The man or bear hypothetical (1 Viewer)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

How is this 8 pages long? The point is a lot of women are afraid of and distrust men. When presented this info, shouldn't men then think "hmm.... what can I do to make sure women feel safe around men?"

It may have been posted already, but one of the responses to this whole thing is "This is a hypothetical scenario and men still won't take no for an answer"

The internet is definitely pushes conflict, and often over stupid things, and this is of course one of those times. However, it seems really weird to me that some guys are really working hard to prove that bears are more dangerous than men, which seems to miss the point entirely.

 

[antipop]

However, it seems really weird to me that some guys are really working hard to prove that bears are more dangerous than men, which seems to miss the point entirely.

some people can't resist the urge to mansplain even when they clearly need things to be mansplained to them

 

[BoxerJoe]

How is this 8 pages long? The point is a lot of women are afraid of and distrust men. When presented this info, shouldn't men then think "hmm.... what can I do to make sure women feel safe around men?"

It may have been posted already, but one of the responses to this whole thing is "This is a hypothetical scenario and men still won't take no for an answer"

The internet is definitely pushes conflict, and often over stupid things, and this is of course one of those times. However, it seems really weird to me that some guys are really working hard to prove that bears are more dangerous than men, which seems to miss the point entirely.

It's not a desire to prove that bears are more dangerous than men. Per encounter, the statistics will show that the bear is more dangerous. This is more about a very flawed hypothetical and people in the poisioned echo chamber pushing it with an "OMG. You don't get it" agenda when the point of women being rightly fearful around men at times (just not to the point in relation of being around a bear) has already been agreed upon.

 

[Boy_of_wonder75]

It's not a desire to prove that bears are more dangerous than men. Per encounter, the statistics will show that the bear is more dangerous. This is more about a very flawed hypothetical and people in the poisioned echo chamber pushing it with an "OMG. You don't get it" agenda when the point of women being rightly fearful around men at times (just not to the point in relation of being around a bear) has already been agreed upon.

If it's already been agreed upon and understood that the hypothetical is not to be taken literally, per se, why keep addressing it as if it is supposed to be?

 

[BoxerJoe]

If it's already been agreed upon and understood that the hypothetical is not to be taken literally, per se, why keep addressing it as if it is supposed to be?

Have you seen clips of women answering the question? In the ones that I have seen, they actually pick the bear because they see it as the safer choice. They don't stop and think reflectively as if they are giving a bigger picture type metaphorical answer.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

It's not a desire to prove that bears are more dangerous than men. Per encounter, the statistics will show that the bear is more dangerous. This is more about a very flawed hypothetical and people in the poisioned echo chamber pushing it with an "OMG. You don't get it" agenda when the point of women being rightly fearful around men at times (just not to the point in relation of being around a bear) has already been agreed upon.

i would like to see those statistics.
Bear attacks vs human are more rare than men attacks vs women, maybe i am wrong, but if i was a betting man.

 

[SamAndreas]

some people can't resist the urge to mansplain even when they clearly need things to be mansplained to them

Mansplaining is the surefire backup way I tell men from women when my eyes have failed me.

If I hear mansplaining going on the one talking is a man.

It's a funny thing though, there sure are a lot of men out there whom my eyes think are women.

 

[BoxerJoe]

i would like to see those statistics.
Bear attacks vs human are more rare than men attacks vs women, maybe i am wrong, but if i was a betting man.

That's why I said "per encounter." I forgot which Youtube video it was (maybe I will look for it later today if I have the time), but someone broke the statistics down by per encounter and the bear attack side was around 10X more likely to happen.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

. However, it seems really weird to me that some guys are really working hard to prove that bears are more dangerous than men, which seems to miss the point entirely.

perhaps it is men who are huge fans of irony

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

That's why I said "per encounter." I forgot which Youtube video it was (maybe I will look for it later today if I have the time), but someone broke the statistics down by per encounter and the bear attack side was around 10X more likely to happen.

not all F150 drivers drive like raging ***holes - but if i see an F150 in my rearview, I'm gonna make assumptions and do what I can to stay safe

 

[BoxerJoe]

not all F150 drivers drive like raging ***holes - but if i see an F150 in my rearview, I'm gonna make assumptions and do what I can to stay safe

Assumptions vs. statistical reality is veering down a bit of a different path here, but I am totally cool with your assumption making rights in order for you to feel safer, as long as other people get to make their own assumptions about groups of people for the feeling of safety as well.

 

[SamAndreas]

i would like to see those statistics.
Bear attacks vs human are more rare than men attacks vs women, maybe i am wrong, but if i was a betting man.

You're not wrong on your estimation, but you're not setting the base rate, to fail to do that is always wrong.

To compare population events one divides each event number with the matching population number. Once one has done that to both event numbers then they can be compared. There may be other rate corrections one has to do as well, it depends on the comparisons one is making, but dividing by population is always apart of making the base rate conversions.

If the base rate is not set I would think the bear vs man numbers would be like 1 bear attacks women, for every 100,000 man attacks woman events. Maybe even 1 in a million odds.

With the base rate set those number would move closer together, but it still would turn out to be that men are much more dangerous for women than bears.

Another factor is smell. How a woman happens to smell during any given period of her month is quite variable.

Her smell at any given moment affects the way she it dealt with by both the men and the bears. Bears have a much more acute sense of smell for it though. Which is strange because if I smelled like a bear smells I wouldn't want to have a "better" sense of smell.

 

[Dago]

 

[SamAndreas]

not all F150 drivers drive like raging ***holes - but if i see an F150 in my rearview, I'm gonna make assumptions and do what I can to stay safe

That's a situation I encounter often, an F150 type suddenly appearing in all three my rear view mirrors at once.

My response is to always announce to any passengers I might have in a car a moist grave warring,,, "look out for your rear and left ear cus by god here's coming DJT."

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

I've always taken the divine approach to this. The masculine is represented by the sun, the feminine by the moon. The moon does not make it's own light, but reflects the light of the sun. IE, the current state of women, is just a reflection of where men are. Women are choosing the bear sort of as a message, that they don't trust men as they are now...and that's all on men and likely an accurate "reflection" of the current times. It's unfortunate but accurate

Think of it this way...incels exist because they are frustrated with women and their lack of intercourse.

There was a time when a man could care less about that because he was out doing things and living a very abundant life. Men have far too much time on their hands.

If you haven't seen this one lately, then congrats, you have a fulfilling life and don't waste any time on the internet. Because it's everywhere. Someone posted it in the "bear attack" thread, but it didn't get much traction there, so here we go.

The hypothetical was posed "Would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or alone in the woods with a man (who is a random stranger)."

One point of note here is that women choose bear in overwhelming large numbers.

A second point of note is any man who says why it would be foolish to choose bear is widely labeled a predatory incel. "You're the reason we all choose bear" and so forth.

I don't think either choice is necessarily more foolish than the other. Clearly women deal with a lot more danger from a man that most men would, both in terms of physical harm and emotional trauma. And who am I to say that someone is foolish for preferring a medium likelihood of being violently mauled to a medium likelihood of being harassed or made to feel uncomfortable (plus a better than zero chance of being killed).

But what I find more fascinating than the hypothetical itself is just how well it incapsulates the internet as a whole. Women in large numbers taking an absurd position just to show us men that they see us as the real threat. Then men in large numbers getting all butthurt because how dare you think I'm more dangerous than a bear! Then all the incel name calling because how dare you point out the logical flaws to my largely symbolic response.

Anyway, all that being said, man is the correct answer and anything else isn't taking certain factors into consideration.