Well at least you're not a starving kid in India

[Rainman]

I have noticed in general that when someone is feeling bad about something or in a state of discontent with their life, that someone always tries to put their problems into world perspective by saying things like "well there are dying children in third world countries...at least you don't have it that bad". But I have come to the conclusion that just because your problems are in general not nearly as extreme as the problems of less fortunate people, they can have an equal or even more damaging impact on their emotions. My theory is that it is possible for an upper-middle class citizen of a technologically advanced society to experience more emotional suffering than someone living in a third world country, starving, homeless, etc within their own context. What I mean by this, is that in my opinion, everyone has a certain number of things they need, both physical and emotional. For the purpose of this explanation, the needs will be represented by rungs on a ladder, and the number of needs will be 5. We'll also say that there are a total of 100 rungs on the ladder. The ladder as a whole represents the overall quality of life that people are experiencing. So lets say Bob is a college student at some university. He's a social nobody, his parents ditched him when he was a child, and he loves his best friend who will be called Donna who is about to be married to the "perfect guy" and it's been established that there's no way he'll ever be with Donna. Now clearly this would make him very depressed. It's common for a sensitive person experiencing a high level of depression to have thoughts (however serious) of suicide. It's also common for a person to want to express their pain to someone, while experiencing a sense of hopelessness. For some reason, people feel that it is helpful to try and put their friends' depression into context. Yet the opposite is true. This often makes the person, Bob feel that you are trying to say that his problems are less important, to which you will find that Bob takes high offense to. Not only is it offensive to Bob, it is also not necessarily true that Bob has it better off than say a one armed starving guy (who we will call Dave...yes, Dave) living in a third-world country. (A random scenario, but just about any applies to what I'm saying). It's not necessarily false, but it most likely is. You see, on the ladder, Bob is somewhere in the middle, while Dave is most likely somewhere closer to the bottom. This would instantly make most people say that Bob has it better off than Dave, but consider this. While Dave's five rungs are on a lower location than Bob's, it is still possible for Bob to experience far heavier emotional damage than Dave. See, the location on the ladder has very little to do with relative quality of life. Lets say in order to be happy, you had to have at least 4 rungs out of your allotted seven. Well in the context of Bob's life, out of the potential happiness that Bob would be able to experience, compared to the happiness he has experienced, we will say he has 3 rungs. While Dave has had a rough life overall, out of his potential allotted happiness of 7 rungs, he may very well have 5 or 6. This concept is similar to that of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, but it is slightly different. People make these comparisons based on their own context of life. Based on the area of the ladder that they are used to, but in reality, someone who has lived in a certain area of the ladder for a long time cannot say that someone who live lower on the ladder has it worse off than someone who lives on a high area, because it has nothing to do with the location of the ladder, it has to do with how many rungs of your alloted seven do you have built? So for someone to say that Bob has it better off than a starving kid in India, is not helpful at all and is not even NECESSARILY true. That kid is USED to living how he lives. That's all he's ever known, so he's used to it, and therefore it is possible for him to be happy. While his situation is low on the ladder, if he has all seven rungs he can still be happy. It would be different if you said "well, Bob, at least you don't have it as bad as someone who has grown up in a rich family, and is used to being pampered and everything going perfectly, but who recently lost his money, had 12 of his family members die in a fire, and is now homeless". That statement would be more likely to be true, despite the fact that it is still completely not helpful and entirely counterproductive. I just thought I'd share my theory with you and see what you all think. -Rain

[Half/Dreaming]

Very true. Emotional pain and suffering is unique to the person. Taking a rich girl's car away for a week will get the same reaction as taking an Etheopian's only meal of the day. Heck, the rich girl will probably even get more angry.

[Neruo]

I have the feeling that 'bob' is actually You, Rainman. Besides that: Do you know why people say: "It's not as bad as people starving in Africa?" Because it honestly is. If a kid in Africa would stfu, and look at things from the bright side, he will still die of AIDS or hunger. If 'bob', or you or whoever the fuck just shuts the fuck up, and looks at things more positive, he can be fine. That's the difference. I think it's just stupid to say: "My problems are as bad as the problems of people in Africa." The difference isn't in how bad it feels, the difference is in weather you can change it. So stop whining about people trying to make you see things more positive, and start seeing things more positive, they actually are, you are a free person, free not to feel like shit and die of AIDS, be glad about it.

