Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose
ideas contradict ours? The speaker aims 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 less-fair system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a 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.