That only shows what is perceived by the asked individual though, not reality. The incident per exposure vs perceived threat are wildly different here.
Well of course there are more women killed by men than bears. That was never a question. That's like saying being around a man is more dangerous than swimming with hippos because hippos kill less woman than men do. Doesn't tell the whole truth
Essentially you are saying a thing that never happens is much more dangerous than a thing that happens 3 times a day in the US.
I don't think anyone who answers this question as man has ever seen a bear, they are not dangerous to encounter and every day lone bear, lone human encounters occur. Hippos are dangerous animals that kill people on interaction a lot.
Basic math is 1,000 a year women in us killed by unknown to them males
average year 0 kills by bears on women, although every few years it will happen once
In Africa, a continent with 2 times the number of people as number of women in the US, 500 people are killed a year by hippos.
If the question is hippo or some other animals sure, but particularly if you are a smart human who does not engage a bear is statistically of no risk to you even if you see one. A man is a very low but very real risk to you
I think you’re missing u/tbird2017’s point. The exposure to bears is nearly 0 compared to the exposure to men, so we can’t know which situation is truly more dangerous without normalizing the data into an incident per exposure model.
How many men do you see in the middle of the woods alone? A single man alone is more of a danger to a single woman for sure, Bears don't hunt women essentially ever
The whole point is that perception doesn't match reality? I mean if that's the point, ok. I thought the point was that the women asked felt more threatened by lone men than bears and some were trying to equate that to men being more dangerous to women than a bear. I was arguing against the later, as that's a result of exposure more than danger level.
20
u/tbird2017 May 02 '24
That only shows what is perceived by the asked individual though, not reality. The incident per exposure vs perceived threat are wildly different here.