[Half/Dreaming]

You completely missed the point Neruo. We all have things in our lives that cause extreme pain that we can't fix. I personally believe that if you grow up in a world full of hunger and death, you don't look at it like others do because it is all you have ever known. This is a major reason why I'm joining the army. Most Americans have never experienced the problems of some other nations. We don't know what pain and suffering really are. Even poor people here are spoiled in that fashion. I want to see it first hand and change my perspective.

[Rainman]

I have the feeling that 'bob' is actually You, Rainman. Besides that: Do you know why people say: "It's not as bad as people starving in Africa?" Because it honestly is. If a kid in Africa would stfu, and look at things from the bright side, he will still die of AIDS or hunger. If 'bob', or you or whoever the fuck just shuts the fuck up, and looks at things more positive, he can be fine. That's the difference. I think it's just stupid to say: "My problems are as bad as the problems of people in Africa." The difference isn't in how bad it feels, the difference is in weather you can change it. So stop whining about people trying to make you see things more positive, and start seeing things more positive, they actually are, you are a free person, free not to feel like shit and die of AIDS, be glad about it. Holy shit was that unnecessary. Who would have thought a harmless, non-hostile post would provoke hostility. I shouldn't be surprised with the many fucking idiots on this forum. First of all, I'm quite content with my life. Those who know me personally know that I'm a very positive person with very few regrets. My post has absolutely nothing to do with me personally, which I guess I should have made clear. It was inspired by a thread I saw in the help forum about someone who apparently "hates their fucking life" and the very first reply was something along the lines of "at least you're not [x]". If you don't believe me you can go see for yourself. Second of all I think everything in the middle section of my post completely went over your head. No where did you see anyone whining about their problems. And no where did I say anything about physical wellbeing. Get your fucking facts straight before you make unnecessarily snide remarks based on idiotic assumptions. I said these things are about HAPPINESS, and I said it's not NECESSARILY true that either one is better off in any case. Notice my repeated use of the words "POTENTIAL" and "NECESSARILY". So stop trying to fucking analyze me like you know me. So what the fuck is your problem? I didn't do anything to you. You just fabricated a bunch of shit based off of a combination of things you assumed were true, and weren't, and the fact that you didn't carefully read what I said. God damn, you people are hostile by nature aren't you?

[Half/Dreaming]

I would like to point out children with divorced parents. When I was a teenager I had several discussions with friends about my parents, who sucked at the time. The ones with divorced parents always would say "You have no problems. My parents are DIVORCED". So I must ask, why do kids with divorced parents feel like the they have a monopoly on family problems?

[Rainman]

Agreed. I think it's because they need to feel like their situation matters too, even though they're the ones who always get the attention for it. My parents divorced when I was nine. But it was a peaceful and friendly divorce. It still sucked for my mom, but they are good friends now. But I never used that as a tool or an excuse or for sympathy. Both types of situations are bad and have some aspects that are worse than the other. So it's pretty pointless to say that one is worse than the other. (not directed at you, just in general) It's not the pain Olympics

[Neruo]

Holy shit was that unnecessary. Who would have thought a harmless, non-hostile post would provoke hostility. I shouldn't be surprised with the many fucking idiots on this forum. First of all, I'm quite content with my life. Those who know me personally know that I'm a very positive person with very few regrets. My post has absolutely nothing to do with me personally, which I guess I should have made clear. It was inspired by a thread I saw in the help forum about someone who apparently "hates their fucking life" and the very first reply was something along the lines of "at least you're not [x]". If you don't believe me you can go see for yourself. Second of all I think everything in the middle section of my post completely went over your head. No where did you see anyone whining about their problems. And no where did I say anything about physical wellbeing. Get your fucking facts straight before you make unnecessarily snide remarks based on idiotic assumptions. I said these things are about HAPPINESS, and I said it's not NECESSARILY true that either one is better off in any case. Notice my repeated use of the words "POTENTIAL" and "NECESSARILY". So stop trying to fucking analyze me like you know me. So what the fuck is your problem? I didn't do anything to you. You just fabricated a bunch of shit based off of a combination of things you assumed were true, and weren't, and the fact that you didn't carefully read what I said. God damn, you people are hostile by nature aren't you? Holy shit was that unnecessary. Who would have thought a harmless, slightly-edgy post would provoke rampant hostility. lol. That, and I am right. Relativating really helps if you're feeling down. There's little to relativate when you're dead from AIDS

[A Humble Sinner]

Holy shit was that unnecessary. Who would have thought a harmless, slightly-edgy post would provoke rampant hostility. lol. That, and I am right. Relativating really helps if you're feeling down. There's little to relativate when you're dead from AIDS You just completely avoided his question with a snide joke. Wow, that's sure to make him see your point. I think Rainman has a good point. You can't deny (neither is anyone doing that, I think) that children with AIDS in africa are having a shit time. But his points are still valid. Just because someone has been born into a third world country or was born into poverty, it doesn't take anything away from the fact "Bob" or whoever is having problems that are just as bad or worse. Also, from the happiness point of view, remember that happiness is relative - the happiness and sadness of an individual is based on how far away positively or negatively from the average state of your existence you are.

