# Brandolini's law

A.k.a. **bullshit asymmetry principle**

> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.

It is a very succinct version of what one can feel even physically when faced with piles of crap people occasionally dump in discussions, especially on Intertubes. The crap is often even produced unwittingly and with honest, if misguided intentions (e.g., I am smarter then you, therefore I must be right - many really believe that, so there's not really any ill intent in arguing that way). Yet, the stuff still remains just that - a pile of dung.

Further, the corresponding [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law) adds the Lopatnikov's version:

> If the text of each phrase requires a paragraph (to disprove), each paragraph - a section, each section - a chapter, and each chapter - a book, the whole text becomes effectively irrefutable and, therefore, acquires features of truthfulness. _I define such truthfulness as transcendental._

In the past my younger and in the art of bullshit fighting less experienced self tried to push against this, only to always end up exhausted and frustrated. Now I just walk away. It's not a satisfactory outcome, as the bullshitter gets their way, but it's at least productive - as in not preventing my own further productive moves. Emotionally, I simply accept that in the long-term non-bullshit prevails - simply because **_reality has a weight and a vast momentum. It moves slowly, but you don't get to stop it. You can slow it down with vast magnitudes of energy, but never for too long._**

If in the discussion I was right, the reality will eventually prevail and whether the bullshitter learns about it or not does not matter a zilch. What matters is whether I learn something new or not. If I was wrong myself (which happens a lot!), by keeping my mind open, sooner or later, the reality (or a series of other discussions) will fix my own opinions. But I will avoid one thing: dealing with the bullshitting discussion partner. I call that a net gain.

Of course, sometimes it happens that the bullshitter crushes or harms you in the real world before the reality's truthful nature catches up (e.g., you might be actually right, but what does that matter if you are dead/in jail/lost your property/reputation/etc.). One needs defences outside of argumentation techniques to mitigate this specific risk.

And further [Gish gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop):
> [eristic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic "Eristic") technique in which a [debater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate "Debate") attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

That's what we could witness with Trump for the last few years.