What's the deal with the "Bear vs Man" argument?

[Iggy Wolf]

I mean, I've seen the arguments on FB and Reddit but I feel like, as many other people point out, that without much context, it's easy for people to get upset and confuse other people's arguments as somehow defending bad behavior. Feels like the question and video was initially presented as a thought experiment and to see how people would react, and it blew up because everyone already had something to say about that.

But no one learned anything new and the question, if meant to be funny, was treated as anything but. And the only thing it did accomplish is getting people to think and believe whatever they already thought. Basically, confirmation bias. To make matters worse, some people used it as somehow a marker of other people's character and personality. As if somehow the answer to the question can tell you ANYTHING about a person's moral compass.

[Hammer Of Evil]

i think its at the top of my list of things i don't care about.

have fun though, buddy. social media is mind poison.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Hammer Of Evil:

i think its at the top of my list of things i don't care about.

have fun though, buddy. social media is mind poison.

I think that's part of my point. Why DID people blow something stupid and ridiculous like this out of proportion? It would have faded into obscurity like all the other stupid memes and TikTok videos that everyone feels the need to share these days. *sighs* Trolls are gonna troll I guess.

[Xero_Daxter]

I’m not saying meat eaters are bad people. I’m saying meat eaters are evil people. (Joke)

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

What the deal with airplane peanuts?

[Iggy Wolf]

I actually wondered what would happen if the question was phrased differently. "Meat or veggies?" "Dealing with a white person vs a cop?" "Dealing with a conservative vs a liberal?" These are meant to be divisive and debatable questions to begin with, but like the Trolley Experiment, it's not really meant to tell you ANYTHING about another person's moral compass. It's more like"let's have fun and see what people say".

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

What's the deal with the "Bear vs Man" argument?

I don't know the origin, but it appears to be an argument about how to interpret and apply statistical data.

ie: When choosing someone to walk in the woods with, you're more likely to be assaulted or killed by a man than if there wasn't one present. So, some with certain biases may make the knee-jerk decision that they should choose to walk with a bear. But, walking in the woods with a bear is more likely to result in being assaulted by a bear than if you were walking in the woods with a man.

I have nothing on which to base this explanation on than my own thinking stuffs after briefly seeing some mentions of the meme and just not pursuing it since I don't give a %#%.... :)

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

What's the deal with the "Bear vs Man" argument?

I don't know the origin, but it appears to be an argument about how to interpret and apply statistical data.

ie: When choosing someone to walk in the woods with, you're more likely to be assaulted or killed by a man. So, some with certain biases may make the knee-jerk decision that they should choose to walk with a bear. But, walking in the woods with a bear is more likely to result in being assaulted by a bear than if you were walking in the woods with a man.

I have nothing on which to base this explanation on than my own thinking stuffs after briefly seeing some mentions of the meme and just not pursuing it since I don't give a %#%.... :)

See, the problem stems from the fact that the question, as it was posed, was ambiguous and not given much context. If it had, for example, asked a woman who was an actual SA survivor, whether she would rather deal with a bear than the man who had assaulted her, then sure, the bear seems like an obvious choice because death might be preferable to her vs her current trauma and PTSD. But the way it was currently phrased, it simply invited people to make up their own context for what it means. So technically, no one answer is right or wrong. Just like the Trolley Experiment doesn't really have a "right" answer.

It's more like "God forbid you're ever actually placed in such a situation, because your answer might be different than what you're actually thinking now". The survival/self-preservation instinct is a strong one, and faced with the choice of immediate death vs the possibility of escape/being able to fight back, someone might actually choose a man vs a bear. But only because in such an actual scenario, they wouldn't be thinking from a hypothetical scenario, but an ACTUAL SURVIVAL SITUATION. That's why I think the OP of the question phrased it the way they did. They could have been trolling, or they simply asked a typical thought experiment. People just blew it out of proportion. And yeah, as you said, it's really not something that people needed to fly into a knee-jerk rage about.

[Gym Leader Rory wants to battle!]

I would feel safer around a wild bear than a human male who identified as their AGAB. Its pretty simple.

[Vox]

Remember when that girl broke into the bears house, ate the porridge and slept in their beds.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

.. And yeah, as you said, it's really not something that people needed to fly into a knee-jerk rage about.

Do you know what the original context was? Was it some "feminism" thing? Some sexual-assault thing? A "men are bad" LBGTQ'ish thing?

I don't have a clue. i just know it started to blow up yesterday, but it could have been some ancient meme from last week from all I know of social media...

The funny thing is - People are getting into "is verry deap" arguments about this. They're getting all philosophical about it, exampling it as some kind of insightful... thing.

"Pancakes or waffles? Your choice will determine the future of humanity."

