We often encounter situations where the mantra “no pain, no gain” is invoked. Whether we’re seeking medical treatment, revitalizing a struggling business, or pursuing personal growth, we are told that things will worsen before they improve. This article explores the fallacy behind the “it’ ll-get-worse-before-it-gets-better” mindset, shedding light on how this thinking can lead us astray. Through vivid examples and critical analysis, we aim to question the validity of such claims and encourage a more discerning approach to progress.
A Vacation Gone Wrong: The Fallacy in Action
Imagine being on vacation in a foreign country, expecting to relax and enjoy the beauty of your surroundings, only to be struck by an unfamiliar ailment. This is what happened to Rolf Dobelli during his trip to Corsica. What began as mild discomfort quickly escalated into a sharp, excruciating pain that he couldn’t ignore. The pain was strange, moving through his body in waves, and though he hoped it would resolve on its own, it soon became apparent that he couldn’t wait it out any longer.
With no relief, Rolf sought medical help at a local clinic. The clinic was small and unassuming, and the doctor who greeted him seemed young and inexperienced. Despite the doctor’s systematic approach, probing various parts of his body, Rolf couldn’t shake the feeling that something was off. The examination felt aimless, leaving him wondering if the doctor understood what was happening. But he kept these thoughts to himself, unsure whether he was overreacting.
After a disjointed examination, the doctor finally handed Rolf a prescription for antibiotics and offered a cryptic statement: “It’ll get worse before it gets better.” Though the words didn’t reassure him, Rolf assumed they were part of the medical protocol to prepare patients for the unknown. He left the clinic with the prescription, hopeful yet confused, thinking that perhaps the worsening symptoms were a necessary part of the healing process.
As the days passed, the pain intensified, just as the doctor had predicted. Rolf reasoned that the worsening discomfort was a sign that the diagnosis was correct. But by the third day, the pain became unbearable, and he could no longer ignore the growing suspicion that something was seriously wrong. He called the doctor, hoping for reassurance, only to be told to increase the dosage to five pills a day and prepare for more pain. This advice only deepened his frustration and confusion.
Rolf desperately sought a second opinion from an international air ambulance service. It was then that the truth came to light: he had appendicitis. A Swiss doctor performed surgery immediately, saving his life in the process. After the operation, the doctor asked, “Why did you wait so long?”
Rolf’s answer was simple: he had trusted the doctor’s vague prognosis. The warning that “it’ll get worse before it gets better” had kept him uncertain, delaying his decision to seek the proper medical attention. It was only after Rolf realized how he had fallen victim to a fallacy. The original doctor had hidden behind a vague prediction of worsening symptoms, offering no real diagnosis or actionable treatment plan. Rolf had been misled by a convenient excuse that only prolonged his suffering and put his life at risk.
A Consultant’s Smoke and Mirrors
The “it’ll get worse before it gets better” fallacy is not confined to the world of healthcare. It finds a comfortable home in business settings, especially when it comes to consultants promising sweeping solutions to complex problems. Let’s consider a situation where a CEO, exhausted by dwindling sales, disheartened employees, and failed marketing campaigns, hires a consultant to turn things around. The consultant, who charges a premium for his services, assures the CEO that his expertise will lead to improvement—but only after a period of necessary pain.
The consultant’s analysis is both vague and superficial. He claims that the sales department lacks vision and the company’s brand is unclear. But rather than offering clear, actionable steps to address these issues, he makes broad promises that the situation will improve immediately. “Your sales will likely dip further before things turn around,” he warns. This vague timeline gives the consultant a long leash. If things worsen, he can point to his predictions as evidence of his foresight, and if, by some miracle, sales improve, he can take credit for the positive change.
The CEO, desperate for answers, buys into this rhetoric and follows the consultant’s advice. However, as time passes, the situation does not improve—in fact, it worsens. The sales team becomes even more demotivated, and profits continue to slide. Still, the consultant’s rhetoric remains the same: the measures he has put in place take time, and setbacks are part of the process.
Each year, as sales decline, the consultant repeats the same line: “The progress is in line with my predictions. These things take time.” This pattern of repeating vague assurances without delivering concrete results becomes an established rhythm. The CEO, frustrated but unsure how to proceed, continues paying the consultant for his “expertise.”
By the third year, the CEO has had enough. He fires the consultant, realizing that his vague predictions and promises of future success were nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The consultant, however, walks away unscathed, having positioned himself so that either worsening sales or unexpected improvements could be framed as confirmation of his expertise. This is the power of the “it’ll get worse before it gets better” fallacy—it provides a safety net for the consultant, allowing him to claim success regardless of the outcome.
