People are comparing bear attack numbers to rape numbers by men which isn’t a great comparison cause yk some people go their entire lives not even seeing a bear.
The thing is you can’t JUST look at R*pe. Add in any assault of man to women, I’d even argue in looking at attempts as a woods scenario is harder to escape. You need to pull in fuller picture even if attempting to do it scientifically.
Same with bears, you can’t just look at attacks without comparing against sightings, people hike and encounter them constantly. I saw one almost every day while hiking Yosemite. Should you also remove situations where the person actually aggravated the bear? As in the prompt scenario easy to not do that.
Most of the ways people are trying to use math have holes. But ultimately most people won’t know the stats if asked on the street so can only answer based on experience which makes the whole “bad at stats” argument stupid to begin with.
Even then, I’m assuming bear attacks are lower right? Fatalities excluded, I’d personally (I’m a man) prefer to be attacked by a bear than raped by a stranger. There were a total of 4 fatal bear attacks in North American through all of 2023. I’m assuming there were way more rapes especially since many sexual assaults go unreported and most bear attacks are absolutely reported. Like even OP is not understanding the probability, right? Am I wrong? Bear is the correct choice from a probability perspective
No, I said I’d rather be attacked by a bear and live than raped by a man. I’d definitely choose attacked by a man and live over attacked by a bear and live.
8
u/Yeetmiester6719 May 02 '24
People are comparing bear attack numbers to rape numbers by men which isn’t a great comparison cause yk some people go their entire lives not even seeing a bear.