In real life, not forum. For example, you have been paired with an idiot by your employer and instructed to work together with to accomplish a task as a team.
I usually try to:
1. Listen to their idea, confirm that it's stupid, explain why their idea will not work, and why my idea will, and if necessary, take one step back and explain exactly what the problem is and make sure they have a grasp of that first. If they don't have a grasp, I explain it another way, and another, until I realize they are never going to get it, so skip to step 3.
2. Find diplomatic ways to blow smoke and convince them that they are "right" (they aren't) but due to these "abnormal circumstances", only this solution will work. If that doesn't work, proceed to step 3.
3. Exit the realm of socially normal behavior and simply state that my idea will be the idea which we will be perusing. For particularly strong willed idiots this doesn't work. In that case, or possibly from the beginning if the time constraints and/or consequences for failure are forgiving, then I will simply let the idiot run the show and learn (probably not) from the inevitable mistakes along the way.
Now, I probably sound like a real A-hole right about now. I would just like to note, that I'm a humble guy and I always listen, even to the ideas of idiots, and especially to intelligent people. When I suspect someone has more experience and/or is smarter than me, I'm all ears and no mouth, even if I don't personally like them. I don't label people as idiots without having given them multiple chances to prove themselves otherwise. These things I've said only apply to confirmed idiots.
I am curious how you guys handle situations like this. Would you simply dominate the situation or ask the supervisor diplomatically for a different partner? Refuse to work with the idiot? Call the idiot an idiot? Where I'm having trouble is after step 3, with a strong willed idiot, and unforgiving restraints.
I usually try to:
1. Listen to their idea, confirm that it's stupid, explain why their idea will not work, and why my idea will, and if necessary, take one step back and explain exactly what the problem is and make sure they have a grasp of that first. If they don't have a grasp, I explain it another way, and another, until I realize they are never going to get it, so skip to step 3.
2. Find diplomatic ways to blow smoke and convince them that they are "right" (they aren't) but due to these "abnormal circumstances", only this solution will work. If that doesn't work, proceed to step 3.
3. Exit the realm of socially normal behavior and simply state that my idea will be the idea which we will be perusing. For particularly strong willed idiots this doesn't work. In that case, or possibly from the beginning if the time constraints and/or consequences for failure are forgiving, then I will simply let the idiot run the show and learn (probably not) from the inevitable mistakes along the way.
Now, I probably sound like a real A-hole right about now. I would just like to note, that I'm a humble guy and I always listen, even to the ideas of idiots, and especially to intelligent people. When I suspect someone has more experience and/or is smarter than me, I'm all ears and no mouth, even if I don't personally like them. I don't label people as idiots without having given them multiple chances to prove themselves otherwise. These things I've said only apply to confirmed idiots.
I am curious how you guys handle situations like this. Would you simply dominate the situation or ask the supervisor diplomatically for a different partner? Refuse to work with the idiot? Call the idiot an idiot? Where I'm having trouble is after step 3, with a strong willed idiot, and unforgiving restraints.