May 7, 2025. Don't argue with idiots, dominate them.
Over the past few months pursuing my research and working on various projects, I've encountered a pattern that's becoming increasingly clear in my interactions. Some conversations are fundamentally pointless. You explain something carefully, provide evidence, lay out logical reasoning, and the person across from you simply doesn't process any of it. They repeat the same points you've already addressed. They change the subject when cornered. They take offense at factual corrections. Their minds are locked, not by intellectual limitation, but by choice.
This consistent pattern has forced me to reconsider how I approach these interactions entirely.
Let me be clear about what I mean by "idiots" since the word can be misunderstood.
I'm not talking about people with cognitive disabilities or those who simply have different educational backgrounds.
I'm talking about willful ignorance - people who actively resist understanding, who prefer comfortable falsehoods over uncomfortable truths, who engage not to learn but to win.
These people exist at every level of society, from street corners to corporate boardrooms to academic institutions.
Their defining characteristic isn't IQ but a peculiar kind of stubbornness that makes actual dialogue impossible.
Intelligence isn't binary; it's complex and multifaceted.
But there's a specific type of interaction that becomes immediately recognizable once you've experienced it enough times.
I wasted countless hours during my various projects trying to explain complex concepts to people who had already decided not to understand.
I would carefully break down engineering principles, resource limitations, or potential pathways forward.
They would nod along, then immediately revert to fundamentally misunderstanding everything I had just explained.
At first, I blamed myself.
Maybe I wasn't explaining things clearly enough.
Maybe I needed better examples, simpler language, more patience.
But eventually I recognized the pattern: some people simply don't want to understand.
They've made a prior decision about what they'll accept as true, and no amount of evidence or reasoning will shift that position.
Arguing with these people is like trying to fill a cup with a hole in the bottom. No matter how much insight you pour in, it drains away immediately. No matter how carefully you structure your points, they never stick. No matter how patiently you address objections, the same objections return moments later as if your response never happened. The conversation loops endlessly, becoming a bizarre form of performance art rather than actual communication. You find yourself explaining the same concept for the fifth time, wondering if you've somehow entered a time loop where your previous explanations never happened. It's a peculiar form of madness that can make you question your own sanity if you don't recognize it for what it is.
The standard advice is "don't argue with idiots - they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
This advice in my opinion is half right.
Don't argue with them, certainly.
But simply avoiding these people isn't always possible, especially when they occupy positions of influence or authority. Sometimes you need to get things done despite their presence.
This is where the second part comes in:
dominate them.
Create systems and approaches that work around their limitations rather than repeatedly crashing against them.
Once you recognize you're dealing with someone who fundamentally refuses to engage with reality on its own terms, you need to shift strategies entirely.
I don't mean dominate in an aggressive or confrontational way. I mean reshape the interaction entirely. Stop trying to convince them. Stop hoping they'll suddenly understand. Stop expecting rational engagement. Instead, recognize the situation for what it is and adapt accordingly.
This requires a certain kind of intellectual humility - accepting that you cannot change how someone else's mind works, only how you interact with it. It means letting go of the gratification that comes from shared understanding and instead focusing on practical outcomes. It means working with reality as it is, not as you wish it to be.
In practical terms, this might mean documenting everything in writing so they can't later claim you never explained something. It might mean bringing neutral third parties into conversations as witnesses. It might mean carefully structuring choices so they automatically select the option you prefer without realizing they're being guided. It might mean letting them believe they've won a meaningless point while you secure what actually matters. It might mean creating social or institutional pressure that makes their cooperation the path of least resistance for them.
All of these approaches recognize and work with the limitations you're facing rather than repeatedly and futilely trying to overcome them through pure reasoning.
During my final months working on previous projects, I began implementing this approach with certain stakeholders. Rather than trying to get them to understand complex technical constraints, I would frame the conversation entirely differently. "Option A costs X and delivers Y. Option B costs significantly more and delivers roughly the same result. Which do you prefer?" The technical details that they refused to understand became irrelevant. The conversation shifted to outcomes they could grasp.
By changing the structure of the interaction, I could get productive results without needing them to understand the underlying complexities that they had repeatedly demonstrated they would not engage with.
