We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own

1. Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning.

2. Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate.

3. However, it is through debate that human knowledge advances whether at the personal, community or global level.

观点：两个claim，分别阐述

1． 对于第一个论断"…"，admittedly，意见一致可以学到许多东西。A）意见一致可以很好的谈到一起，交流顺畅，达成共识，共同进步；持有相同观点的人，可以给我们精神上的鼓励、技术性的合作。恩格斯、马克思有着共同的追求、立场，他们伟大的友谊，相互帮助； B）即使意见一致，但知识丰富程度、教育水平、理解问题的深度也会不同，比如教授和学生，可以相互学习。

2． However，从意见相悖者那里可以学到更多的东西。A）补充自己的观点（也许从未考虑过的角度），是自己的认识更全面； B）找到自身的缺点flaws and foibles； C）例：社会主义借鉴资本主义的市场经济，找到计划经济的问题所在。

3． 对于第二个论断，虽然意见分歧会产生压力，但并不代表会阻碍学习，反而会起到促进作用。A）分歧促使一个人对自身的认识进行深入的分析与研究，使其对某一事物的认识更全面和清晰； B）正是这种压力促进了人类的进步，社会的发展，促使我们学习更多的东西，无论是我们能支持的还是反对的。

Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker daims 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 discourse and debate 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. For 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 meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles 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 opponents disagree 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 debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should control all economic activity.

Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.

At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents 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 understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability 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 rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.

---

Orignal From: We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own