So, sounds to me like the alpha male theory is correct, just not the reasons why people think one becomes alpha and another doesn't.
Aggression and force are not what makes an alpha, strength, intelligence, and a calming temperament seem to be more representative of alpha traits.
Also, being the guy who feeds them makes a huge difference in the dynamic.
On top of that, when they're pups, I hold their nose/snout in my mouth gently but firmly. That's one way canines assert dominance without aggression or fear. I don't recall where I learned that, but seems to work.

I've never bullied my dogs into submission, I've only used positive reinforcement to train them, but when I command them I'm firm and there's never been any question about who is the alpha. They might run through a door before me, but they listen and obey when commanded, and have never once been aggressive towards me or challenged my authority, I'm on my fourth dog.
There's a definite difference in how they react to my wife, who would be beta in this scenario. They listen to her, but not as well and they take their time when she calls them.

Hmmm....I'm not resistant to this new information but when I listen to this presenter it sounds to me like she's personally offended by the original Alpha dog theory. The disgust in her voice throughout is unmistakable and I assume she's conflating canine behavior theory with human social cliches or that she feels that any form of negative reinforcement is abuse.

This leads me to believe that I'm getting a biased interpretation of nuanced data.

If I want to know what's going on here I'm going to have to commit to the necessary investigation because this presenter is unreliable on this topic.

Unfortunately, my interest in this topic barely extends to the length of a 6 minute youtube video.