The traditional method seen in philosophical writing is to not address Plato's cave directly, but rather to present an esoteric puzzle that interested minds can

The traditional method seen in philosophical writing is to not address Plato's cave directly, but rather to present an esoteric puzzle that interested minds can only solve by overcoming their own core beliefs. When facts are laid against other facts directly in a way that decoheres a belief, the tendency is simply to go find a scapegoat that will, if defeated, set things right, which plays into the hands of propagandists who will supply an endless number of such scapegoats to an audience desperately craving such, and willful misinterpretations of media to make it say an opposite meaning. The use of esotericism combats this by presenting a text that is nonsense - presenting easy conclusions contrary to facts - until it is analyzed and deduced, at which point it's too late and the contrary thought has been had. The core beliefs themselves tend to be set during adolescence, and the will of the individual to hold onto them or let them go involves a confluence of factors since they are often absorbed into identity. While you can present the puzzle, you can't stop people from gripping onto what they have as tightly as possible and sacrificing the rest of their life to do so. It's a strategy that appeals mostly towards development of elite thinking, rather than trying to sway the masses(who will continually look for easy beliefs to latch onto). For more on the topic of esoteric writing I suggest Arthur Melzer's "Philosophy Between the Lines".