Talk:Alpha and beta male

hol up

If alpha and beta males pseudoscientific terms, then why are we animals? Darbymarby (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It started as a term to describe wolves, but has since been discredited as term to apply to animal behavior. See Dominance hierarchy--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrectly, with wolves there are still alphas in unrelated groups, as well as among primates. 82.149.149.48 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Type A and Type B personalities

I'd suggest adding this link to the "See Also" section at the bottom, but I can't because the page can't be edited by me since i"m not an alpha male Wikipedia editor like some folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory

The letters even match, A and B, alpha and beta. Surely there are some sociological similarities between these categorizations...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9190:74C0:79CF:13EE:5291:37BC (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Gamma is the third letter of the Greek alphabet and delta is the fourth, so the terms should be swapped around accordingly. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed this sentence entirely, as it was cited to an unreliable source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific?"

I think the term "pseudoscientific" may very well have been used unneutrally in the lead. Like the unsigned user under the topic "Type A and Type B personalities" on this talk page said, alpha and beta ties into the Type A and B personality types hypothesis quite closely (many use the terms interchangeably), and the subject is rather contentious politically and ideologically speaking, so an editor might've put pseudoscientific there under emotional influence. Pie GGuy (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is cited in the article body. See MOS:LEAD. Article talk pages are not an appropriate place to speculate about the imagined motivations of other editors (per WP:TALKNO). Generalrelative (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I noticed that "pseudoscientific" got removed from the lead again, which is fair actually, give that I couldn't find many sources specifically referring to it as that. However, there are many sources saying that it is a scientifically inaccurate concept, and I don't know the best way to convey that in the lead. Thoughts? 22090912l (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I've restored the term for now, since the rationales for removal weren't based in policy. Though not all reliable sources use the term "pseudoscience" here, plenty do, and the scientific consensus is clearly that the terms are misleading when applied to humans. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)