I think you are being intellectually dishonest, looking at this discussion in bad faith, extremely condescending and very reluctant to assume you might be wrong. I kindly suggest you rethink the way you act if you hope to have any form of meaningful conversation.

[1] https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastat...