comment: >
  
  No it doesn't.
  It makes you dumber because you're wasting your time arguing with dumb people.
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  It's very rare for someone to "win" a political or philosophical argument in the moment. Most "wins" come later when the information you shared or learned meets a slightly different context in a different moment and begins to make sense, even if you don't necessarily tie that epiphany back to any specific interaction, or even if there is no epiphany moment, just a slow evolution of view. >
  
  Pro tip: you can't "win" an argument. You just have to be satisficed that your point got across to the other person. >
  
  Again, it's not actually about winning. It's about learning. >
  
  No it’s about winning. >
  
  What's the prize? >
  
  The satisfaction of being, err thinking you're right? >
  
  You can beat stupid, but you don’t win >
  
  If I can point and laugh I'd consider that a win. >
  
  There’s a guy downtown who wins this way against everyone. >
  
  Six years in the Navy.
  I promise you, sometimes you have to figure out ways to explain things in a way a dumb person can understand because someone else got injured or killed. Sometimes it's just experience talking.
  "You can't make anything idiot-proof because there is always a better idiot." >
  
  
  There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.
  
  - Yosemite Park Ranger on challenges to design a bear-proof garbage can >
  
  I legitimately had an acquaintance who is an engineer (not the best) fail to open one of those trash cans, and return saying it was locked, despite us explicitly telling him how to open it ... It wasn't locked. >
  
  It's why I post on Reddit. I talk through things rather than just playing them out in my head.
  Sometimes I'm really wrong and I get my ass handed to me. That's a part of the learning process. >
  
  It's actually a lot faster learning process if you go through with things than to keep thinking about what ifs and never throwing it out there. The only issue is, getting your ass handed to you hurts a lot and therefore, not many people are willing to go through with it. >
  
  It only hurts if it's a firmly held belief. 
  If it's information processing,  my mind is malleable to evidence. 
  That's the difference. >
  
  How you handle your own feeling when you realize you are wrong too. Some people will double down, very few can handle being wrong with grace. >
  
  Not OP but I’ll be salted for about a minute that I didn’t understand/know something as well as I should have and then move on with my life >
  
  ~~I disagree but only with you calling this arguing.~~ 
  I disagree if and only if by arguing you mean a heated exchange. (Ty u/mets2016)
  In my experience, arguments are a terrible method to convince anyone of anything important. Try to imagine arguing with a 3 year old about some truth versus simply speaking the truth in their presence, without confrontation. A toddler, or a dumb person, is more likely to mimic what they respect or what vindicates their ideas and emotions than they are to admit being wrong.
  I absolutely agree that learning to explain the same concept to a variety of people in a variety of ways is an excellent way to become smarter. >
  
  I think you’re conflating 2 different meanings of arguing
  Arguing can mean either:
  
  A heated exchange
  A series of statements used to justify why your claim is true >
  
  Relevant >
  
  No it's not. >
  
  All no's are not yeses
  Is that a word? What's the plural of yes? >
  
  Yesses >
  
  Arguing with dumb people is like playing chess with a pigeon. Eventually they shit all over the chess board and strut around like they won. >
  
  Yeah, you cannot argue with people who do not understand how things work. Most of the time when you argue with dumb people you learn that they have absolutely no knowledge and have to end up teaching them. >
  
  
  and have to end up teaching them.
  
  That's kind of the whole point of this post >
  
  You get this quote from a Minecraft parkour shower thought tiktok or something? >
  
  Ludwig most likely just finished watching his latest react video >
  
  Yeah. I was reference Ludwig’s video >
  
  Ay was looking for this lol >
  
  This is why I'm big on honesty and direct communication. Sometimes I'm the dumb person, and I find that out when people let me know why my thinking is wrong. Lots of things I wouldn't understand if i wasn't willing to disagree with people. >
  
  If you can't explain something simply you don't understand it well enough >
  
  Nah. I am a lot better at understanding stuff than I am at putting it into words >
  
  I'm kinda confused by your comment.  If you really, truly, understand something you shouldn't have any issue explaining those things to others. Are you able to expand on your comment? >
  
  I've always had trouble putting into words what I'm thinking or wanting to say. I can think about the exact steps, method or explanation of a concept but when I want to say it I always fumble. It's more to do with my grasp of communication rather than my understanding of a subject. >
  
  Oh that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain. >
  
  I'm surprised with myself that I was able to get that across in a way that makes sense hah. >
  
