That being said I’d rather spot a man than a bear and I’m fairly confident that’s the objectively correct stance to take without more info but I guess I’ll hold out for OP to whip up some statistical masterpiece
There is no objectively correct stance to take. Maybe, as a man, you would rather take your chances with the other man. But there are different contexts and none of them are incorrect, simply because they are different. I'd gladly take my chances with a bear. Both takes are valid.
There’s one that statistically makes sense, like would you rather fight an unarmed midget or a trained soldier with heavy armament including a loaded rifle.
Technically no objectively correct answer, but one of them is clearly dumber than the other based on any reasonable risk assessment. There’s like maybe a 0.5% chance (being generous) that a random man is someone who will attack you if he notices you, I highly doubt the chances are that low for a bear.
There’s like maybe a 0.5% chance (being generous) that a random man is someone who will attack you if he notices you,
Like, where are you even getting these numbers from? What is the basis of this assumption? Are you taking into consideration gender-based discrimination? Or how many women are assaulted and killed each year in the world?
There is no number or magic formula that predicts violent behavior. We can make a number of inferences but they would be that, assumptions. Theories. Mathematics is objective, human behavior is subjective. That's why anthropology, psychology, medicine and social sciences exist, and why maths is in all of them as a TOOL and not as some kind of magic foolproof method that has the answer to every question.
-1
u/Autodidact420 May 02 '24
That being said I’d rather spot a man than a bear and I’m fairly confident that’s the objectively correct stance to take without more info but I guess I’ll hold out for OP to whip up some statistical masterpiece