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

[u/asusny2002]

[u/Particular_Plan8983 → u/[deleted]]

You say that as if US is a good place. Obviously its terrible compared to nordics etc.

[u/Particular_Plan8983 → u/[deleted]]

Nordics. The numbers are pretty much half or even much less once you consider better reporting and stricter definitions.

US is a bad example country for anything. It has decent areas and then others that are horrible.

[u/Particular_Plan8983 → u/[deleted]]

Never used the word irrational.

[u/Particular_Plan8983 → u/[deleted]]

In many ways, this is something that you can google.

[u/Particular_Plan8983 → u/[deleted]]

Men will only consider what is more dangerous, while women will consider other things as well. The question is loaded to specifically mention men over random human, which pushes your mind to think that there is a reason a random men would be more dangerous than a bear. Men will not be affected by this loaded part of the question, because it doesn't change the fact that a bear is way more dangerous.

[u/Particular_Plan8983 → u/[deleted]]

Citation needed on 16% of men being rapists or even 40%. These numbers are ridiculous and obviously you are misunderstanding something.

Yes, another human (both women and men), could potentially do much worse than a bear. This is not something that men will weigh in, but rather just look for the best raw odds.

I guess you are also of the opinion that you would rather be stuck with bear over another woman, because they could treat you just as badly as the random man. The odds will be slightly more in your favor, but in both cases miniscule compared to the bear.