[Dove]

To be sure, I agree that wild animals, even small ones, should be treated with respect and given space. I did not mean to imply that humans should go around picking fights with geese. Anything can happen in a fight, and I certainly agree with you that fighting a goose without a compelling reason would be imprudent. And at any rate, it would be unkind. You can be stronger than something without mistreating it. I don't mean my assessment of the danger humans and geese pose to each other as a sort of challenge -- it's just what I frankly think on the topic. Either way, of course we should respect and be kind to geese.

Where we stand on the respective odds of different humans versus different geese in different arenas, it's actually orthogonal to my original point -- that different groups of geese vary in their courage around humans, and that there are extreme outliers who are doing a lot more than "cutting it close" -- they're betting the humans will give them space. Or perhaps I saw something rare and was simply channelling Snow White that day. ;)

The more general point is that animal behavior need not always be thought of as the solution to an optimization problem. Whether you believe that's true or not in an ultimate sense, in an immediate sense, it is obvious that their personalities and experience come into play too, and that sometimes they make bad decisions.

[lotharbot]

that said, the respective odds of humans vs geese are not even remotely close. People sometimes get mild injuries from geese, and on rare occasions significant injuries, most often from losing their footing and hitting the ground hard. Whereas a human with even the slightest bit of knowledge and who isn't squeamish could easily end the lives of many geese in rapid succession.

Geese aren't confident because of some sort of rational assessment that they can put up a good fight against a human. Geese are confident because as a general rule, humans don't pick fights with them, and it's therefore safe enough for the group to hang around in places where humans are present at short distances.

[throwanem]

Good grief, the two of you are impossible. Enjoy your mutual self-reinforcement.

[lotharbot]

In Comments

Be kind. Don't be snarky. ... Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[throwanem]

I meant just what I said, which was neither snarky, nor a swipe, nor insubstantive, nor unkind. There's no getting a word in edgewise with you two, because you treat disagreement as an opportunity for a style of play which in table tennis is called "cutthroat" - two against one, in other words. Find someone else to play that way with.

I realize I made the point in a way neither disingenuous nor passive aggressive, and that this may be uncomfortable for those unaccustomed to directness in interpersonal criticism, or indeed that anyone should dare critique their behavior. Nevertheless.

I would address the remarkably mealy-mouthed, motte-and-bailey version of human chauvinism here on display, but what would be the point? Oh, one of you alone I'm quite confident of being able to pin down; neither of you argues very well in isolation. (No relation to Clarence, one assumes.) This back-and-forth, tag team crap, though, that's not worth the trouble. Go get yourselves an ass kicking from a tribe of pissed-off geese. As I said before, you're welcome.

[lotharbot]

Your comment was in fact snarky, a swipe, insubstantive, and unkind. I am quite used to directness in interpersonal criticism (I am after all autistic), and I understand the difference between direct and being mean, cheap, mocking, etc. Your latest response is full of pretty much all of that.

For example: the allegation of not getting a word in edgewise, two against one, "tag team crap" -- I made one comment in this subthread about geese (my other comments were in another subthread about chasing down the cat), and it was in reply to my wife's comment in which she had stopped arguing that point. And then I responded to your unjustified insults by pointing out they are a violation of HN's rules. This is hardly an unbalanced conversation in which you have been unfairly targeted and not been given space to argue your position.

And of course declaring that "neither of you argues very well in isolation" is just a gratuitous insult. So is "remarkably mealy-mouthed". And, for that matter, suggesting I must have no relation to my rhetorically-gifted first cousin some number of times removed.

This is the sort of hostile trolling I expect on reddit, not on Hacker News. I kindly request you not reply to me again.

[throwanem]

"Gratuitous" is uncalled-for.