(Trick question - Everyone knows waffles are better. Next up, Ninjas and Pirates!)

PS: Some above posts reminded me of the direction I thought the meme was trying to go when I first saw it. So, here ya go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(novel) It's definitely a novel that has been memed to death.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

.. And yeah, as you said, it's really not something that people needed to fly into a knee-jerk rage about.

Do you know what the original context was? Was it some "feminism" thing? Some sexual-assault thing? A "men are bad" LBGTQ'ish thing?

I don't have a clue. i just know it started to blow up yesterday, but it could have been some ancient meme from last week from all I know of social media...

The funny thing is - People are getting into "is verry deap" arguments about this. They're getting all philosophical about it, exampling it as some kind of insightful... thing.

"Pancakes or waffles? Your choice will determine the future of humanity."

(Trick question - Everyone knows waffles are better. Next up, Ninjas and Pirates!)

PS: Some above posts reminded me of the direction I thought the meme was trying to go when I first saw it. So, here ya go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(novel) It's definitely a novel that has been memed to death.

Honestly, I don't know. I think the question was simply asked as is, and everyone else was allowed to make up their own mind about it. But I mean, that's the whole point of a thought experiment, and I feel like people getting mad at the guys, or anyone in general really, that might have chosen man vs the bear don't understand the purpose of a thought experiment.

Like I said, the Trolley Experiment doesn't exactly present a favorable outcome in either situation. Let one person die or 5 people. Someone's dying anyway, and the value of 1 vs 5 people can be debated all day, but being put in an actual situation like that would be traumatizing regardless. It's why they call it a "Sadistic Choice".

[AerSilver ♞]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

.. And yeah, as you said, it's really not something that people needed to fly into a knee-jerk rage about.

Do you know what the original context was? Was it some "feminism" thing? Some sexual-assault thing? A "men are bad" LBGTQ'ish thing?

I don't have a clue. i just know it started to blow up yesterday, but it could have been some ancient meme from last week from all I know of social media...

The funny thing is - People are getting into "is verry deap" arguments about this. They're getting all philosophical about it, exampling it as some kind of insightful... thing.

"Pancakes or waffles? Your choice will determine the future of humanity."

(Trick question - Everyone knows waffles are better. Next up, Ninjas and Pirates!)

PS: Some above posts reminded me of the direction I thought the meme was trying to go when I first saw it. So, here ya go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(novel) It's definitely a novel that has been memed to death.

The original context was show the world how women's safety isn't "what it should be". How they would feel safer encountering a bear in the forest than a man they didn't know, and how women fear men nowadays.
Then it devolved into social influencers chasing clout, it's just bs really.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by AerSilver ♞:

The original context was show the world how women's safety isn't "what it should be". How they would feel safer encountering a bear in the forest than a man they didn't know, and how women fear men nowadays.
Then it devolved into social influencers chasing clout, it's just bs really.

"Then it devolved into social influencers chasing clout" And THERE in lies the problem and crux of the argument. Personally, I feel like the thought experiment would be a great question to ask in a Philosophy or Ethics class in college. Several students might have differing opinions depending on their own gender and personal experience.

But at least it would get the ball rolling in a constructive and positive way. Sadly, real life and social media doesn't have a professor/referee to mediate the debate and keep things civil. So everyone just ends up judging one another poorly and negatively based on their own preconceptions.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

... It's why they call it a "Sadistic Choice".

Exactly. The actual choices don't matter - It's the act of choosing and what surrounds it that is at issue. For instance, having the power to choose may not actually empower someone to make a desirable choice.

Originally posted by AerSilver ♞:

...
Then it devolved into social influencers chasing clout, it's just bs really.

Ah... Are they "IAmVerySmart" contenders?

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

...Personally, I feel like the thought experiment would be a great question to ask in a Philosophy or Ethics class in college. Several students might have differing opinions depending on their own gender and personal experience.
...

But, it's a posed question that has one correct answer that then inspires some dissenters to harass adherents... based on completely subjective and inflammatory reasoning.

It's more appropriately posited in psychology or sociology classes...

Alone, the question is simple and has a simple line of reasoning that illustrates how statistical results can be improperly applied if not enough forethought is actually given to such application.

But, in "today's" world, subjective criticism and inflammatory points of view can get thrown at otherwise benign choices at the drop of a hat....

"I choose to walk in the woods with a man."

"ur gonna died"
"THAT CISGEN MALE WILL RAPE YOU!"
"i bet you eat meat"
"men are the cause all wars and should be dead"
"why do you hate bears"
"lol... bears... lol"
"This gotta be a psyop"
"you dont need no man girl"


Heck, I'd love it if this meme came out of some trollcentral imgboard.

[Zilkenian Davenport]

I.... think I need context for this.