Can you point to some references? I was surprised the other day to read that good military leaders tend to be "theory Y" managers. This would seem to be inconsistent with what you're saying, but I may not be correctly interpreting what you're saying. Edited to add: I should add that I can't find the link.
We are getting a little far afield, so I'll try to make this brief. You can rename authority and repackage hierarchy any way you want, it doesn't change anything. If you paint a truncheon pink with a smiley face, it still hurts when you get cracked in the skull with it. Your boss still has the power to fire you for being insubordinate (although they will call it something else) and take away your livelihood. If you don't salute your commanding officer or call him\her by their rank, you are in trouble. If you mouth off to your mom or your dad, you're going to (or, should) get punished. Authority figures exist to enforce the rules. The rules maintain order. For authority to work and order be maintained, there must be punishment for breaking the rules, and it is the authority figure's job to do that. They can be nice about it, but it still needs to be done. Authority figures must maintain a certain emotional distance at some level from their subordinates because they must not allow "friendship" to interfere with their function. A General can be a nice guy, but he must also send young men and women off to die without question, and his troops must obey without question. A parent loves their child enough to punish them for doing something they don't know is dangerous in the short, or long run. All that said, being an authority figure is only one aspect of being an "alpha" archetype.
I understand that to you this may all look like common sense and obvious. But without some sort of reference, research, or other backup, it's just an opinion.
Pardon, pardon. If my military rules are up to date. a soldier may refuse any order that he/she disagrees with. You have to understand that in combat that men/women can and are still human beings with the ability to disobey an order. And worst case scenario turn on their CO, and oust them as they see fit. Not like anyone is going to question the reason of the Unit over the CO, if the Unit has sound reasoning (Or feels their leadership skills are just that bad).
I just gave you a bunch of references. We are discussing archetypes for characters, not debating psychological reasearch papers. If you don't agree with what I said, ignore it and write your characters however you want.
I don't see any references. By references I don't mean an expansion of your own opinion; I mean books or other sources by experts. With no references, we're talking opinion. That's fine; I just tend to speak up when opinion is presented as fact.
So I see what Socialleper means about authority and it being ever present in our lives but I would say how much it actually interferes or prevails in your life is largely a matter of choice For instance, most of us will be employed and have bosses. However, there's a difference between being told what to do and knowing what your job is. I do my job as well as possible because of the standards I set for myself and also because I'm paid to do it. It would be wrong if I didn't try to do my job properly. That said, I almost never see my boss and while there are managers they are there simply to make sure we go about our day properly etc. We have certain systems in place to keep everything running but you don't see authority in friendships or relationships. If it exists there, usually something's wrong. My point is authority may be there in the background but it should never actually override another person's freedom. I do not feel bound by rules. Yes, they have purpose but they can be challenged and they can be argued against. And, though never simple you do not have to take everything on the chin and just accept things. You should always fight to be autonomous and authority should only be there as a display of good leadership and working towards a common cause. The moment it becomes about ego or control it's misapplied. So I see where you're coming from by calling it an archetype. But there are many ways to lead and increasingly authority is becoming weaker because we realise we do not need it. We need integrity and we need leadership but we don't need to be told what to do.
Think you're being unnecessarily rude and obnoxious with Chickenfreak who is coming at your point of view from another perspective.
Just going back to OP, I see that the main thread here is the issue of dominance, which leads me to believe the sort of alpha we're talking about is the wolf pack kind. I'm not sure there's much complexity in the personality of a man that is comparable to a primitive beast, but, that being said, how such a man interacts with others more complex than him, or, examining man's beastial behavior can of course make for complex discussions. But personality wise, that macho cop that watches football every Sunday and never smiles, it's more likely there's not much else too him other than the normal insecurities that make us human. And you can always do things that push him to the limit.
I won't bang on about it since the others are trying to change the subject, but from what Chickenfreak said he was just genuinely interested in your image and interpretation of authority and if it's not obvious to him then maybe it's not as plain or clear as you might think? There was nothing in his tone that looked abrupt or dismissive in any way. Actually I think he was interested in your point of view. But like I say, I see where you're going with the authority point and it's recognisable to an extent in some people, but I think this is a word so broad in its meaning and definition that it might not be as prevalent or inevitable in organisations as you might think. Certainly, there's the basic structure of management and ownership in every business but how we define authority is a complex matter. We can all agree that it means power in some way, and strong influence, but since every authority figure differs greatly to the other maybe Chickenfreak was putting across the view that it's not all as obvious as you said. In his own words I'm sure he'd explain why he thinks what you said is more opinion than fact.
And so what if it is? Does that mean we should not consider the argument, or take it seriously? Why would any reasonable person assume socialleper is an expert in the sociology of authority? Why would anyone reasonable assume a new poster on a writing forum (writing being art, not science) is aware of such studies when they made their post, which are obviously based on subjective interpretations of society? Want them to retroactively look for studies online because you asked for them? That's what's really being asked, to which I would say get off the couch and find them yourself. At least make an attempt to, if one is really so interested in what the experts are saying. Oh right, you're not really that interested, you're just using "Opinion" as a thought terminating fallacy. Do we all need to read and cite studies before we say anything on this forum? Should I be familiar on the science of Mary Sueism before I comment in that topic?
