They were three friends. They believed discourses and arguments are what bound them together for long. One day, she began the conversation. She spoke about what makes feelings and how tough it is to remain emotionally stable. He countered it and brought gender dynamics into picture. The conversation began rupturing, just like the default initiation phase of an argument. She felt offended and fired back the modern dynamics of women empowerment. He went defensive and justified that gender would always remain the same, and that somethings are genetic. Too hard pressed to prove the merit of her point, she brought in the nature-nurture conflict. The boy went back in the reel and stressed that the discussion was on emotional stability and related that to the effects of nature. The third person observed with all attention to detail.

She started again and wanted to prove her point through example. She said arguments lead to emotional instability and that the boy was experiencing it. This time, the boy felt offended and got back to her. He said, it could the provocative instinct which leads to emotional instability. She cut it there as he tried to elaborate and said, it in fact could be the incompetence to deal with tough questions that causes emotional instability. He said it is about being able to ask the right question is what brings stability. She said right question is a relative concept. He went back explaining questions as a result of introspection and that they are a result of one’s own thoughts. She said, mind should not be driving the heart, and added that it is precisely the reason why the boy was losing his stability. The boy could not accept it there and stressed a need for logic. That became another example for her. Just as she was about to utter, the third person observing all stepped in and said:

“I” is the problem. Let us go beyond this.

Having a brain to think is not necessarily being Intellectual.