This is mixing up knowledge with realization. Knowledge of other worlds is a tool to explain why some possible worlds are better than others, but knowledge doesn't have to directly play a role in why that world is better. It's only a tool for external philosophical beings to make the comparison. Beings in a hellish realm, and beings in a heavenly realm, would not have to know of each others existence for their levels of fulfillment and suffering to be different from each other (although adding the knowledge of the heavenly realm to the hellish realm would probably add insult to injury).
If, in a world where the worst thing that can happen is a stubbed toe, someone puts forth the PoE and suggests that a powerful and loving god wouldn't allow this to happen, they might have an initial point, but a proper response would be, "look, I can recover in 5 minutes from a stubbed toe. The highest pleasure is so much larger in magnitude than this suffering." and it would render the argument weak.
I disagree: if the worst thing that could happen to a person would be to stub their toe, then the person who stubs their toe is currently experiencing the worst thing that can happen to a person, therefore the argument wouldn't be weak at all by the standards of those beings. It would only be weak by our standards, and like I said: in that world, our standards wouldn't apply.
But in this world, where unbearable agony or lifelong illness are among the worst possible things, the same defense can't be said.
Of course they can: If we were to envision a world that was proportionally worse than this world (in the same proportion to ours compared to the toe stubbing world) then we could come up with a world where, say, every moment of existence involved feeling the sensation of being burned alive.
Compared to that world just about anything you can use as an example of suffering from our world would be a relatively weak example.
Adjusting to the environment is only a partial thing. People can adjust to an extent, and that's because our bodies are rather flexible due to our growing in this world. For instance, if someone joins a kickboxing club for the first time and I have to fight her, chances are, she'll be a pansy. But after a few months of rigorous training, she'll develop cardiovascular conditioning, muscular strength and endurance, and learn how to actually take a hit and hit back harder. This does not mean, however, that the scales between suffering and fulfillment are wholly relative (see example below).
Firstly, I didn't put forth the idea the argument that an omni-beneficent god is incompatible with a world that includes suffering. I specifically disclaim those sorts of positions.
Then what is your position?
To me, it seems like you're disclaiming the POE so that you can advocate the basic
premise of the POE without having to defend it.
For the rest, consider two possible environments.
In one environment, there is a child that is raised by intelligent and loving parents in a fairly stable and safe area. The child is given affection, taught values, and educated. The child encounters some obstacles, like sport injuries or some mean other children, but they learn from these minor sufferings and are happy and fulfilled in general.
In another environment, there is a child that is initially raised by parents until they are both tortured and killed, possibly even in front of the child. The child lives in poverty, without education, faces starvation, and eventually dies due to an attack from millions of multiplying microscopic biological torture devices (a virus) which are present in nature.
Going by your logic, if these children never knew of each others existence, they should have roughly the same level of suffering and fulfillment and happiness since their sensibilities should match their environment. Would you say that they do? Is one of the children more fortunate than the other, or is it totally equal?
The problem with this comparison is that if you're talking about 2 children who occupy the same planet, then each would be at least roughly aware of the possibility of something worse or better in their own world.
What I mean is the child in your first example would be aware of children who are worse off then they are, the child in the second example would be aware of people who were better off.
On the other hand, if you're talking about 2 completely different worlds: one where everyone's life is on par with the child in your first example, then that child wouldn't feel particularly fortune, happy, or fulfilled.
By the same token if the child in your second example were living in a world where all the things you listed were happening to everyone, that child wouldn't feel particularly unfortunate.
The problem with your example is that it ignores all the grades of life-quality in between.