Is there always somebody worse off than (whoever)?

We've all heard it..."there's always someone who is worse of than (you, them, whoever)".

I maintain that this is a BS argument that trivialises someone's situation, and that those who purport this argument have no empathy for the person that they are spruiking it to. The fact of the matter is that there is actually some poor bugger who actually is the worst off on the planet (that is completely logical). Think of it this way: let's find the second worst off person on the planet (who would obviously be in a diabolically bad situation) and say to them "There is always someone worse off than you. Okay, okay, in your case there's only actually one person worse off than you, but still.......my argument holds!" What a load of crap! Just for starters, when the actual worst off person dies (and you'd have to think it would be imminent) then the second worst off becomes "the" worst off. I'd be pretty sure that the second worst off person would not be particularly bothered about knowing the circumstance of the next person either......

Furthermore, there is a corollary to this argument, and that is that the exact opposite must also be true, but we never raise it. That is "There is always someone better off than him/her/you/them". Of course that depends upon the benchmark of being "better off": is it monetary wealth, happiness, well-being, security, lifestyle, health, climate, availability of fresh food, etc etc, a good supply of defect free timber :D? The corollary belies the BS in the primary argument. If one is true then so must be the other. If one is false or non-sensical, then so must be the other.

I have had cause for some introspection of late - call it navel gazing if you like - some (or one) might even somewhat naively or ignorantly call it selfishness because the thought topics have often only involved me. But then, you kinda get that with introspection.....(the act or process of looking into one's self.....)

A little more perspective here (a short read):
https://www.elephantjournal.<wbr>com/2017/10/what-we-are-<wbr>really-saying-when-we-say-<wbr>someone-else-has-it-worse/

That was sent to me from someone I know and respect very well, and the title of the email was "Those that invalidate the pain of others are 'king wimps".

is there a point to this

There is barely a person who hasn't expressed that sentiment at some time in their life, me included but does one either express sympathy or support with the sufferer to placate them because you don't really have an honest/practical answer to their situation or that there is literally nothing that you can do to help or does one offer a reply that is hollow/false support or empathy for them. Unless you know the background/intricacies of their situation or are a professional/experienced in the particular realm of their situation, it would be inhumane or immoral to give false hope to that person, but to be sympathetic and gently inquire/suggest/recommend a person/organisation that could assist/help/guide/manage their situation would be beneficial.
There is a lot of philosophical aspects to this topic just as there are courses of action that can be taken depending on the situation.
Beyound Blue, R U OK, etc as well as medical support groups for trauma, etc that assist in all sorts of areas but it takes time and effort and commitment either as a truly sympathetic friend or a qualified person/organisation to help that person.
In the examples in the attached link in Brett's post, there are some truly horrendous victims of war, natural disaster, inhumane acts, crime that has happened spontaneously that both the victim/sufferer or ourselves have no control over.
So I suggest that the phrase we use is (all be it generic) is possibly the best that the average person can come up with at a moments notice and without the time/skills or resources to be more effective. On contemplation, its probably better to ask if there is something they would like you to do for them and either which you may be able to do, no matter how trivial but never give false hope or information.

Yeah well when someone tells you this, technically the correct answer is "I don't give a ****".

You shouldn't say it though because what they say is usually well meant, although it's actually insulting.
Because the only way this would make you feel better is if seeing someone suffer makes you feel nice, or if you don't understand your own feelings and you need to measure yourself against someone else to see if your condition is good or bad.
Which really, if you think about it, makes you either an asshole or an idiot.

But usually none of this matters because the person saying it really just wants to help and that's just one thing they can think of saying, so I guess just nod and move on.
Now, if you suspect that they don't actually want to help, please see the technically correct answer above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenderbelly

is there a point to this

---

philosophically yes

empathy, I think



worst off / better off is IMO just a weak comparator that is part of the glass half-full or half-empty dichotomy. (where the real answer is found in redefining the glass to being the "right size".)

a half-full (20 oz) glass of double malt would be a waste, while a half-empty (4 oz) glass of the same substance would be a particular treat.

God, I hate sites like that link. Having a whopping great splash-screen obscure what is essentially simply a three or four paragraph blurb, demanding I either login in to farcebook or create an account to see someones short ramblings... :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't think I've ever said "there's always someone who is worse off than you." :no: I'm inherently lazy... instead I've always (AFAIK) said "It could be worse."

To my mind, that is not only shorter but also more accurate a statement. I don't think it could be misconstrued as demeaning to someone else either, but then again, there are people who, after you greet with a "G'day," wonder "what did he mean by that?" and mull it over until they can find something to take offence at... :(

Weird things, people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

empathy, I think

---

You obviously 'get' Canadians. When they say "I'm sorry" they're not apologising, they're empathising.

