There’s this one youtube video that talks about a question like this one (but it’s about a math problem) that I’m going to see if I can find it and paste it here later.
But the conclusion is basically: the question itself is wrong.
The question is straightforward at first glance, but if you think about it, it’s actually vague.
- What kind of bear are we talking about? What species? Is it a killing machine like a polar bear or an innocent one like a panda?
- What kind of man are we talking about? Who? A friend? A total stranger? A criminal?
- Which forest? How big is the forest?
- Do I get to bring anything with me?
- etc etc
But the question doesn’t provide these details, so we will by default assume these blank spaces by ourselves.
Which means, each person with their own story and background will assume completely different things. A woman that had bad experiences with men will obviously assume that the man will be the worst kind. A man that never had bad experiences with other men will not assume the same.
So all the arguments about this question are between people that are not starting from the same page in the first place. They are screaming at each other because they are arguing their points from different assumptions.
I’ll try to find the video because the guy explains this much better than me, even though the video is about a completely different question.
edit: found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBJVyCYuu78
That’s a fair way to look at it.
For me it’s just that not answering (because the question is vague) OR asking for clarification are also valid responses.
For example, your rewritten question - between an unspecified man or unspecified bear, which would you choose? - is already more clarifying than the original.
You are specifying that it’s a gamble, so the gamble is part of the question. The original question doesn’t say that, so assuming it’s a gamble is yet another assumption that we would need to make to answer it