[modo_mario]

>Obviously your personal conclusion is different but I would say it’s not an empirical or strictly logical analytical conclusion. You will also note that I was able to guess and predict where you’re coming from. Not only did I ask for the full metric, I asked for it partly because I can predict it would be 3 out of 3. My response to the other persons reply predicted what was going on in your head quite accurately. Because of this I would say that I have knowledge about this context that you don’t know about it and that you can learn from. It’s natural for you to you to fight for your point but that would be a form of bias.

Sorry but this reads like some pompous peak redditor stuff. I'd say it would be a bad look if you're trying to convince someone or transfer and idea but the other person you agreed with wasn't right about the supposed cases nor did you draw some point we disagree on or draw out some conclusion.

>From a practical standpoint you only need to go a fraction of that distance in order to cause most bullies to back down.

Yes because for most bullies it's social posturing. The whole group dynamic doesn't often make sense if there's expected resistance. Even if the victim can be beat, few bullies feel like getting into a tussle over it let alone repeatedly. Exceptions can be notable of course and probalby bullies trend towards those escalation exceptions a bit more than others.