Alpha males don't exist, and the theory of overpopulation is a myth. Let's debunk the most popular concepts that have influenced many generations.

1. The Alpha Wolf and Alpha Wolfess Turned Out to be Mom and Dad

What the theory states:

Most people have heard about the strict hierarchy present in a wolf pack. It is governed by the alpha male and alpha female, who keep the lower-ranking wolves and wolfesses in check. The latter, in turn, aspire to overthrow the reigning couple, resulting in constant squabbles and mutual humiliation within the pack: the alphas assert dominance over the beta males, who, in turn, take out their frustrations on the “omegas,” who are at the social bottom. This alpha-male theory has taken root in brutal human society as if it were its own. Because the idea of “equality and brotherhood” is nice, but the notion of social dominance of the strong over the powerless somehow seems even more appealing. Many men go through a phase of maturation where they portray themselves as dominant males. Some, like Donald Trump, continue to do so even in old age. Why not? It is said that women like it. Additionally, in male society, it is beneficial to “mark territory,” which might lead competitors to think: better to keep a distance from this goat.

How it actually is:

The flaw in the theory is that wolves in the wild simply do not have such hierarchy. A wolf pack is a large family consisting of parent wolves and their offspring of various ages. Naturally, the mom and dad lead the pack, but there can be no talk of suppressing the pups. So where did the alpha-male theory come from? It is based on research by Swiss scientist Rudolf Schenkel, who in 1947 described the social structure of wolves. However, he observed animals that were kept in captivity at the Basel Zoo. On a small territory—about 20 by 10 meters—there lived around a dozen wolves that were not related to each other. They indeed fought among themselves in this prison. And at the top of the hierarchy was always the alpha pair—the male and female—who protected their dominant position and suppressed their competitors. This research had a huge impact on society. It was not just that, with a theoretical basis, such behavior styles became more actively cultivated by people. The idea of domination and suppression permeated many areas of life, even in dog training techniques. Dog owners were taught that they should use force, punish their pets, and emphasize that they themselves are the alpha males. When studies by other scientists revealed the fallacy of Schenkel’s theory, dog training began to change. It shifted to a focus on encouragement and reward. Yet in human relationships, it seems, nothing has changed.

2. The “Stanford Prison Experiment” was Falsified

What the theory states:

This is perhaps the most famous experiment in psychology. An improvised prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University. 24 volunteers were randomly divided into “prisoners” and “guards.” The goal of the experiment was to understand how power or the restriction of freedom changes a person. According to reports by the experiment’s leader, Philip Zimbardo, the experiment soon spiraled out of control. The “guards” quickly got into the role and began to exhibit sadistic tendencies. Although physical violence against the “prisoners” was prohibited, the “guards” found numerous ways to exert psychological pressure and oppress their victims, leading to the experiment, intended to last two weeks, being halted after just six days. Conclusion: a person’s behavior depends not on their personal qualities (the “guards” were not sadists by nature) but on the social role they are required to play. Give people freedom, and they will immediately construct a Gulag or Auschwitz.

Author of the “Stanford Prison Experiment” Philip Zimbardo.

Photo: EAST NEWS.

How it actually is:

The participants in the experiment were not in equal conditions. The “guards” were detailed instructed on how to create a “hostile environment” for the “prisoners.” The experiment leaders psychologically pumped up the “guards” to be “tough.” Methods of pressure and dehumanization of the prisoners were developed based on the prison experience of a specially hired expert—Carlo Prescott, an African American who served 17 years for attempted murder. He later regretted participating in the experiment, as he thought his story would serve science, not the mockery of people. The participants reacted differently to the situation. Not all “guards” abused the “prisoners”; some sympathized with the unfortunate souls and brought them food and cigarettes. One resigned in protest, refusing to take the money. The “prisoners,” after a period of confusion (they did not expect to encounter such aggression), organized a resistance movement, and by the end of the sixth day, the guards found themselves uncomfortable in their roles. The experiment was halted following a visit from a lawyer, at which point Stanford psychologists realized that they could be held criminally liable for unlawful imprisonment (the “prisoners” were not released even when they stated they did not wish to participate in the experiment). The scientific results of the experiment have been deemed false—after all, people committed evil not on their own initiative, but when it was demanded of them. The “guards” allowed themselves to humiliate and torment their victims only when they knew their actions would be approved from above. But there is no evil without good: the experiment raised important moral questions in society and led to the humanization of prison conditions in several countries.

3. The Inhumane Theory of Malthus Was Refuted by Scientific and Technological Progress

What the theory states:

In the late 18th century, English scientist Thomas Malthus calculated that the population grows geometrically while food production increases arithmetically. This contradiction forms the so-called Malthusian trap. If wars and epidemics did not regulate humanity’s numbers, it would constantly lead to hunger and social upheaval. His ideas were immediately adopted by the leading mass murderers of the planet. Hitler's concept of conquering living space (resources are insufficient for all, so only representatives of the superior race should reproduce) grew from Malthus’s ideas.

Hitler's concept of conquering living space grew from the ideas of Englishman Malthus (in the photo).

Photo: ru.wikipedia.org.

How it actually is:

Malthus was accused of inhumanity by both humanists and communists. However, the main critics of his theory were scientific and technological progress and the industrial revolution. The emergence of new technologies and the “green revolution” in agriculture led to a colossal increase in food production and industrial goods. Malthus did not know that there are self-regulating mechanisms for human population numbers. As a result of demographic transition, developed countries moved from the equilibrium of “high birth rate/high mortality” to a new equilibrium of “low birth rate/low mortality.” In other words, birth rates returned to the level of population replacement. Malthus was wrong: the Earth is not threatened by destruction from overpopulation and resource depletion. At least, not in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, his theory has proven extraordinarily resilient. Based on it, mass sterilization of people for birth control was carried out in China, India, and Peru. In Rwanda, the ideas of Malthusianism inspired the organizers of the mass genocide of the Tutsi people, resulting in the deaths of between 500,000 and 1 million Africans.