  You did well, and in our small interaction you really didn't have any communication problem.  Maybe you just need a little more confidence?  Keep it up! >
  
  I wouldn't say that arguing does this, since arguing is more about trying to find flaws in the other person's argument while pushing yours, but teaching people who have trouble grasping abstract concepts does 100% make you not only much more proficient in the material, but also makes you seem more intelligent because you're a better communicator. >
  
  Being able to find flaws in other people's statements isn't an entirely useless skill if you have the self awareness to apply what you've learned to your own thought processes. >
  
  I don't understand this post. Someone please explain it to me. >
  
  When you argue with dumb people you learn how to argue with dumb people. >
  
  Still not gettin' it, bring it down a few more notches. >
  
  You dumb make me good at dumb >
  
  English, poindexter! I didn't go to your fancy community college. >
  
  Dumb dumb >
  
  Mostly false, because in most cases a dumb person isn’t interested in learning in an argument. They’ll just take you down to their level and beat you with experience. >
  
  Only the inexperienced will allow them to pull you down to their level. Its definitely a skill to be able hold onto your position and not let dumb/antagonistic people drag you all over into new topics or arguments. 
  I’ve seen well-meaning redditors with seemingly solid views get pulled around by a commenter coming up with straw man arguments, taking a small bit of a comment and taking it out of context to argue against, etc. and the initial commenter answering that comment as if that’s a reasonable and acceptable response in an argument. >
  
  I think it has to do with people beginning with the assumption that the person they’re speaking with is asking things in good faith, versus trying to create a gotcha moment to prop up their own biases. >
  
  One of my favorite saying is, "I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you." >
  
  lol No.
  Explaining topics that you have legitimate knowledge of to the uneducated but interested forces you to figure out new ways to explain some of those topics, which can sometimes lead to new ways of thinking about said topics (thus making you "smarter"). Arguments however usually arise with the self-righteous but uninterested -- the "dumb" people you refer to -- and so they're just a waste of your time. And in any argument there's a possibility that you will be the self-righteous but uninterested. >
  
  Who you're arguing with is entirely independent of how you're arguing. Just because the other party might as well be a fence post doesn't mean you can't do your research and form coherent argents for their own sake. >
  
  This is correct, because the argument literally isn't about changing the other persons opinion it's about everyone else judging who won that argument...which is just like anything you'd find in a debate club or whatever. You pick a position, I pick a position, we argue those positions, but who is deemed the winner is anybody who bothers to read our arguments and votes accordingly. If your goal is to completely change someone's opinion in less than a day by calling them an idiot you might wanna find a mirror and say it again. >
  
  The mark of genius. The ability to convey complex ideas to less complex individuals. >
  
  If you can explain it to a five year old, you grok. >
  
  the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else. >
  
  Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
  ~Mark Twain~ >
  
  That's assuming a person could take in new information, process it, and form a new conclusion. That's exactly what a dumb person is unable to do. >
  
  Never argue with a dumb person, they'll only bring you down to there level, then beat you with experience!! >
  
  Can’t tell if the there/their error is purposeful for this post… >
  
  Just always confused by the three 🤷🏼‍♂️ >
  
  Over there is a place.
  It is theirs by possession. 
  They 're a group of people. >
  
  Cheers. So it's two I get confused, there and their. English hey. >
  
  Parent of two and one year olds.. ”I am the smartest man alive!” >
  
  Came here to say, have kids >
  
  Richard Feynman did once say that the best way to learn about a topic is to be able to teach it to someone >
  
  I had a teacher in debate that would assign us sides we disagreed with. It always gave a good perspective of how the person you are debating sees things. I feel like yours is similar just trying to see things differently than normal and adding to your knowledge. >
  
  My way is I say "so basically" then try my best to sumarize the main points as best I can. >
  
  Teach me this power!
  When those words leave my mouth, everyone around me cringes as I launch into a minimum half hour long, barely coherent lecture on the chosen subject which bounces between ideas like a caffeinated squirrel that found my cocaine stash. >
  
  High school teachers must be the most intelligent people around lol >
  
  Lol you just stole this from the recent Ludwig TikTok time video. >
  
  It's pointless to argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. >
  
  I've always heard to never argue with a dumb person because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience >
  
  One of the best pieces of advice I've ever been given is:
  Don't argue with dumb/stupid people because they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. >
  
  Don't argue with idiots. They'll knock you down to their level and beat you with experience. >
  
  Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. >
  
  Lmao; a great shower thought but fucking terrible in real life application. >
  
  This is why teachers like group work. And every group gets a smart kid that will hopefully teach the others. >
  
  If you can't explain something simply to someone who has no prior knowledge to it.   You most likely don't have as strong an understanding of the subject as you might think.  Now there are complicated subjects and complex systems where this may not apply...but it generally holds true. >
  
  Einstein allegedly once said: "If you can't explain it to a six year old then you don't understand it yourself." >
  
  He never said that. He may have said "all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' ", which has a different meaning altogether. >
  
  Nah, it just angers me. I have better things to concern myself with than ignorant people. >
  
  I disagree. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience >
  
  Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience
  Mark Twain >
  
  You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into >
  
  Teaching is the best way to learn something.
  Explain a simple thing to a child and you'll realize how little you actually understand the thing you thought you fully understood. >
  
  The smartest people I know can explain the most complicated shit in the most simplest of ways so that my smooth brain can understand. >
  
  Explaining subjects is the best indicator to see if you understand a subject >
  
  Ladies-  “mansplaining” is when a man explains something to you >
  
  I learned to study much better in college by making myself write down IN DIFFERENT WORDS the facts and ideas in the texts instead of just high lighting and memorizing their facts. I believe you really haven't LEARNED something until you can express it correctly with your own words. >
  
  Lot of people in this comment section are mistaking ignorance for stupidity. >
  
  In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they're not. Explaining things to dumb people actually dissolves pieces of my soul. >
  
  Teaching something to someone who doesn't understand can give you a better understanding. It makes you think of the basics, that you haven't actively thought about in years, with the perspective of experience and later knowledge.
  Arguing with dumb people is purely a waste of time. They're not absorbing anything you say. They're just trying to think of a "witty" retort. If you argue politics with a MAGA person, you could lay out facts all day, and they're dismissed as "fake news." You could point out quotes from Jesus on how to treat people with love, and they'll cuss at you and cheerily beat people to death with a cross. They'll put a Jesus bumper sticker next to the most racist and sexist bumper sticker you can imagine, and have zero cognitive dissonance because they don't have enough brainpower to see any conflict. >
  
  Distilled: If you really REALLY want to understand something, teach it. Being able to apply information outside of its original context is called “transference” and it’s one of the best indications of mastery of an idea. >
  
  Reddit is horrible for this. The most reasonable thinkers usually get downvoted too :p It's hilarious >
  
  Prepares you for telling the difference and standing your ground with Intentionally disagreeable folks too >
  
  It also makes you realize the depth of what you know and what you don't know. In the end, even if other people still don't share your opinions about certain topics, you learn more about it.  
  This covers steps 2 to 4 of the Feynman Technique, which are:
  
  Learn
  Teach
  Fill the Gaps
  Simplify >
  
  Never argue with dumb people, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. >
  
  You may be able to wrestle and win with a pig... but you come out just as dirty as they are. I typically don't bother arguing with anyone unless absolutely necessary, or if it's for spectators, like here on Reddit. >
  
  Yessss so true.  You can’t actually argue using facts with dumb people.  You have to get to their level and hit ‘em where it hurts - like my dumb friend from back in HS who loves Trump but like legit is on welfare and masshealth.  I just had to tell them straight - Trump hates people like you, he would never give you the time of day, he looks down on you, you are the dirt on the bottom of his shoes or worse.  He’s playing you.  You are voting for someone who wants to take all the assistance you receive away.  
  That sorta worked - at least got them to shut up about how great he is in front of me.  None of the facts and stats that I had previously argued with were getting through. >
  
  It only makes you angry. You usually can't explain things so they'll understand. They don't want to understand. >
  
  Thinking of people as dumb isn’t super conducive to understanding >
  
  Maybe it's more constructive to discuss than argue. I think one should generally avoid arguing >
  
  That's what arguing is. An exchange of ideas in a discussion or a debate. When you want to get your point across in a discussion, you argue it. An argument isn't inherently an aggressive or hostile act. >
  
  They say true mastery of something is to be able to effectively teach someone >
  
  That still doesn't mean you need to engage in every argument you can with someone on social media in order to master something >
  
  The true test of whether or not you truly know something is whether or not you can explain it to someone who doesn’t know anything about the subject in a way they can understand. >
  
  Closely related is if you're struggling to learn something teach it.