This approach requires letting go of your ego.
You have to accept that they'll never acknowledge your expertise or insight.
They'll never say "you were right all along."
They'll never have that moment of clarity where they finally understand what you've been trying to explain.
You have to be comfortable knowing that you understand the situation while they don't, without needing them to recognize it.
This can be particularly challenging for those of us who value knowledge and rational discourse.
We want the satisfaction of shared understanding.
We want the validation of having our expertise recognized.
But with certain people, that simply isn't going to happen, and continuing to seek it only leads to frustration and wasted energy.
It also requires strategic thinking. Identify what you actually need from the interaction.
Is it their approval on a specific decision?
Their signature on a document?
Their non-interference with your work?
Their connections or resources?
Once you've isolated the specific value they provide, you can design interactions that deliver that value without getting trapped in pointless debates.
This is essentially a form of harm reduction - minimizing the damage their inability to engage rationally could cause to your work or goals. It means being very clear about what matters and what doesn't, and letting go of the things that don't materially affect your ability to make progress.
Some will read this and think it sounds manipulative.
Perhaps it is, in a technical sense.
But consider the alternative:
endless unproductive arguments,
wasted energy,
growing frustration,
and ultimately, failure to achieve what matters.
When someone refuses to engage with reality on its own terms, trying to force them through pure reasoning becomes its own form of folly.
You're not manipulating them into doing something against their interests; you're finding ways to align their behavior with actual reality despite their resistance to understanding it.
You're creating a structure where their limitations don't prevent progress.
In many ways, it's the most compassionate approach - you're not demanding they become something they're not; you're finding ways to work productively with who they actually are.
Since shifting my approach to research and independent work, I've applied this strategy more consistently. When I encounter someone who demonstrates this pattern of willful ignorance, I no longer spend hours trying to make them understand.
I identify what I need from them, create an interaction structure that delivers it with minimal friction, and move on with my work.
The result has been more progress with less frustration.
I've been able to focus my energy on people who can engage meaningfully, on problems that can be solved, on work that actually matters.
The relief that comes with this shift in approach is immense - suddenly interactions that were previously maddening become merely administrative challenges to be solved.
This doesn't mean writing people off permanently.
Some are simply having a bad day or are triggered by particular topics.
Give people chances to demonstrate they can engage meaningfully.
Pay attention to patterns rather than isolated incidents.
But when someone repeatedly shows you they're more interested in winning arguments than understanding reality, believe them the first time.
Your time and mental energy are too valuable to waste on people who have decided in advance not to understand.
There are too many important problems to solve, too many meaningful relationships to cultivate, too much knowledge to discover to spend your limited resources on interactions that can't possibly bear fruit.
As I continue my research and building work, I've become even more protective of my cognitive resources.
Every hour spent in circular arguments with someone who refuses to understand is an hour not spent advancing knowledge or building something valuable.
We all have limited time and energy.
Spending it wisely means recognizing when dialogue is possible and when it's simply performance.
It means being honest about the nature of the interactions you're engaging in and making conscious choices about where to invest your finite resources.
In many ways, I believe this is the essence of maturity - not trying to change what cannot be changed, but instead working effectively with reality as it actually exists.
The world we're building requires clear thinking and efficient collaboration.
It requires people who can update their understanding when presented with new information.
It requires genuine dialogue rather than rhetorical games.
By refusing to engage in pointless arguments and instead creating structures that work despite others' limitations, we can focus our energy on what actually matters: solving problems and building better systems.
The greatest productivity hack isn't a tool or technique but the wisdom to know when to engage and when to redirect.
The greatest time-saver isn't faster work but avoiding wasted work entirely.
Don't waste your time arguing with idiots. Dominate the interaction by changing its fundamental structure. Then get back to work on what matters. Life is too short and the challenges we face too important to spend precious time and energy on interactions that cannot possibly lead to meaningful progress. This isn't about looking down on others or dismissing them. It's about respecting reality enough to work with it rather than against it. It's about honoring your own time and talents enough to use them where they can actually make a difference. It's about the humility to accept what cannot be changed and the wisdom to focus on what can.