Law 36 of The 48 Laws of Pow­er empha­sizes the impor­tance of strate­gic neglect to main­tain pow­er and avoid ele­vat­ing triv­ial mat­ters or minor adver­saries. When it comes to revenge, Robert Greene advis­es against react­ing to minor provo­ca­tions or irri­ta­tions, as doing so often grants them unde­served sig­nif­i­cance and valid­i­ty. Instead, demon­strat­ing indif­fer­ence or con­tempt com­mu­ni­cates strength and supe­ri­or­i­ty while pre­serv­ing ener­gy for bat­tles that tru­ly mat­ters. This approach not only dimin­ish­es the influ­ence of detrac­tors but also rein­forces one’s posi­tion of author­i­ty and com­po­sure, prov­ing that the best form of revenge is often no reac­tion at all.

The sto­ry of Pan­cho Vil­la illus­trates how atten­tion can inad­ver­tent­ly ampli­fy an adver­sary’s impor­tance. Once a cel­e­brat­ed rev­o­lu­tion­ary, Vil­la’s influ­ence had waned after a series of defeats, and he resort­ed to ban­dit­ry to reclaim his rel­e­vance. In 1916, he attacked Colum­bus, New Mex­i­co, killing sev­er­al Amer­i­cans and pro­vok­ing wide­spread out­rage. Pres­i­dent Woodrow Wil­son, pres­sured to act, launched a mas­sive mil­i­tary expe­di­tion to cap­ture Vil­la. How­ev­er, Vil­la evad­ed cap­ture, and the pub­lic­i­ty sur­round­ing the US efforts restored his image as a folk hero in Mex­i­co. This demon­strates how exces­sive reac­tions to a minor adver­sary can back­fire, ele­vat­ing their sta­tus and dimin­ish­ing the respon­der’s author­i­ty.

In con­trast, King Hen­ry VII­I’s strat­e­gy to dis­re­gard the Pope’s author­i­ty over his annul­ment exem­pli­fies the pow­er of ignor­ing oppo­si­tion to achieve one’s goals. When denied per­mis­sion to divorce Cather­ine of Aragon, Hen­ry cir­cum­vent­ed the Vat­i­can entire­ly by estab­lish­ing the Church of Eng­land, grant­i­ng him­self the pow­er to annul his own mar­riage. This deci­sive move not only ren­dered the Pope irrel­e­vant but also cement­ed Hen­ry’s con­trol over reli­gious and polit­i­cal mat­ters in Eng­land. By refus­ing to engage direct­ly with his oppo­si­tion, Hen­ry avoid­ed pro­longed con­flict and demon­strat­ed his sov­er­eign­ty.

Greene under­scores a key para­dox in human behav­ior: the more one pur­sues or engages with a prob­lem, the more elu­sive and for­mi­da­ble it becomes. Obsess­ing over small irri­ta­tions or minor ene­mies sig­nals inse­cu­ri­ty and grants them more pow­er than they deserve. By con­trast, ignor­ing or show­ing dis­dain for these chal­lenges robs them of their abil­i­ty to pro­voke a mean­ing­ful response. Indif­fer­ence con­veys con­fi­dence, cre­at­ing the per­cep­tion of invul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and leav­ing adver­saries pow­er­less to dis­rupt one’s focus or plans.

This law also advis­es cau­tion in deal­ing with crit­i­cism or minor con­tro­ver­sies. Address­ing every cri­tique or com­plaint not only con­sumes valu­able ener­gy but also risks val­i­dat­ing detrac­tors by acknowl­edg­ing their argu­ments. The “Tiny Wound” anal­o­gy cap­tures this idea: a minor wound, if con­stant­ly scratched, can fes­ter and grow into a seri­ous prob­lem, where­as leav­ing it alone allows it to heal nat­u­ral­ly. Like­wise, minor provo­ca­tions often dis­si­pate when met with silence or indif­fer­ence, while exces­sive atten­tion mag­ni­fies their impact and pro­longs their pres­ence.

The chap­ter fur­ther explores the con­se­quences of ignor­ing triv­ial con­flicts ver­sus engag­ing with them. When left unac­knowl­edged, crit­ics or minor adver­saries are forced to esca­late their actions in des­per­a­tion, often expos­ing their weak­ness­es or self-destruc­t­ing in the process. On the oth­er hand, respond­ing to every provo­ca­tion dimin­ish­es one’s sta­tus, mak­ing the adver­sary appear more sig­nif­i­cant and capa­ble than they tru­ly are. This prin­ci­ple holds true across var­i­ous domains, from pol­i­tics to per­son­al rela­tion­ships, where restraint often proves to be the most effec­tive strat­e­gy.

Mod­ern exam­ples of this prin­ci­ple can be seen in pub­lic rela­tions and lead­er­ship. Promi­nent fig­ures who refuse to engage with minor con­tro­ver­sies often project an image of com­po­sure and focus, where­as those who respond defen­sive­ly risk appear­ing vul­ner­a­ble or inse­cure. For instance, in the world of enter­tain­ment, celebri­ties who ignore pet­ty tabloid sto­ries tend to main­tain their mys­tique and cred­i­bil­i­ty, while those who pub­licly refute rumors can inad­ver­tent­ly ampli­fy them.

In con­clu­sion, Law 36 teach­es the val­ue of restraint and the art of selec­tive engage­ment. By refus­ing to react to triv­ial provo­ca­tions or minor irri­tants, one pre­serves their ener­gy, main­tains their dig­ni­ty, and ensures that their focus remains on mean­ing­ful objec­tives. This law serves as a reminder that some­times, the most pow­er­ful response is no response, allow­ing adver­saries or issues to fade into irrel­e­vance. Mas­ter­ing the abil­i­ty to pri­or­i­tize bat­tles and ignore dis­trac­tions is a hall­mark of effec­tive lead­er­ship and endur­ing influ­ence.