[ExoByte]

Heres the thing. I don't think anyone has the right to tell you someone has worse problems, at least not in that way. "Well at least you're not a starving kid in Africa!" is a stupid argument. Why? Because sure, someone else may have worse problems than you, but that doesn't change that you still have problems. A major difference though is that your problems are more easily fixed than starvin' Marvin's. If someone, as Neuro would say, would shut the shit up, but instead take some goddamn initiative and help rather than find some lame ass excuse and take the easy way out, we would have less suicides and problems in this society, but nothing is done because a lot of people are lazy and don't want to take time out of their lives to help another.

[CryoDragoon]

I agree... With both sides... I do, however, disapprove of the way it is told (Yes, that's you Neruo ). Instead of just saying 'I disagree', you throw in an insult... That's very bad... Instead of JUST saying 'if he would look at stuff more positively', you throw in the 'SHUT THE FUCK UP' part... Really, it doesn't add anything... It's just rude, and especially insulting when you've just designated the original poster as the 'bob' you've just indirectly ordered to shut the FUCK up... Both for your image as well as for the point you try to make, it's really bad... If I am insulted, I do not take the other guy seriously... If he would be so smart that he would have a valid counter-argument, then he would just present it to me, instead of insult me... No? (I do agree with you, nonetheless... It's just that you bring stuff so... rudely ) So: Stop insulting already and just discuss the topic... No matter how much the other guy is annoying you... or the points he makes... We, as civilised people, are above that level, are we? But anyway: back on topic... I agree with both sides... A relatively less-bad thing happening to someone that lives in a prosperous country CAN have quite a big effect on the person, maybe as large an effect of a relatively bad thing happening to a person in a poor country, as we (rich countries) have different values than the poorer countries. BUT!!! Even though the fact stands that while the problems of 'bob' may affect his mental health just as much as the problems of someone in a poor region in the world, it doesn't make it of equal WORTH... Starving/Dying and someone breaking up with you (for example) are NOT of equal worth, no matter how you look at it... And no matter how bad you feel about it... No matter what your NEEDS are... Losing your girlfriend and dying? EQUAL??? Depending on where you live??? Give me a break... That's saying an elephant and a mouse are of equal size depending on the distance at which you look at them... (Just to illustrate the point... And I hope you agree on this one ) Then again: Dying cannot be compared to anything, even in terms of mental health. I strongly believe that no-one can experience as much sadness you'd experience from starving or dying, when you're in fact experiencing something less bad, honestly... Where ever you live... That, or your mental health must be REALLY bad... What kind of person would feel THAT much sadness when he loses his girlfriend? We'd call him crazy, no? 'I've lost my girlfriend... I feel like the person who is dying because they live there and I live here'... That's just over-dramatisation... And utter bollocks... I find the point that 'well, at least you're not a starving kid in Africa' is not a valid argument, quite bollocks (with all due respect). Because WHY do we say that when someone's sad? It (hopefully) makes them see that the people in Africa really ARE having it more rough than we do... It DOES illustrate that his/her problems are far less worse than the problems of the dying people in Africa... Hopefully, It will make them see that his/her problems really aren't as bad as they thought they were, which in turn, will hopefully lessen their sadness, or stop it all together... The fact that it won't take the problems away, doesn't mean it will not deaden the MENTAL problems they are having... (And again... I frown upon your personal attack on Neruo... The fact that he's saying that he doesn't think bob's problems are equal to the problems the people in Africa have, has no relation to him NOT helping people when they're feeling down and out... It's totally unrelated...) So: -The Influence on Mental Health might be the same, depending on the problems and where you live. -The problems themselves are universal... Dying and losing your girlfriend just ISN'T equal, no matter how you look at it... No matter where you live... And please... No more insults or personal attacks. No more remarks that are clearly negatively toned, and which are aimed for an other debater... We are civilised, and are above that attitude... I actually find it ironic that you guys do that... Especially when talking about the Oh so big influences such problems and remarks may have on our mental health :p... Peace! -CD

