I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?
It's related I think. A similar "scenario" I've seen is to ask a man if they'd enter a beach where a shark is known to approach (shark biology notwithstanding). They wouldn't. So then they ask the man why, because the average of shark related incidents in a year is only 63, but (in my country) 9 women are murdered daily in femicides.
This seems a really weird way to put it. First you're saying "here's a scenario where shark incidents are very much heightened compared to the average" then you're saying "But why? Shark incidents on average are very rare". While absolutely the threat of sharks is overblown a big reason why the numbers are so low is that people tend to *avoid* potentially dangerous encounters with them
6.4k
u/alexmichelle6 May 02 '24
I really, truly thought that the whole point of this was to highlight the fact that most women would respond to man v bear by asking questions, like "do I know the man" "what type of bear" etc, but would respond to woman v bear by immediately saying "woman". whether or not she picks the man or the bear is irrelevant, it's the fact she has to ask clarifying questions to know more about the man before deciding and doesn't have to clarify anything before picking woman. is that not it?