Purely speculation on my part, but I tend to feel similarly, and I think the reason is that the mugger includes a physical threat of violence.
Evolutionarily, the emergence of an economy with capital at modern-day scales are so new that we haven't had time to really adjust emotionally. It kind of reminds me of the various birds on previously untouched-by-humanity islands that had no fear of humans and would just sit there and allow a human to club them to death, until their species went extinct. They had no time evolutionarily to develop an innate (emotional) fear of humans.
Physical violence/robbery on the other hand is a long-standing human tradition, and something we are hardwired to react to emotionally (Amygdala vs. PFC, etc). We can of course override our Amygdalas with our PFCs to some extent (in the medium to long-term), but the "gut reaction" core is still there.
Another possible reason (for me at least) is that ethically I have a lot of inner turmoil over violent punishments (which physical incarceration absolutely is IMHO) for nonviolent crimes. Of course reality is much more grayscale than that given that crimes like SBFs could leave a family destitute and starving, which is violence-adjacent if not outrightly violent. A violent sentence for a violent crime intuitively feels a lot more "let the punishment fit the crime" than a violent sentence for a nonviolent crime.
Anyway, I don't have answers, but throwing some speculation onto the pile.
I had a business partner/family member steal money from me in our business. It very much hurt and was a painful experience hoping for vengence. Perhaps SBF being distant from you is what makes you indifferent.
Yes that's fair criticism regarding my feelings, but GP feels the same and they had stolen $10K. So the distance from it can't be all there is to it.
I'm also pretty distant from a mugging that might happen today, but I find myself getting angry about it, so that also seems to contradict the theory that it's about distance (though to be clear, I largely agree with you and I suspect distance is going to be a factor for most or maybe the vast majority of people).
After thinking about it, I think some humans do feel anger towards deadly diseases. If not anger, certainly fear. My aunt died of cancer, and most of our family was pretty mad at "cancer." I remember seeing a Twitter thing going around that was basically a lot of people tweeting things like "fuck cancer" and encouraging others to donate to the cause.
Maybe that's not really "anger," but it kind of feels and seems like it
I lost my dad to cancer. I was very much furious with cancer while being well aware of the irrationality of feeling that way. Still am, and it's been a few years. It's easy to be furious at cancer, and the pure random destructive wastefulness of it.
For cancer and forces of nature, there is anger, there is a sense of unfairness, but we ask "why" and the instinctive answer is there - force of nature.
To the robber metaphor, for example I've had cars try to run me off the road on my bicycle, so I approach the driver and it becomes immediately clear this is an insane person with major problems, and I think "oh, force of nature, this person is completely insane" - similar how "not guilty by way of insanity" is a real thing. Again we get an answer "why" - because this person is insane.
For me the deep insult that causes anger is if this is intentional, this is a person, they willfully did this of sound mind. Perhaps why a Madoff might make someone angry, but not SBF. In my view, SBF was a step or two removed from a big "too big too fail" 2008 bank that offered an interest rate to account holders by making investments with some risk. It seems to me SBF was operating along similar lines, 8% interest rate if I recall, but his intent wasn't to steal so much as illegally hide risk and hope for the best - and in his case, he was small enough to fail.
Predators also 'play the game of life' and humanity is downright vindictive about any who prey upon them. I personally suspect the real difference is how incredibly hard it is to target a disease. Hell, just identification of what a disease really is was spotty for millennia.
> we haven't had time to really adjust emotionally.
I think we adjusted, but we just apply broader context. No one would recommend going all-in on FTX with your life savings. Likely no one involved is really poor and this affected his life strongly. People lost money for their retirement retro vehicle, it's fairly easy to adjust to that.
This not saying it's ok, but its annoyance in effects mostly or should be(I think likely there are may be people, who put too much money, but then again internet financial advisory board all appears and says: HA! Told ya not to do it!).
Evolutionarily, the emergence of an economy with capital at modern-day scales are so new that we haven't had time to really adjust emotionally. It kind of reminds me of the various birds on previously untouched-by-humanity islands that had no fear of humans and would just sit there and allow a human to club them to death, until their species went extinct. They had no time evolutionarily to develop an innate (emotional) fear of humans.
Physical violence/robbery on the other hand is a long-standing human tradition, and something we are hardwired to react to emotionally (Amygdala vs. PFC, etc). We can of course override our Amygdalas with our PFCs to some extent (in the medium to long-term), but the "gut reaction" core is still there.
Another possible reason (for me at least) is that ethically I have a lot of inner turmoil over violent punishments (which physical incarceration absolutely is IMHO) for nonviolent crimes. Of course reality is much more grayscale than that given that crimes like SBFs could leave a family destitute and starving, which is violence-adjacent if not outrightly violent. A violent sentence for a violent crime intuitively feels a lot more "let the punishment fit the crime" than a violent sentence for a nonviolent crime.
Anyway, I don't have answers, but throwing some speculation onto the pile.