Well put, but the countermeme ("Hey did you hear that the alpha wolf thing was bullshit?") seems to be as popular or moreso than what it's displacing. I did some light googling yesterday to see if I could find any references of "alpha wolf" before the 40s, and all I could find was page after page of articles exactly like TFA.
I think the same reasoning applies - it is vague and easy to apply and people want it to be true - just for different people.
This is my thought. I have no attachment to the idea, I've been comfortably and happily married for years. But dismissing the idea of "an alpha" among animals seems stupid based on one study. Isn't this the case among gorillas, lions, etc? And it apparently is the truth even among wolves in certain circumstances as the study points out. The OP should apply the same logic to interrogate his own motivated reasoning.
I think the truth is in the middle: people took what they wanted from the study in the 40s, and people are taking what they want from the updated study as well. Worse, the topic seems to be popular enough that it's being used as seo spam now. At this point, if someone with a deep understanding of both wolf behavior and human behavior were to review all available data, think deeply on the subject, draw meaningful and valuable insights, and write a popular essay conveying them, I don't know how I'd find it among all the dross.
I guess it has a life of its own now. Seems like a good example of the semiotics concept of the signifier becoming disconnected from the signified: a heated debate over the finer points of wolf pack social dynamics being carried out by people with no particular knowledge of or interest in wolves.
I think the same reasoning applies - it is vague and easy to apply and people want it to be true - just for different people.