If somebody makes an argument based upon a fact (such as, the fact that water is wet), that is a valid argument. If somebody makes an argument based upon something that is less based in fact (such as, the statement that 98% of all internet facts are fictitious), that is not a valid argument; I wouldn't take it seriously. Unless you were able to cite some decent body of research that supported that statement. So, when it is just a statement. An opinion. And before I can take it seriously, I'd need to see the research that suggests that it's got any validity. Now, he can say it stands to reason/commonsense, but that's just lazy argumentation; he's telling me that, if I disagree, I'm being unreasonable. He is, in fact, being insulting, telling me that I am unable to reason as well as he does. It's no support at all. Or, he could say that he knew a boss who was just like that - hell, he can say that every boss he's ever known and believe me, buddy, he's known a few - was just like that. But that's just anecdotal evidence. Because I can tell him about my boss in my last job; having a very close personal relationship with the HR manager; but that didn't stop him calling her out on stuff that her department was screwing over our department with, so he wasn't allowing friendship to interfere with his function; nor did it stop him from trying to socialize with me. But that's just my anecdotal rebuttal; equally worthy/worthless. You can state your opinion. But let's not get into name-calling when somebody calls your "facts" into question, and asks you to provide evidence to support those facts.
Almost all the comments on this forum are unresearched academically and are made on the basis of standing to reason from the perspective of the commenter. You can take it as an insult, or you can recognise that this is not a specialist forum of a particular field. If I went to a forum on sociology and made such claims, that may well require citation to be taken seriously. But this is a writing forum, and writing deals with what is plausible and the lived experiences of characters andpeople. Not necessarily what is true according to research papers. Therefore the lived experiences of people are perfectly valid support in this context.
Fair enough if you interpreted it that way, but that's not the way I read it. Seems to me Chickenfreak was asking for more clarification or examples -- he wasn't saying he was wrong. He also wasn't asking for a bibliography. He did ask for book experts and references, which I'm not sure is necessarily needed, but at the same time he wasn't striking down his opinion. He was asking for maybe some real life references or examples of authority and why it is so inevitable when other people may have different views and interpretations. Nowhere did he say you're not allowed an opinion. By all means, say it -- but equally, if other people challenge this then that's their right, too, especially when that opinion's been put forward into the public domain and is as you say subjective. I would say what's happened here is the straw-man effect -- people getting touchy over something that wasn't intended to be offensive or indeed authoritative! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man EDIT: To expand on this just slightly with what Shadowfax said, I think an opinion may have more grounding if it is a widely experienced phenomenon and can be understood by relating to the truth of what is being said, even if it's not weighed in with facts. After all, it is a discussion and how much proof we need is dependent upon the context. It's fine to express an opinion that may be relatable -- still, authority comes in all shapes and sizes.
More like an appeal to authority. Socialleper's only point was that no matter how friendly authority seems, they still have a job to do and if that means firing your ass, so be it, therefore being "alpha" is someone who gets the job done regardless. But I guess we need Harvard white coats to rubber stamp such a basic claim, in order to be taken seriously. Cos they're like gods who walk the earth. They're the nephilim who must approve our thoughts in order to make them true.
While watching the devolution of things here. I would like to state that if someone asks for evidence to back up a claim, then it is the responsibility of the person in question to show the burden of proof to back up said claim. Exhibit: @ChickenFreak v. @socialleper Chicken had clearly requested evidence from social for a claim that they were making. And with a refusal to provide said evidence is where things broke down. As far as anyone having Strawmanitis, well IDK. The way I see it is a tap dance of avoidance to addressing the others commentary/ inquiry to simply wear them down. It is not commonly used as a tactic out of being offended, but of stubbornness and/or arrogance, just to make one feel superior to their opponent while in reality looking like a complete fool. But have no fear there is a cure to this: Spoiler: Strawmanitis Cure :P Wicked Witch of the west first discovered it.
Seriously, though, this is a DERAIL. If you want to add something to the original topic, feel free. Everything else, you're just gonna have to let go.
This is an alpha male: A drop or two of 'asshole' may be mixed in but the deep self-confidence is what really defines one.
Alpha by dictionary definition is the first of anything. Also the Greek letter A. So by definition alone, means that one has come before, or the first. While we would like to change the meaning as language evolves, it will always fall prey to its roots and original meaning. In this evolution we like to think that being dominant and influential is Alpha. But in fact they are neither the first nor original to exert these traits. So based upon roots, the very term is bastardized by modern linguistics, and shaped accordingly to fit the needs of said lingo. In the end, use the reality of traits and not a word that does not define, nor have anything to do with a confident dominant male (or female). Alpha has no connection to these traits and so in literal context you are using it incorrectly, when there exists a better collection of words to ascribe to human mentality and persona. In context there is none that we can apply this label to, as we are not the first. Use the right words, not apply to something that cannot be applied. So by all that is reasonable, no one can be alpha based on the facts in context of what true definition is. (Unless you are well over 40K yrs old, then I will reconsider my position on the matter.) No man is the first to be a natural leader and charismatic, as there have been many before the ones we know today. (Language fail level achievement unlocked)
The social and literary trope of an alpha male derives from the idea one is "first" among a group in a leadership sense.
