Are we? This is not a rhetorical question, and definitely not a call-out. This time, it
Dhruv Raman, ASP Batch of 2019.
“Imagine this. There are 5 murderers, followed by 40 people (Group R) and 5 non-murderers, followed by 20 people (Group L). While these 60 people engage in conversations with each other, they refuse to engage with the opposite group’s leader. As a result, in interactions, the murderers are always faced with people from Group R. These people listen to their leader, hear others praising them and always find their grievances addressed. They continue to support the 5 murderers who consequently, stay in power. Both groups accuse each other of not listening to each other’s point of view. It’s 40 and 20.
A member from Group L decides to attend a talk by one of the 5 murderers. She listens patiently and in the question session, points out a glaring flaw in the murderer’s argument. The members of group R see their leader fumble, evade and get agitated. Most of them ignore it but a few of them — who’ve always followed the herd — thinks she made sense. They speak to her and maybe even listen to the non murderers. Someone, somewhere, changes their belief. It’s 39 and 21.”