We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose ideas contrad
ict our own?
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict o
urs? The speaker clainms so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.
I concede that undue discord can impede learning.Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discou
rse and debete with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our
own.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning.F
or supporting examples one need look no further than a television set.
On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningle
ss rhetorical bouts and shouting matchs, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard,
but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in ackonwleage the merits of the o
pponent's viewpoint.
Unfotunately, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battl
es only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned.
The end result is that learning is impeded. Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponent
s diasgree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate.
For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under
current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility
of evolution to begin with.
And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by deb
ating with a socialist whose view is that a centralized power should control all enconomic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. A
ssuming common ground between two rarional and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectua
l merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate.
Indeed, it is primarily through such debate that human konwledge advances, whether at the personal,
community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parent's rarionale for their seemingly oppressive rules
and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable conseque
nces.
At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures p
arents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things.
At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to underst
and the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operatio
n of a factory.
Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid
by ensuing job growth and a low unemployment rate.
Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mu
tually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its natio
nal security, its political sovereignty, the stablity of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same
rule, I concede that disagreement can impede learning.
Otherwisem, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very founda
tion upon which human knowledge advances.
Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.