Hey all, I told my student to check out the discussion here, and he just wrote me back this: "Thank you very much. I love the discussion on hubski. Some people focused on the truth value of the statement like I did too. However, I think I get the point now. Even if this can be true in 99.99% of the cases, it still isn't a good practice to not leave any room for exception, especially that this is still debatable. It is more about not sounding "arrogant" and absolute rather than whether or not it is true or not.

I think hearing from all of you, theadvancedapes, thenewgreen, kurmit, b_b, MattholomewCup, littlebirdie, and BLOB_CASTLE made a difference to him rather than just trusting me. I don't know if hubski has ever been used as a teacher's aid before but this process and the outcome just fascinated me!!!

Hey lil I think you are definitely right to call your student out on absolutist terminology. I'm assuming your student is referring to human social groups, but I'll make the quick point that not all social primates have a clear and distinct hierarchy (e.g., orangutans, gibbons). In humans it is hardly true that ANY social group has a clearly defined alpha position. It may be true that within any social group there is some implicit or explicit stratified hierarchy, but that hierarchy can be diffuse and decentralized. Also, it depends on the "level of the social group" we are discussing. Furthermore, it is extremely problematic to say that there is always competition for an alpha position. Largely, this distinction depends on context. For example, within a class there are students and one teacher. This is a social group, however the students are not directly competing with the teacher for the alpha position. The teacher may have to deal with external competition outside of the immediate social group (although not necessarily), but like I said it depends on context. Let me finish by saying that I understand your students point, but he is shooting himself in the proverbial foot by making a generalized statement (like kurmit aptly pointed out).

Added thoughts (I was on my iPhone when I wrote the above):

If your student wants to be stubborn and keep the sentence largely in tact he could do the following:

"In any traditionally defined large-scale human social organization (e.g., band, tribe, chiefdom, state), distinct hierarchies with a clearly defined alpha position seem to develop the large majority of the time."

I'm not an anthropologist, but I am an animal behavior student, and I can tell you that the man who coined the term "alpha" to deal with wolves later said he regretted it and wished he could take it back, because not only is it an inaccurate depiction of complex canine social behavior, it's been co-opted to completely inaccurately describe even more complex social behavior in humans.

"Alpha" implies first, as in first letter -- which, in wolf packs, is an accurate description of one social behavior, the "pecking order" or, in more scientific terms, priority resource access. The "alpha" eats first when a kill is made. However, studies of canine behavior over time have found that resource access order is not static. Wolves shift and jockey for access to resources over time and the "alpha" yesterday may not be "alpha" today, but may be again tomorrow. Animals are also now known to show empathy and altruism, offering first resource access at times to mothers, sick pack members, or their own children.

In human beings, the use of the term "alpha" is only really warranted where access to a resource is the matter in question. The only common situation I can think of where this is the case is where a same-sex group goes out intending to flirt with members of the opposite sex, and one member of the group has first priority in choosing among members of the opposite sex present in the venue. Even in this situation, however, there is more complexity than an "alpha" term implies. For instance, a recently single member of the group might be given priority resource access as part of a "bro code," with the most gregarious or attractive group member relegated to "wing(person)."

Overall, in human social groups, I would say that it's more effective to describe leadership as dominance over a realm of activity, rather than dominance within the group. For instance, imagine that there's a group of women who have been going out to lunch every Wednesday for 20 years. Susie is good at keeping an eye on new restaurants, so she usually chooses the place. Dana is a public speaker and manager in her work life, so she tends to speak first on behalf of the group when a waitperson addresses them. Leann prides herself on her etiquette, and the others in the group mimic her manners so as to be perceived as ladylike, like Leann. Tina is the biggest tipper, so at lunch spots where the group are "regulars," she gets the most extra attention from waitstaff.

Who is the alpha here? Susie has priority access to resources in that she directs the group to resources of her choosing. Dana has priority (first) access to the waiter, who brings food--but Tina has the most access to the waiter, overall. Yet, if you watch the group's interactions and judge them based on who moves first and is imitated by the others, Leann leads the way in body language. Each of these women could be described as the group's alpha, but in their everyday life, none of them is.

I'm not an anthropologist, but my two cents: it's probably better not to take an extreme position on an issue unless you are also extremely well read on the subject (e.g. an anthropologist). Having not studied social groups or social theory (like your student), I'd be arrogant to make sweeping claims on this topic that involve the word "always" and leave no room for exception. So, your perspective is correct for two reasons: it is based on your own experience (the "collaborative sensibility" you point out) and the fact that yours is the more moderate, and therefore the more unassuming, of the two positions.

Hmmm. Definitely it is better to avoid speaking in absolutes when possible. On that I agree. But the kid has a point, also. I'm not an expert on the subject, but there is a lot of literature out there about the emergence of leaders in groups. It seems to be a general phenomenon that whatever size group there is, someone will emerge as the de facto point person. I think where the kid goes way more wrong than his use of absolutes is his assertion that there is "competition". Emergence of a leader can, but doesn't necessarily have to, happen by competition.

All I have is the perspective of a middle-aged mom... and I agree that you probably shouldn't use a blanket statement here.

I've noticed that a few different writing groups I've attended over the years, all comprised of women, haven't had a specific leader. It seems to me that in the case of these writing groups, one woman would take the reigns for a meeting, then another the next week. It was an unspoken thing. Most of the group members acted as leader at one time or another.

As a mom, I've noticed that in the younger grades, the groups of my sons' friends would definitely have a ring leader, someone whom the rest of the group seemed to follow. That dissipated the older they got, and now, my sons have friends but no assumed leader; everyone seems equal, with as much say and direction as anyone else. Then again, I'm on the outside looking in.

Maybe age and gender play into this?

I'm no anthropologist either, but like kurmit I'll say a few words. In every social group I can think up, there has been a leader/alpha position. Think about the origin of any social group. Just two people hanging out really. Sure, it can be mutually led at this point. But as the group gets larger and larger, a leadership position will have to be filled. If the group is to continually meet up and remain a collective of people, someone is going to have to initiate gatherings and what not. Over time, that person will be looked up to as the "alpha" of that group. Whether it be a male or female, I don't think that really matters.