Political Leaders and the Illusion of Necessity
The “it’ll get worse before it gets better” fallacy is not just an intellectual tool wielded by doctors or consultants—it also plays a significant role in politics. Politicians, especially those facing significant challenges or unable to enact real change, often resort to this rhetoric to control public perception. By predicting hard times and framing any adverse developments as part of a larger plan, political leaders create a narrative that absolves them of responsibility for any immediate setbacks. It’s a strategy designed to preserve their position and justify inaction.
The tactic is simple: politicians tell their citizens that the country is facing difficult times and that sacrifices must be made for the greater good. They talk about “tightening belts,” “restructuring,” and “purification,” using vague language that gives them the flexibility to avoid accountability. No clear timeline is provided, and the severity of the hardships is left open-ended. In this way, politicians create a space where the citizens can expect things to get worse before they get better, allowing the leader to take credit for any improvement. At the same time, a worsening situation can be explained away as part of the process.
This same narrative is often used in religious contexts, where suffering is a necessary precursor to ultimate redemption. In Christianity, for example, the world must first undergo destruction before the promise of heaven can be realized. Disasters, wars, and suffering are not seen as setbacks but as necessary steps in the divine plan. Believers see any worsening of the situation as confirmation of the prophecy, while any improvement is viewed as a divine gift.
Politicians and religious leaders exploit this pattern to maintain control and avoid responsibility. The rhetoric of inevitable suffering makes it easier for them to justify their actions, even when they lead to negative outcomes. It’s a tool for obfuscation, and like the consultant or the Corsican doctor, it allows those in power to escape scrutiny by framing failure as part of a necessary process.
The Confirmation Bias at Play
At the core of the “it’ll get worse before it gets better” fallacy lies a psychological phenomenon known as confirmation bias. This bias refers to the tendency to favor information confirming one’s preexisting beliefs or predictions. When a situation worsens, the person offering the vague prediction can claim that their foresight was accurate. When things unexpectedly improve, the same person can attribute the improvement to their expertise or intervention. Either way, the outcome supports their position.
This is particularly dangerous when the person making the prediction is an expert, a leader, or someone in a position of authority. They can position themselves so that they can’t lose. If things worsen, their prediction is confirmed. If they improve, it’s a result of their actions. This allows them to evade responsibility, even if their actions—or lack thereof—are directly contributing to the situation.
Confirmation bias makes it difficult for people to critically assess the situation and recognize that the “it’ll get worse before it gets better” narrative is a form of evasion. It encourages passivity in the face of problems and allows people to keep moving forward without genuinely addressing the root causes of the issues at hand. This is why it’s essential to question the validity of such statements and look for clear, tangible evidence of progress or regression.
A Cautionary Approach
So, what should you do when faced with the “it’ll get worse before it gets better” line? First and foremost, be cautious. It’s a statement that can signal a lack of understanding or an attempt to justify inaction. It’s often used by those who want to cover their tracks or avoid taking responsibility for the situation.
However, there are situations where setbacks are genuinely part of the process. Career changes, business reorganizations, and personal growth require time and effort, and short-term losses are often inevitable. But in these cases, progress is usually visible relatively quickly, and the milestones are clear. You can track whether the actions being taken have the desired effect and adjust accordingly.
In these situations, the “it’ll get worse before it gets better” narrative can be useful, but only when there are clear markers of progress. If those markers are absent, or if the situation is dragging on without improvement, then it’s time to reassess the strategy or seek alternative solutions. The key is not to blindly accept vague predictions but to demand concrete results and evidence of forward movement.
Ultimately, the “it’ll get worse before it gets better” fallacy is a tool for those who wish to obscure the truth. Whether used by doctors, consultants, or political leaders, it provides a convenient excuse for delay and inaction. Don’t be fooled by it. Instead, look for clear signs of progress and take charge of your situation rather than relying on empty reassurances.
Conclusion
The allure of “no pain, no gain” and the promise that things will worsen before they improve can be tempting. However, it is crucial to approach such claims with skepticism and critical thinking. Falling victim to the It’ll-Get-Worse-Before-It-Gets-Better Fallacy can have severe consequences in medical and other areas of life. While acknowledging that certain endeavors require time and patience, setting realistic milestones and assessing progress objectively is essential. Doing so allows us to break free from the fallacy and navigate our lives with a clearer understanding of true progress and growth. Let us heed the alarm bells and embrace a more discerning mindset to pursue success and well-being.
This article belongs to The Art of Thinking Clearly Series based on Rolf Dobelli’s book.