Here in Oz, we seem to assume the reverse, which has caused Annette all sorts of odd social situations. Can be entertaining to watch... :D

Sometimes there is not much more you can say for someone in a bad situation and you say it to try and keep the person in a more positive mindset with their circumstances
The flip side is imagine going to see a cancer victim in hospital and telling them how their life sucks and how good everyone else’s life is compared to theirs.

Not everyone wants to hear the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

God, I hate sites like that link. Having a whopping great splash-screen obscure what is essentially simply a three or four paragraph blurb, demanding I either login in to farcebook or create an account to see someones short ramblings... :rolleyes:

---

Totally agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

....instead I've always (AFAIK) said "It could be worse." To my mind, that is not only shorter but also more accurate a statement.

---

Depends on the situation. If it is some kind of physical problem (with an object not working properly), then that's ok, and it may be ok for a physical injury (but not a disease), but for someone suffering emotional pain it may not be particularly well received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Sometimes there is not much more you can say for someone in a bad situation and you say it to try and keep the person in a more positive mindset with their circumstances

---

There's nothing worse than feeling useless and unable to help someone, especially someone we are close to. It is still probably wisest to simply ask "Is there anything I can do to help?" even if it just sitting there holding the person's hand so that they don't feel so alone (if that is part of the problem). Feeling isolated can be devastating.

Hi,
Me thinks some people have been gazing too deep into the bottle.

:rolleyes:

I think you hit the mail on the head with the other end of of the spectrum .... all depends on the benchmark [emoji6]

What is bad to one may not be so bad to another. Each has their own pain and it is real to that person regardless of what others may or may not be feeling and how they may be effected in a similar situation.



Sent Dave TTC
The Turning Cowboy

Turning Wood Into Art

It is much easier to cope when your experience is relative to those around you. If you are poor and those around you are equally so, perhaps you don't feel so deprived. (No one enjoys being impoverished, I'd imagine.)

I believe, personally, the experience of human unhappiness is seated in desire, or want. Our entire society is based on incessant greed. It is unsustainable, rewards only the worst amongst us and confers no social benefit other than one-upmanship and environmental destruction.

Many people think they need something, when in fact they simply want it.

I had as my Facebook* catchline "remember when you wanted what you currently have?". It's a truism. The race for more is never finished. More money, more property. More gold. More shares. More. More. More.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, fundamentally, but what we have is toxic and based solely on greed, exclusion and psychological manipulation. It is inherently bad for us as individuals, family, countries and societies.

End rant :wink:


* (until I deleted everything off the damned thing)
Edit: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...29-p506vl.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I believe, personally, the experience of human unhappiness is seated in desire, or want. Our entire society is based on incessant greed. It is unsustainable, rewards only the worst amongst us and confers no social benefit other than one-upmanship and environmental destruction.

---

I don't believe it. I believe we are just terrible at understanding our own happiness.
And because of not understanding what really makes us happy we either instinctively resort in quick fixes (substances, food, etc) or we set our targets based on what we see around us, what other people do. "That dude has that car? Must be a reason, if I get the same or better I'll be happy. And if I'm not happy at least I'll be accepted, or someone will be jealous of me which is also strangely satisfying"

We're pretty dumb :)
And also happiness is not as simple as it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spyro

I believe we are just terrible at understanding our own happiness.

---

Agreed. Happiness is not a spectrum. You are either happy, or you are not. If you are happy, you would be a damn fool to seek change because the only possible outcomes are continued happiness or sadness. You can't become more happy. hell..."more happy" isn't even good english!

Once they have the necessities different people think different things will make them happy, or possibly think that different things make them who they are. I had neighbours who believed that they were what they had. When I was working in my 'real' job I was, to a large extent, what I knew. Really, we are what we do, and if we do what is right and can take pride in it, we should be happy. It's easier to change what we do than what we have or know.

This has now separated into 2 distinct areas, a persons circumstance as a direct action of their own making and those who circumstance is the result of someone else's/entity's/natures action either deliberately or unknowingly. For someone to respond in the correct context to the affected person would require knowledge of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuffy

You can't become more happy. hell..."more happy" isn't even good english!

---

I think the word you're looking for is "happier" :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spyro

I don't believe it. I believe we are just terrible at understanding our own happiness.
And because of not understanding what really makes us happy we either instinctively resort in quick fixes (substances, food, etc) or we set our targets based on what we see around us, what other people do. "That dude has that car? Must be a reason, if I get the same or better I'll be happy. And if I'm not happy at least I'll be accepted, or someone will be jealous of me which is also strangely satisfying"

We're pretty dumb :)
And also happiness is not as simple as it seems.

