The Banishment of Reason: A Critique of TV's The Traitors Logic

Gustave Dore's "Deep in the 8th Circle of Hell"

Have you seen The Traitors? It’s the latest reality show from The Netherlands to go viral (see also Big Brother, The Voice, and Deal or No Deal), spawning versions in over 30 countries, including Mongolia, Finland, and Canada. It’s similar to the game Mafia. 

At its core, umpteen contestants gather, and some number of them are selected to be Traitors (I’ve only seen shows with up to four), leaving the rest as Faithfuls. Every day the contestants vote to banish a supposed Traitor, and every night the Traitors in secret “murder” a Faithful who leaves the game. The Traitors know what they're doing, but the Faithful contestants struggle desperately to identify Traitors so than when they banish they don't eliminate a poor misunderstood Faithful.

I’ve watched versions from Denmark, Belgium, France, the UK, the US, and Canada, and thus far everyone in the game is spectacularly bad at it (Faithfuls more so than Traitors), and as far as I can tell it’s because people in general no longer know how to think rationally, applying their logical reasoning skills to the situation at hand.

I’m not talking about anything too advanced: the level of critical thinking I’m expecting is the ability to understand that if all cows have four legs, and that’s a cow, then it will have four legs … and to also understand that cows’ having four legs does not mean that all four-legged things will be cows. They might be tables.

The Faithful (despite its not working on for anyone on any prior show ever, at least not more than randomness would account for) trust their gut. “My gut tells me that Julie’s a Traitor,” they insist. And if so, everything Julie does will reinforce their confirmation bias. “I noticed Julie watching me,” they might say, “so she’s a Traitor keeping tabs on me,” elicits the same response as “I noticed Julie not watching me, therefore she’s a Traitor trying to appear innocent.” But at least they’re acknowledging their decision-making is based on feelings rather than reason.

It all begins at a Round Table, where the Traitors are selected: everyone wears blindfolds, and those that are touched-by-the-Host become Traitors (or in a Canadian twist, those that weren’t!) Immediately upon removing blindfolds, the Faithful search for clues, and the first thing they look for is “Who seems nervous” and immediately afterward “Who seems different?”

And I put it to you, gentle reader, that neither nervousness or a change in behaviour are any evidence of being a Traitor.  A smooth Traitor will not betray nervousness (or feel it: it seems most contestants hope to be Traitors and will probably be relieved rather than angsty upon being chosen), nor change their behaviour. The difference could be seen in a disappointed Faithful, or a social introvert under scrutiny, or someone who overthinks their facial expressions under scrutiny. One hint, though: don’t perk up and turn your head when the host says “Traitors,” like UK’s Linda did. People notice.

The game progresses, and theories multiply. The Faithful have a habit of calling things “evidence” which aren’t evidence at all. Often the last words of the murdered Faithful are considered binding: “If I get murdered, then Maurice is a Traitor!” poor doomed Daffy will say, and if they are murdered, then the natural conclusion is “Maurice is a Traitor,” or, as they get more sophisticated, “The Traitors want to make it seem like Maurice is a Traitor by murdering Daffy,” when there could be a million other reasons for murdering Daffy, amongst them “The Traitors want to make it seem like the Traitors want to make it seem like Maurice is a Traitor by murdering Daffy” (you see what I did there), much like Vizzini trying to suss out the poisoned chalice in The Princess Bride. 

If I were a Faithful, would I do any better? I’d like to think so, because with my putting-on-a-show background, I can think like a Producer. My first approach would be imagine “who provides the best Diary Room confessionals? They should be a traitor. Who’s unlikely enough to be shocking, but charismatic enough for the viewers to get behind? They should be a traitor.” That creates my short list of Traitors … but to rule people out, I would pay close attention to the door while enjoying my scrambled eggs.

Yes, on the Traitors, breakfast is the Most Important Meal of the Day, no question. At breakfast, you find out who’s been murdered, and so does the viewing audience. Every episode ends the previous night, where the Traitors have narrowed the field down to Marcia, Peter, or Cindy … and the next morning, at breakfast, Marcia arrives, and then Peter arrives, and we realise, poor Cindy, it’s her.

So the show can’t send Traitors in last. All suspense fails. If the last person to arrive is either going to be a Traitor or Cindy, sure, the actual Faithful are on the edge of their seats (perhaps reaching for salmon), but the viewing audience knows exactly who’s coming in, and there’s no drama in watching a murderer show up to eat toast. The last person through the door is always the survivor of the prior night’s shortlist. If Peter enters last, Peter’s a faithful. 

But I’ve never once heard a contestant point out that  “Peter must be a faithful because the editors needed him for their cliffhanger.” And I’ve never heard anyone say “I’m scared, because I entered last” but they should be: they’re being considered for murder!

(Or, as Alan Cumming puts it, “muuuuurrrrrder”.)

No, instead they rely on their gut, or hatch elaborate conspiracy theories with only the vaguest grounding in sense.

In one recent UK season, a group henceforth known as the 'Library 5' became the epicenter of a logical meltdown, after they learned Ben didn’t trust Ross. So when Ben was murdered, the Faithful banished Ross. Who was a Faithful. Thus one of the Library 5 must have been trying to frame Ross, because only they knew about Ben’s suspicion. 

It became a closed loop of nonsense. No one considered that the Traitors might have murdered Ben simply because he was well-liked, or because it seemed random, or—heaven forbid—because they simply found him inconvenient. It had to be one of the Library 5 trying to frame Ross. Even the host of Traitors Uncloaked treated this as an undisputed law of physics. It’s maddening; like when people insist the sun has gone out because they’ve closed their eyes.

