| Blind men and an elephant (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.
The stories differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved.
In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, they also learn they are blind. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth. If the sighted man was deaf, he would not hear the elephant bellow. Denying something you cannot perceive ends up becoming an argument for your limitations.
Cited from WikipediaWhen I see people "defending" their specific MLM, they often ended up doing the "blind men" routine, as they basically argue that the part that they saw, experienced, or researched, is good, while refusing to concede that other people's research about the parts that s/he did NOT research / experience can also be valid.
Just like the "blind men" in the story, the "defenders" argue that whatever they had perceived is the whole truth, when they only experienced ONE FACET of the whole thing.




