[barrettondricka]

Author: Applying behavior of wolves in captivity to humans was a mistake.

Also Auther: Applies behavior of wolves in free environment to a very specific and complex part of human society.

And of course, zero link or citations on anything.

[svnt]

Easier to tear down than it is to build well.

[barrettondricka]

I admit to being rude and to being a very bad builder myself.

But the article is bad. Just about every piece of evidence has some sort of issue. Correlation-causation, or not enough data, or just assumptions. The wolf stuff (seems to be) based on only 2 observations. The author cites big tech in CA, but then describes a single clothing company that has a high random metric that is supposedly an accurate indicator of all of the above.

And the connections between arguments are not even that good. Skimming over it, I wasn't sure what the article's point was.

As for the conclusion, the vague words on what could be done are the kind of stuff everyone is trying anyway for other reasons, and it isn't (?) working.

[charles_f]

No. Author: deducting that behavior observed in captive environments was also true in liberty was a mistake.

Author: silicon valley is somewhat of a captive environment so lessons from captivity are not entirely wrong.

[ninetyninenine]

Alphas aren't only observed in captive wolves. They are observed in MANY MANY animal groups.

I think the full picture isn't some liberal idea where everyone lives in harmony and can work together for the common good without the weakest link ever getting left behind.

The truth is it's a bit of both. We live in a world where it's dog eat dog but also companionship and working together are BOTH effective strategies for survival. Most humans are programmed to be able to handle both modes of survival . Depending on circumstance one strategy often becomes critical for survival. For example: if you're in captivity or aka a setting with very very limited resources the alpha strategy works best.

Of course no citations for me either. But I think it's quite clear the author is biased.

[nis0s]

You’re right. Antarctic penguins and walruses are good examples of this. Penguin females go hunting, while the males hatch eggs and rear the young till the females return. Walrus males, OTOH, absolutely dominate other walrus males, and keep a harem of females.

But who cares? Humans are more closely related to primates than other animals, who exhibit all kinds of different behaviors across species. I am not sure why we’re trying to model human behaviors from wolves at all.

In fact, human advanced cognitive development is unique amongst the entirety of the animal kingdom, so it’s okay if humans have behaviors which are unique just to us, and are unobserved in other animals.

[roughly]

There’s a recent book, “Bitch: On the Female of the Species” by Lucy Cooke, which specifically targets the traditional “strong males weak females is the natural order” trope. It’s brilliantly written, comprehensive in its dismantling of the concept, and a very fun read (side note: I have a habit of reading in bars, and this one got a lot of looks)

https://bookshop.org/p/books/bitch-on-the-female-of-the-spec...