---

I think this is part of the reason why there are so many studies that show that religious people tend to be happier/more content than non-religious people, even if objectively they seem worse off. If you have faith in a benevolent higher power, it follows that you're more likely to be accepting of your current situation because that's the lot you've been allocated and, more importantly, you're in that situation for a reason. Working out why and what to do is a separate challenge, but at least it gives you the potential to make something meaningful out of it and the search for meaning, I think, is the real drive beneath everything.

My daughter is studying psychology (has 2 degrees and finished her thesis this week). I often talk to her about this stuff. Happiness is a psychological flaw... People who are happy are delusional. It's a state that is hard to attain and even more problematic to retain.

For many years I've been meditating (trying!!!!) and I'd regard contentment to be far more important.

Through contentment I believe you can remove want. Want causes unhappiness.

(I'm still neither. It's a work in progress!!!!)

Back to FenceFurniture... I hope that the root cause of your post is solvable. Some things are not. Sometimes there is little we can do other than to Take Our Lumps. Introspection can attempt to reveal what really motivates, or demotivates one's self.

An old Maxim Temet Nosce is one of my all time favorites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

I think this is part of the reason why there are so many studies that show that religious people tend to be happier/more content than non-religious people, even if objectively they seem worse off. If you have faith in a benevolent higher power, it follows that you're more likely to be accepting of your current situation because that's the lot you've been allocated and, more importantly, you're in that situation for a reason. Working out why and what to do is a separate challenge, but at least it gives you the potential to make something meaningful out of it and the search for meaning, I think, is the real drive beneath everything.

---

When your 7 year old child looks at you and asks "So dad, are we all gonna die one day?", religion gives you something to say. And something to say to yourself as well when you ask the same question. It's a fkn tough question, I'll take any help I can :D

Religion is a package of tried and tested answers to all the difficult questions, so of course it takes away that burden. I am nowhere near smart of arrogant enough to judge religion, and it works for a lot of people but I know it doesn't work for everybody. I think it pays to look for your own answers if you can.

My answer by the way is that no, I will never die, I will always live through my kids, I am a part of them, everything they learned and everything they do. And they will always live through their kids and the people they love.
The circle of life is my answer to death, it's the only thing that makes this thought tolerable to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

For many years I've been meditating (trying!!!!) and I'd regard contentment to be far more important.

Through contentment I believe you can remove want. Want causes unhappiness.

(I'm still neither. It's a work in progress!!!!)

---

Absolutely Brilliant!

Sarcasm Intended

Someone is always worse off ? ? ?

Isn't that what the religious leaders always say? That way you feel better and toss more than spare change into the collection plate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

We've all heard it..."there's always someone who is worse of than (you, them, whoever)".

---

I suspect the original reason for this saying was to try to redirect the focus of the receiver towards others. However it's totally inappropriate except in the case of banal 21st century complaints like "Instagram won't let me log in"; because it lacks empathy.

I think our basic emotional need is love and the giving of it is the best way of receiving it. Trying to develop good habits like forgiveness, generosity, kindness etc. are not always easy but great emotional nutrition and good material for one's eulogy.

My two bob's worth,

mick :)

mick,
" "Instagram won't let me log in"; because it lacks empathy. "

I owe you a beer for that one.

The thread has developed into an interesting mix of philosophy and psychology with a large dash of humanity thrown in. My cautionary comment would be that most of us are hugely unqualified to offer opinion om the subject other than a genuine desire to help. In saying that I don't wish to throw cold water on the discussion at all: Quite the opposite and I am impressed at some of the profound remarks that have already been made. One problem is that every situation is an individual scenario and very difficult to apply generalities. Situations that can be brushed off by one person are the end of the world for another.

I believe that as far as so called happiness is concerned we have to go back to the fundamental psyche, which I believe started out as survival. In fact let's go back even further and suggest that human motivation was the propagation of the species. Almost everything was dictated by the that goal. If I can digress for a brief moment I was once told that the aim of a cattle breeder was to wean a live calf. So it was with humans because everything was geared to the success of raising a family. Everything that you did helped to reach that outcome. Today we see this increasingly as money, material wealth, status etc, but to my mind in the end it is still all about the propagation of the species. If it is not that I am not quite sure of the purpose of life as it is certainly not about having the latest I-phone, a 72" TV or a brand new car.

Of course along the way we find greed and this confuses the issue. In fact it may be the single most disruptive element in society. It stems from the basic ambition of humans and the desire to succeed, but we lose the reason to say something is unnecessary. Ambition is the reason the human race is successful, but that is as a group and not necessarily on an individual basis.

So at some point we either decide that we are not living up to our original goal (and it is quite likely that we have not even identified to ourselves what that goal is) or we find something that we perceive is threatening our ability to achieve that goal. The solution is to get around these problems: The trick is being able to do it. Easier said than done and sometimes we need help. On occasions just talking about is suffices as it is a therapy in itself, but frequently more than that is needed.