[Rainman]

Starving/Dying and someone breaking up with you (for example) are NOT of equal worth, no matter how you look at it... And no matter how bad you feel about it... No matter what your NEEDS are... Losing your girlfriend and dying? EQUAL??? Depending on where you live??? Give me a break... That's saying an elephant and a mouse are of equal size depending on the distance at which you look at them... (Just to illustrate the point... And I hope you agree on this one ) Sigh...this post relates scenarios on an EMOTIONAL LEVEL only. I've said this... Even so, in MANY cultures, death is looked at as a good thing. (Do your research before you insult me this time Neuro). So I suppose we could extend this to physical wellbeing as well. Death is welcomed, especially given these living situations. So if Bob had based his entire state of happiness on people he cares about such as a girlfriend, and he lost them, it would devastate him, thus massively bringing down his quality of life. However, if Raul is a poor kid living in a poorly constructed hut, has his whole family who support and love one another, have (limited, and shitty) food, but food nonetheless, even if only enough to keep them barely alive, and has water, as nasty as it is, it's around, then that kid has the potential to be much happier than Bob. How? Because Raul is used to that CONTEXT of LIFE. That's all he's ever known, and ever will know, so he's used to it, and that's all Bob has ever known and he's used to it, so to him, the starving Raul is not relative. So lets give Raul AIDS. Ok now Raul has AIDS. Here's the first flaw. Would he know he had AIDS? Hell no. AIDS is a passive disease. Many many many people don't even know the have it until it gets into the very late stages. So basically Raul would get sick one day, and die from a cold or something soon after. In YOUR context of life, and through YOUR eyes, death is worse. That's what you've been taught, that's what your subconscious knows. But to people like him for all you know, death could be an escape. Most people in those countries are quite religious, and look at death in a different way than you do. It would be different if Raul came to live in America for a year and then had to go back the way he was. Then there's no way in hell that he could feel emotionally better than Bob. But that's not what we're talking about. Emotional wellbeing my friends. This is the problem with societies that are more advanced. You only look at situations based on how YOUR LIFE is. Neuro don't pretend like your first post was a joke. It was completely random, blatant hostility. At least my post was in response to how ignorant and snide yours was. And still in neither of your posts do you demonstrate that you understand...ANYTHING about psychology or let alone anything outside of YOUR understanding of life. Of course if you had to switch places with a starving kid from Africa your life would suck, and their life would be awesome. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about switching places, because that's a different kind of perspective that's outside of their own context. I'm talking about context of life on an INDIVIDUAL basis, which I thought I made clear....twice, yet instead of paying attention to the information contained (again), you pay attention to the first sentence and nothing more. I hope that your third post (if there is one) will display some of your intelligence that I know you have because I've read other posts by you, instead of just blatently antagonizing me for no reason. Instead of just saying that you're right, how about argue intelligently. I can back my argument, can you?

[TheUncanny]

Happiness is relative in the sense that its the product of weighing ones desires (or "needs") against what that person actually has. Its like a balancing act. The more you want/need/crave, the more it is going to take to make you happy. The less you want/need/crave, the less it takes to make you happy. In third world countries, there is no doubt in my mind that they live much simpler lives, meaning it probably takes less for them to be happy (the bare essentials may be enough in most cases). But here in the US, it probably takes much more for people to have that same relative level of happiness because of the materialistic society we live in (houses, cars, designer clothes, electronics, good looks, etc). Suffering is the product of wanting/needing/craving more than what you have. Thus, the greater the gap between what you "require" and what you actually have, the greater your suffering is going to be. Similarly, the lesser the gap between what you "require" and what you actually have, the less the suffering. Its all relative to what you have and what you "require" to be happy. What people don't seem to know is that, though they may have little-to-no control over what they have...they can control what they "require" to be happy. It takes a lot of intrapersonal work, but it can be done. This makes happiness something you can control, regardless of your situation. But of course, no one said it was easy.

