• kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Well he made bad research, then disproved it, but couldn’t bottle back all the incels who ran with that shit

      • QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Part of the irony being that even if it were true, there is no reason to make assumptions about human behavior and social structure based on other animals, especially… wild canines? Wtf? There’s a lot of different pack/grouping types throughout the animal kingdom—if anything it would make sense to compare humans to other apes, but at the end of the day it’s still a totally different species that also lacks the social complexity as well as culture and lifestyles humans are capable of because of our higher intelligence. We have some really fucking stupid cultural hang-ups

    • neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Wait, that isn’t true? I never heard about beta wolves, but i learned about alpha wolves in a public school.

      Are we talking about the same thing?

      • Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah. It turns out that the “Alpha” and “Omega” wolves are just… The parents of the pack. It’s got nothing to do with the Alpha being macho or assertive or anything like how it’s been portrayed for decades.

        The researcher who first published his faulty observations has been trying to correct the public consciousness for years, but it’s really hard to undo something that was taught so widely