Most of us participate on the Forums because of our common interest in some form of woodworking or associated discipline and discussions such as this thread alert us to the fact that not all like minded people are travelling well. I particularly like the way that Forum members "rally" at such times.

We are are here to help if we can.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The thread has developed into an interesting mix of philosophy and psychology with a large dash of humanity thrown in. Not the original intention, but happy for it to drift around.
My cautionary comment would be that most of us are hugely unqualified to offer opinion on the subject other than a genuine desire to help. Perhaps we are, but it's us that have to deal with the matter at the time, so offering an opinion is only a reflection of what we might do in any given situation.
Situations that can be brushed off by one person are the end of the world for another.

---

And this goes to the heart of the matter. Of course there are shades of grey in between those two extremes, but I suspect that when someone says "I know a bloke who is worse off than you" they have no real empathy for either person, which is probably exacerbated by thinking that the people ought to be able to cope with whatever it is in any case, just like the commenter can (or so they think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Most of us participate on the Forums because of our common interest in some form of woodworking or associated discipline and discussions such as this thread alert us to the fact that not all like minded people are travelling well. I particularly like the way that Forum members "rally" at such times.

We are are here to help if we can.

---

Indeed.

What doesn't work is when the helper indicates or even overtly says "help is on offer, but only if it's done in a certain way...... ahem, MY way". Just as you were saying that some can brush something off that is otherwise a big deal for someone else, people can react in different ways to what could be called a "progress report" on the situation as it develops. The progress may affect the subject in a very different way to the way the helper might react, if they were in the same situation. The very worst thing the helper can do is to invalidate the subject's feelings or position by saying "well you should do/feel this or that in the same way that I would. And if you don't.....well, then I have to withdraw my support."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

What doesn't work is when the helper indicates or even overtly says "help is on offer, but only if it's done in a certain way...... ahem, MY way". Just as you were saying that some can brush something off that is otherwise a big deal for someone else, people can react in different ways to what could be called a "progress report" on the situation as it develops. The progress may affect the subject in a very different way to the way the helper might react, if they were in the same situation. The very worst thing the helper can do is to invalidate the subject's feelings or position by saying "well you should do/feel this or that in the same way that I would. And if you don't.....well, then I have to withdraw my support."

---

This was at least partially why I made one of my first statements that most of us, but probably not all, are unqualified to diagnose and treat such situations. I would agree that conditional support is problematical. I would suggest that problem could also be leveled at the patient too (namely, "if you don't fix the problem this way I'm not interested"). Arguably it is not a level playing field and the patient is less likely to see alternative viewpoints, which is where the expertise of the helper come in. The irony here is that the closer we are to the person concerned the more likely we are unable to communicate productively. My layman's perspective is that we are too emotionally involved and too prejudiced. To help objectively we need to stand back in a detached manner. Not all of us are equipped to do this.

It is not an easy task from either person's viewpoint. There is one aspect that I believe cannot be overstated and that is the patient has to either like or respect (or more likely both) the "helper."

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I would suggest that problem could also be leveled at the patient too (namely, "if you don't fix the problem this way I'm not interested").

---

No, that is definitely counter-productive. After all, quite often the patient won't know what is the best way to solve the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

My layman's perspective is that we are too emotionally involved and too prejudiced. To help objectively we need to stand back in a detached manner. Not all of us are equipped to do this.
It is not an easy task from either person's viewpoint. There is one aspect that I believe cannot be overstated and that is the patient has to either like or respect (or more likely both) the "helper."

---

I may not have made myself clear Paul: by help I really mean support. The help, and guidance, as such usually has to come from trained professionals such as Psychologists et al. Where it can go horribly wrong is a support person thinking they know better than a professional either because:
1. they have known the patient in a private capacity for some time, or
2. they have vast experience in managing people professionally in the workplace, and therefore believe that friendships are managed in the same fairly structured way, or
3. perhaps they think they are immune to making mistakes or incorrect assumptions because their opinion has previously been taken when offered (assuming it was sought, in the first place). This may be inextricably linked to point 2 above.

I would never advise someone against professional advise. This advise from professional, one to another can sometimes be contradictory. Some have found more help thru friends than professionals. There is no one simple answer from what I see. Like raising children, every individual is different and what works with one may not work with another.




Dave TTC
The Turning Cowboy

Turning Wood Into Art

Dave has made a salient point, there can be/is differences between professionals, also, the patient's interaction with the professional is crucial also, if they feel comfortable and trusting/respectful of the professional, then there should/can be a good outcome, but if not, then not a lot will change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

My daughter is studying psychology (has 2 degrees and finished her thesis this week). I often talk to her about this stuff. Happiness is a psychological flaw... People who are happy are delusional. It's a state that is hard to attain and even more problematic to retain.

---

Psychologists don't like happy people because it's bad for business