"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
We use the expression to justify staying with something familiar, even when we know it is bad for us. A difficult relationship, an unpleasant job, a dysfunctional environment, or a situation we have simply become accustomed to.
The reasoning seems sensible.
At least you know what you're dealing with.
But there is a flaw hidden inside the saying.
If the devil you know is the only devil you have ever known, how can you possibly know that the unknown one is worse?
You cannot.
You are not comparing two realities. You are comparing one reality with an assumption.
The familiar may feel safer simply because we understand its rules. We know where the problems are, what to expect, and how to navigate them. The unknown, by contrast, contains uncertainty, and uncertainty often feels more threatening than something we already know to be harmful.
But familiarity is not the same as safety.
A person can remain in an unhealthy relationship because at least they know what to expect. Someone can stay in an unfulfilling career because leaving would mean entering unfamiliar territory. A person can tolerate an unhappy life because changing it introduces uncertainty.
Sometimes we confuse the discomfort of the unknown with evidence that the unknown is worse.
Perhaps the greater danger is not choosing the wrong alternative.
It is allowing familiarity to convince us that there is no better alternative.
You may discover that the unknown devil is worse.
You may discover that there is no devil at all.
You may even discover something you never imagined was possible.
Perhaps the wiser question is not:
"Is the devil I know better?"
It is:
"What evidence do I have that the unknown is worse?"
Because sometimes the only thing keeping us loyal to a bad situation is the fact that we have become familiar with it.
Familiarity can tell you what you know, it cannot tell you what you are missing.