I’ve become accustomed to the wacky ways the Faithful use to decide who to vote for (i.e. against), all the things the other contestants do that make various Faithful “feel it in their gut” that they must be a traitor, but I only get really riled up when they claim to be thinking logically. Any time the words “therefore” or “must” or “it’s the only explanation” get raised, so do my hackles.

So if you happen to be cast on The Traitors, you must accept one terrifying truth. Everything you do is evidence of your guilt. It doesn’t matter if your sole goal in life is to win money for the prize pot and take down treacherous traitors, the Faithful will somehow see this as proof of your deception. Here are their rules:

1. The Social Paradox

• The Quiet Wallflower: If you are quiet and hold back your opinions, you are clearly "lurking in the shadows" and avoiding detection. Verdict: Traitor.

• The Social Butterfly: If you are talkative and lead the charge, you are "overcompensating" and trying to control the narrative. Verdict: Traitor.

• The Expert: If you reveal you are a Detective or a Lawyer in real life, your suspicions are treated as divine law—until you’re wrong, at which point you were obviously a Traitor lying about your credentials to "lead the flock astray." 

  
  

2. The Mission Trap

• The Saboteur: If you stumble during a mission or cost the team money, you are trying to weaken the pot for the Faithful (even though it’s the same pot the Traitor would win). Verdict: Traitor.

• The Overachiever: If you try really, really hard, you are clearly just performing "Faithful-ness" to earn trust. It’s too polished. It’s suspicious. Verdict: Traitor.

  
  

3. The Shield Catch-22

• The Self-Preservationist: If you fight for a shield to protect yourself from murder, you’re a Traitor trying to ensure you stay in the game to sabotage another day.

• The Martyr: If you don't care about the shield, it’s because you already know you won’t be murdered tonight. Why? Because you’re the one doing the murdering. Verdict: Traitor.

  
  

4. The "Ghost" Evidence

The Faithful love to treat the words of the departed as if they were etched in stone by a higher power:

• The Deathbed Accusation: If Person A suspects Person B and then gets murdered, Person B is "obviously" the killer. 

• The Deathbed Accusation Variant: If Person A suspects Person B and then gets murdered, Person B is obviously being framed. And Person C has been insisting Person B is a traitor, hence Person C is obviously the killer!

• The Banishment Reveal: If a banished player reveals they were a Faithful, whoever they voted for is probably a Traitor, because surely they can’t all have been wrong.

• The Banishment Reveal Variant: If a banished player reveals they were a Traitor, whoever they voted for is probably a Traitor: it’s Traitor v. Traitor!

  
  

5. The Shortlist Stupidity

When the Traitors are forced to put a "shortlist" of people up for murder, the logic fractures entirely:

• Logic A: "One of the people on this list must be a Traitor acting as a decoy!"

• Logic B: "No Traitor would be stupid enough to put themselves on a list, so they are all definitely Faithful!"

• The Result: They vote out the most helpful person on the list just to "be safe."

The Golden Rule of the Round Table: If Person B exists and has a pulse, Person B is more likely to be a Traitor.

Most of the Traitors that have been found, I believe, have been found accidentally: if you close your eyes and drop a rock on a pie divided into 20 wedges, 3 of which are traitors, you will sometimes drop the rock on a traitor’s wedge.  Unless a Traitor cracks under the pressure and starts sobbing “It’s hard to be a Traitor! I wish I’d never been picked,” you’re never going to be able to deduce who they are using the usual methods.

I've seen logic used to an exactitude on this show probably once: a Traitor tried to stir the pot by supposedly quoting a murdered Faithful about something that hadn't happened until after they'd been murdered ... that's Traitor behaviour! They didn't last long.

Fun fact: finding a Traitor and voting them out is actually the worst thing you can do in this game. Because the show allows for the recruitment of new Traitors if one of them is banished (and this can happen that very night), you’re then faced with spotting a Traitor who’s been Faithful every day up till now. The truly canny Faithful shouldn’t eliminate Traitors: they should identify them and keep them like Pokemon, a “gotta catch them all” strategy. If you know who they are, keep them around. Be friendly, act dumb: nothing a Traitor likes more than keeping a dumb Faithful around till the end of the game. And then surprise them. And in the meantime, vote out those who are bad at challenges, or who don’t vibe with your strategy.

The winning strategies are simple:

For the Faithful: Keep your enemies close, and play stupid.

For the Traitors: Murder the smart people, and take your most oblivious "Faithful friend" to the finish line. 

Which sort of boils down to keeping anyone who says to you, in all honesty, “I know you’re a Faithful, 100 percent.” That’s who you want with you.

It sounds like I hate the show, and nothing could be further from the truth: it’s gripping, often funny, sometimes emotional. The Faithful take this so personally, but it’s just a game, and these are the gaming conditions: there are two sides, and one side wins if it can eliminate everyone on the other side, and the other side wins if just one member makes it to the end. It’s asymmetrical, but that’s fine. The Traitors have an advantage: despite far more contestants being Faithful, the Traitors take home the money 60% of the time (no wonder most players hope to get picked!) The Traitors aren’t terrible people, they’re playing the game by the game rules … it’s just unfortunate that in order to win as a Traitor you must lie to your new friends, constantly. But if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be playing by the rules.

(Without spoilers, I saw one season where a Traitor won against two Faithful. He burst into tears, apologized, and completely unraveled. The two Faithful comforted him, he was playing a game, he did it brilliantly, they said. I cried too: that’s not normally the reaction from those who have lost and been gobsmacked simultaneously, and I love to see such human kindness).

---

Notes and Links

A Traitor for The Traitors - short BBC ad

Andross Castle - where both Traitors UK and US are filmed

The Princess Bride - Vizzini tries to reason out which is the poisoned chalice