[Neruo]

Okay, since like every person since my post has said something about my way of posting, I might actually try to put down my viewpoint... IN A POLITE WAY! :0 Yes. Shocking. I guess I was a bit rude. Maybe I am too much used to conversations that go no-where, like in the R/S, and I see humour as the only thing gainable from 96% of the discussions there, by being rude. However, I guess I forgot that in Philosophy, you often can have useful discussions, where both sides learn something and become more thoughtful of how other people work. At least, if you don't flame them SO! I also agree with both points actually. Yes, happiness is extremely relative. (Actually, don't more people kill themselves in America/Europe than in Africa? Okay, kind of random, but still.) It is pretty hard to determine or the suffering of a kid dieing of AIDS and Hunger in Africa is worse or less worse than the suffering of a kid in -lets say- America, that is on the verge of suicide, yet has all the food, shelter, clothing and health it can want. So if you look at it from That side, "at least you're not a kid in Africa" is indeed a pointless argument. However, is a remark wrong if it is indeed a stupid remark, but meant well? I sometimes try to cheer people up, and I say: "it could be worse" with sincerity. I mean it, and I also mean that I want them to feel better. I don't blame anyone for saying it. Is it as hard to put yourself into the shoes of a deeply unhappy western person, with social problems, than to put yourself into the shoes of a little, boney, starving kid with 3rd degree burns on his face (or something like that)? I would say the suffering of a African unicef-commercial kid is far more clear, and thereby mistaken for being more intense. Basically, I am just saying what everyone has already said. Point being: It isn't always a stupid remark, unless if the person that says it doesn't mean it (mean to make the person feel better). However, it would be nice to know or it Helps people or not, since that is the Goal of saying "at least you are not a kid in Africa". (Unless if you are saying it in a "don't complain" way, but then you're just an asshole I guess. Actually, I never meant "shut the fuck up" in a negative way. I actually just meant "Chill out, look at things positively". I don't see what is negative about that.). And if you know a person doesn't feel better if you say "at least you're not a starving kid", than you are just being a bit of an asshole, if you still say it. Anyhow, I don't know, if it helps some people relativate their problems, that's great. However, some people just can't comapair their "lesser" (according to other people) problems with other people's "worse" problems, because they aren't those people, and their problems feel, and thus are, as serious as can get. In that case, I guess one should try to make the sad person feel better in another way. That's about what I think. Actually, I don't think I really disagree with people here. I just used a bit of filthy language, and kind of needlessly attacked someone. Well... it has sparked the conversation, didn't it? : ) Peace out! ~Neruo

[Rainman]

Damn that was a turnaround if I've ever seen one, Neruo On that note, I admit that my flame in response to yours was also entirely unnecessary and I apologize. I understand what you're saying now, thanks for clearing it up. And I must agree with you on that point. People often abuse that phrase as a way to get people to stop complaining, but indeed it can be used positively. All I'm saying is that it's not always true. However! I think the way you are using it is by trying to get the person suffering (Bob) to look at his life from the PERSPECTIVE of a dying kid in africa with AIDS, in which case you would be correct, it would be no comparison that Bob's life is better. But remember my rungs on a ladder deal. If you take a step back and look at the entire ladder, you're right. Overall, Bob is way higher up than a dying kid in india. But look at their situations to scale, it's more likely that dying kid is more able to be happy. I really like the way Ethen looked at it, in terms of wants and core needs. A dying kid is more likely to become happy with what we consider the smallest things, and that's because he does not have the ability to take a step back and look at the whole ladder (which in his case is a good thing, because he'd become discouraged). If I build a house for 6 families to live in together, we folks in the middle of the ladder would complain, because of lack of room. But those folks on the bottom of the ladder would be extremely appreciative of it because of what little they have, and are used to having. However having a house would make them slightly more prone to realizing how bad their life really is on the whole.

[blade5x]

I agree - it's all about perspective. The only disadvantage for that starving kid is he doesn't know what he is missing out on - and that's not too bad from his point of view. When you are in a predicament, and someone says "at least you are not x" - when does that ever help? Does it solve your problem? The only time those would have meaning to me are right now for example, in a completely neutral state, where I can really think about that statement and appreciate what I have around me - not when I'm angry. But for people to say to try to "cheer you up" when you have a problem is... If anything... when it's used in a harsh tone where someone is almost disgusted at you for being angry - then it really, really pisses me off even more. But if it's honestly used as sympathetic words when the other person really has no advice for you, then fine, it might make me feel a tiny bit better. It's not when it's used, it's how it used IMO. Just my 2 cents

[SKA]

Yeah I hate it when people try to relativate my problems and hush me by telling me how much worse it could have been. I tend to think of how much better it could have been, but then again I can put my own problems in perspective by looking at my own past problems, how I overcame them no matter how impossible the odds seemed. With that knowledge I have all confidence I'll make it through my current problem. I don't need someone to tell me that I should be happy not to be a starving kid in India. Yeah that's worse, but it doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.