Boacrow,

You wrote:

"I think that you have overlooked one obvious thing. There aren't many people at all who have the physical and the mental ability to survive solo."

I did not overlook it; and yes, it was obvious to me,
when I posted. I implied as much, when I wrote:

"Small groups are the best protection for both sexes."

It seems like you are trying to misunderstand.

The motorist has been covered on so many threads;
it is one instance, that I will not re-hash.

In a survival situation, an exceptional women would be
a bonus; one who could take on navigational duties, while
in the front passenger seat, might be a life saver.

Others,

Beware of the biased-sample problem, examples follow:

"At the track meet, I saw 20 women faster than you..."
"I know 10 Karate women who could kick your ass..."
"When I was in the army..."

There can also be a biased reporter problem: he sees what
he wants to see; remembers what he wants; ignores other
evidence.

I wasn't trying to misunderstand. I did overlook that one statement and for that I appologize. My statement was merely made to say that in the population as a whole, I don't think there's a big difference between male and female preparedness. I think that the vast majority of both sexes is ill prepared and I think statistically it's a very minute difference.

I know alot of people who think they can survive, both men and women, but I know very few who could actually do it. The hunters I know, while indeed predominately men, wouldn't fare any better than most of the women I know. Their idea of survival is wearing camoflage clothing and sitting in a tree stand waiting on that 14 point buck to walk by. There are indeed differences in the way men and women view survival, but in the end, if the information is faulty, then the outcome is the same. Dead is dead regardless of how they got that way.

Hike4Fun,

You wrote:
"In a survival situation, an exceptional women would be
a bonus; one who could take on navigational duties, while
in the front passenger seat, might be a life saver."

I find it interesting that you think a womans place is in the passenger seat and that you think only an exceptional woman can read a map or navigate. It might surprise you to know that there are women out there that can survive solo. I can do just fine solo and I know a lot of other women that are just as capable. I also know alot of men that would not be able to survive. Survival isn't gender specific just like driving isn't gender specific. Assuming that you are superior to anyone just gives them the element of surprise and the advantage.

Angel,
You wrote:
"I find it interesting that you think a woman's place is in the passenger seat and that you think only an exceptional woman can read a map or navigate."

I do not think that. I was responding with respect to a TYPICAL
stranded motorist family: male driving and female in the front
passenger seat. An exceptional woman is more likely to work
on navigational skills, and more likely to actually navigate,
when/while/if she is in the passenger seat.
You are building a Straw, dare I say, Man argument.

Yes, I assume some women do have good skills, and
some men do not. This does not address the Average
skill-level of each sex. It also does not address how
Varied those the skill-levels are.

“Assuming that you are superior ... gives them the element of
surprise and the advantage.”
I alluded to this in an earlier post:
“A case where any solo woman gains a differential advantage:
the male(s) underestimate the woman.”

"I can do just fine solo...". That sounds good to me.

Your post is a good example of the biased-sample and
the biased-reporter problem.

"..I know a lot of other women.."
"...I also know alot of men..."
"...you think only an exceptional woman can read a map..."

While you point out the fallacy in taking isolated cases to make a general point (anecdotal evidence), the fallacy that you are falling to is to assume that most members of a group will have the typical characteristics of that group (the ecological fallacy). Both will get you into trouble.

There's just too much overlap between characteristics and behavior of men an women for these distinctions to be useful.

Frozen,

You wrote:
"While you point out the fallacy in taking isolated cases to make a general point (anecdotal evidence)"

No, I did not refer to "isolated cases" or "anecdotal evidence".
I mentioned "biased sample". There is a big difference.

You wrote:
"the fallacy that you are falling to is to assume that most members of a group will have the typical characteristics of that group"

I do not assume that, in general. That is why I wrote :

"This does not address the Average
skill-level of each sex. It also does not address how
Varied those the skill-levels are."
By "Varied" I was referring to variance or dispersion
from the Average.

Example:
If you sample 50 men for height,and take the average,
it could be that none of them is average. However,
many will be close to average, if the Variance is small.
It really depends on the Variance.

It would be wrong to assume that the Variance is always
small or that it is always large.

You conclude with a vary broad statement and
offer no support:

"There's just too much overlap between characteristics and behavior of men an women for these distinctions to be useful."

It sounds like a PC prayer.
Did you really mean it?

Citing anecdotal evidence is a subset of biased sampling. Selecting isolated cases is an example of biased sampling. All are problems in reasoning with statistics.

"There's just too much overlap between characteristics and behavior of men an women for these distinctions to be useful."

I find the truth of the statement to be self-evident. I certainly believe it and live by it.

Biased samples can be part of a planned procedure and are generally more amenable to numeric adjustment, to remove bias.
OTOH, anecdotal evidence can include, and more often does,
events that are more isolated, and hard to adjust, and are
hard to fit in study.

In any case we use all kinds of evidence, we just need to try
to piece it together the best we can.
I actually am more concerned with a biased reporter than
I am with a biased sample. It is very difficult for me to adjust
for the POV of the reporter.

You seem very convinced of your position, an your
position is self evident, I will waste no more time with you.

Or you could quit debating about sampling systems, generalities and specificalities and just assume that all people are incompetent until proven otherwise. Chose who you'll work or travel with on a case by case basis. Sounds pretty harsh doesn't it?

I tend to find that men and women, children and old people, geniuses and morons all tend to have places where they are strong and where they are weak. In the military, in school and in my personal life, I've found most people are brilliant in some respects and thicker then a whale omelet in other ways. That's the problem with sexism, racism, and all those other -ism. They paste a wide variable population with arbitary and subjective narrow categories. Once people do that suddenly they're able to say "oh, I know you, you're a..." people meet before they meet.

I agree but you have to take into account the mind set of a lot of men. when the see a woman alone they see a weaker person and some of the more animal like ones will rape and kill just for the fun of it.