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

In asserting that we can learn more from people who share our views than people who oppose our views, the author dismisses the benefits and importance of disagreement and debate. However, this is not to deny that we can also learn from common views. In reality, whether we can learn more from common or opposing views is contingent on a lot of factors. And in general, I’m inclined to side with the latter – debate fosters progress.

It is true that people can learn from common views, especially the ones with fine distinctions. Imagine a political party in which the members share the same broad views of how to better the society yet differ a little in the exact approaches. Through discussion, they can complement each other and come up with a more thoughtful plan easily. But being swamped with common views can also be dangerous in two aspects. First, without contrasting opinions, people tend to overlook the defects in their views and gradually become complacent due to lack of doubts. Moreover, people won’t question whether their ideas are fundamentally right or wrong since there’s no one challenging them. To make it worse, these two potential threats often go hand in hand, which can be exemplified by the Nazi Germany and other authoritarian countries. Therefore, though people can learn from common views, the threats should not be discounted.

On the other hand, debating with people who have opposing views, though gruelling sometimes, is a precious opportunity to gain a more profound understanding of the topic in debate. Now imagine we are discussing with an opposite party in terms of solving a particular problem. In defending our own views, we have to glean enough supporting evidence and look for potential loopholes that may be spotted and attacked, thereby reinforcing the persuasiveness of our argument. In rebutting the opposite, we are forced to listen carefully to a different approach to identify the flaws in their argument, which may turn out to be a much better solution. Whatever the results are, win or lose or tie, both parties will understand the topic better by realizing two facts – the solutions they have are not perfect and there are alternative approaches – and thus precluding the two potential threats mentioned above.

More importantly, progress forms during the debate. By discussing rigorously over different ideas, the one of real value prevails. The process may be time-consuming and stressful but the benefit it brings will manifest itself in the long term in almost all fields. In reality, to lay the foundation for debate, many countries deliberately introduce two-party or multi-party systems. For another example, any progress in the academic world is basically built on debates among disparate hypotheses.

Yet there are some scenarios where people actually can’t learn from contrasting views. For one, discussion between people who have irreconcilable beliefs, for example, atheists and Christians, is pointless. For another, people who are obstinate about their own opinions are unwilling to accept opposing views, no matter how compelling they are. On the contrary, people who are susceptible to others’ opinions are only too willing to give up their grounds even if they are right. But all of these are rare cases and thus cannot undermine the importance of leaving room for contrasting views.

All things considered, I hold the opinion that people can learn more from opposing views instead of common views because conformity may lead to complacency and even wrongdoing while debate, though gruelling or futile sometimes, is indispensable in the development of our society.