Text:
Panel 1 Man and woman in office clothes in a break room.
Man: So, if you were alone in a forest, would you rather run into a strange man… or a bear?
Panel 2 Woman: Oh, hmm… I think the bear.
Man (angry): How can you say that?
(Bear looking quizzically through the window)
Panel 3 Man (angry): You’re demonizing men! It’s misandry!
Panel 4 Woman: Good point. Why would I ever hear men’s reactions?
Man: Exactly! …where did the honey go?
Panel 5 Woman and bear sharing tea
Woman: At least if you maul me, pepper won’t say I made it up or I’m misinterpreting.
Bear: I hear you
Really cute art style here, I love the pooh-bear thing at the end. It’s the man that asks for the honey, heh.
I feel like this thought experiment is a shiri’s scissor. My take on this is that the worst humans are more dangerous than a wild bear. Here’s the quantitative version: what percentile of dangerousness in man would you pick over the bear? For me, I would switch from man to bear at the 90% percentile – I think the 10% worst men are a riskier proposition than the bear.
Point is you don’t know whether the man is a good one or not when you bump into him.
Right, this is why the quantitative version is more revealing.
I think the quantitative version is too fantastical for me to think about. We would never have enough information to know the percentile of the individual man in front of us.