Would You Rather: Eat a tarantula or Eat a scorpion?
Would you rather Eat a tarantula or Eat a scorpion? The choice between "Eat a tarantula" and "Eat a scorpion" is absurd, which is exactly the point. The first option, "Eat a tarantula", has a certain appeal that is worth unpacking. It promises something — a capability, a freedom, a knowledge — that most people go their whole lives without. But the promise is not free. Every gain in one dimension requires a corresponding sacrifice elsewhere, and the extreme category tends to make those sacrifices particularly vivid. You would have to live with the consequences every single day. And then there is "Eat a scorpion". Not better, not worse — just different in ways that matter. This option asks you to give up something specific, and the specificity is what makes it hard. Generic sacrifices are easy to agree to in theory. But "Eat a scorpion" names exactly what you would lose, and that precision is uncomfortable. In the extreme category, this kind of discomfort is the whole point. The real tension here is not between "Eat a tarantula" and "Eat a scorpion" as isolated options. It is between two different visions of who you want to be. Our community has voted on this 5,667 times, and the split — roughly 75% for the first option — shows how divided people are. That division is healthy. It means the question is doing its job. A dilemma where everyone agrees is.