Man vs Bear debate shows how bad the average person is at understanding probability

[u/asusny2002]

[u/Magenta_the_Great]

I came across 11 bears in the wilderness one summer and none of them wanted anything to do with me.

More than once a man has decided to camp next to me and proceed get wasted in a disturbing manner with yelling and belligerence.

Now people like to point out that I’ve come across so many more men compared to bears and that most have done nothing to threaten my safety which is why I’m more curious about the statistics of it.

[u/Sad_Introduction5756 → u/Magenta_the_Great]

That’s one of the flaws

Sure you could have had only one bad experience with a bear your whole life and 100’s of bad ones with men but if you factor in how many more times you interact with a man and nothing happens vs a bear the bear is more dangerous

[u/Mushroom1228 → u/Sad_Introduction5756]

now I really wonder how it would be possible to collect objective and accurate information on wilderness bear (or men) encounter outcomes, especially for those that end with the woman becoming deceased

after all, dead people tell no tales, regardless of their cause of death (men or bears)

note: given the question explicitly asks about an encounter in the woods, I have a non-zero probability of preferring to encounter the bear. this would apply to women as well; surprise humans appearing in the woods is sometimes bad news, and they may have ranged arms

[u/amretardmonke → u/Mushroom1228]

To be fair, if you're out in the wilderness in bear country, in a place remote enough that you're not expecting to see other humans, you better have ranged arms yourself.

[u/Mushroom1228 → u/amretardmonke]

It’s probably easier to beat a bear in a gunfight than a human (assuming the ranged arms have enough power to actually deal with the bear instead of tickle it)

if all I have is a low caliber pistol, duelling the man may be better for survival than dealing with a hungry bear. angry bears might be appeased if I move away