Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagre

In the given Issue prompt, the author claims that people can have a higher learning curve if they stay and interact with people sharing similar views. He reasons that if people communicate with others having contradicting views, they tend to become restive and this may inhibit learning. This may not always be true. It might be true for people sharing good habits, such as non-smokers interacting a lot with each other and non-smokers having repulsive tendencies towards perennial smokers. I mostly disagree with reasoning given by the author for his claim.

The author categorically states that people have a higher chance of learning if they interact with people with whom they share common views. Well, this might not always hold true. Contrasting viewpoints can actually help a person learn better. This is because in addition to his own viewpoint, the person learns to listen and understand a view differing from his own. He may learn why the other person thinks what he thinks. The person might in fact be forced to change his own proclivity towards an idea if the contrasting view becomes more convincing. Democracy is the perfect example of why this is so much important. Of all the systems of government that have been established throughout the history of mankind, democracy has been the most successful. Why? Because it forces leaders to listen and mull over differing viewpoints and pursue to best policy possible. What a single person believes might not always be true and interacting only with those people who share the same beliefs may prove disastrous for the person on a social as well as psychological scale.

The author claims that people learn more from people with which they share common views. The author here needs to clarify what he means by “views”. Is the meaning of views about a particular habit such as smoking, drinking or is it about a viewpoint about any matter concerning our daily lives? If it concerns the latter viewpoint, then the author’s reasoning may be flawed. This is because communicating with people having opposing viewpoints increases the chances of each individual discovering error(s) in his/ her reasoning. Interacting with people having contrasting viewpoints may actually expedite learning. For instance, the governor of Reserve Bank of India has to decide whether he should pursue an economic policy of lowering the interest rates for banks(after a period of recession) or not? He strongly favors the policy as people would be able to easily avail loans and may invest it prudently. However, while discussing the feasibility of this policy, the governor realized that the market was still volatile and in the process of giving easy loans to people, this policy might actually prove calamitous for banks and may destroy them. It can be observed how people can learn much more form those with opposing views and might prove much more beneficial.

The author assumes that the answer to every question is binary. However, in most real life cases, the answer instead of being black or white, is actually in shades of grey. In most cases there might not be one perfect answer, rather a combination of fused methods for approaching the solution to a problem. One might consider the case of ISIS to understand this. ISIS truly has become the Lucifer of all terrorist organizations. Many countries in unison have tried to eliminate ISIS from its grassroots, but, they have been unsuccessful to do so. There are mainly two schools of thoughts on how the menace of ISIS should be tackled? One states that any possible means(Chemical/ Nuclear warfare) should be used to eliminate it whatever might be the collateral damage incurred. The other methodology states that in order to fight terrorists, one doesn’t necessarily need to become a terrorist. Whatever be the threat, we must not forget our principles and abide by them at all costs. Threatening civilians lives to eliminate a notorious organization would be committing a perjury. The reason is: we ourselves are committing the same grave sin because of which we vowed to eliminate ISIS. Both the views stated are correct within their own realms. One states that immediate action should be taken so that no further damage is done and the second states that the action taken should be carried out in such a way such that minimum damage occurs. Both of these are true and one cannot oppose them, however, we in most cases need to find a common ground between differing solutions and then approach a problem.

In a nutshell, the author’s claim that people learn more from those who share their own views is specious and preposterous. He has given a very weak reasoning to underscore is claim and fails to account for various other facets of what constitutes a healthy discourse and what all can be learned from people not sharing common views. He has been nebulous in describing the term “views”. Had he been more meticulous in mentioning the exact meaning of the term “view”, the Issue would have been much more approachable.