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 disagree

Knowledge can be absorbed in countless number of ways, from inactively at schools and educational institutions to actively by using free-of-charge online sources (YouTube, forums, and so forth). People to have a cohort to share his/her ideas is also a valuable way of exchanging wisdom. The prompt recommends that they will learn more when surrounded by the like-minds, rather than those opposite from them due to the cause of stress from disagreement. Personally, the writer cannot totally align with this claim; and she believes that the more open-minded people are, the more they can learn, regardless of perspectives. This belief will be supported by the two following points.

To begin, it is agreeable that a network of people who share the same views would bring tremendous benefit to an individual. Each factor within such network can be considered as a source of information, by sharing and absorbing, one’s understanding can be deepened and widened along the way. For instance, the presence of clubs at high schools and universities is the simplest concept of “learning from people whose views we share”. They are associations of persons for some common objects usually jointly supported and meeting periodically. With such meetings, students participate in workshops sharing and learning more about their concerned matters, which sometimes cannot be found in classes. To be more specific, while macroeconomics lectures offer academic explanation and formula for the movement of the economy’s macro picture, members of an economics club chaired by enthusiastic students would gather and analyze the 2008 Financial Crisis via the movie “Margin Call”. To be able to thoroughly view an event via a movie, these students work together to link lessons taught on classes with related scenes, then verify the trustworthy of given information and gauge the preciseness of applied formula. During such process, the action of exchanging ideas emerged, new technical argots can be realistically explained, a member’s view will be supplemented by others and vice versa. Eventually, club’s members found themselves being able to comprehend the lecture in a practical way, and may at some points gain insights about the realistic finance profession. Thus, having a common ground of ideas helps people to dive deeper into what they have known and learn more about what they do not.

In contrast, if there is a network of opposite ideas, can a person still learn as much as above? The answer is yes. Opposition would also broaden one’s mindset by putting his/her critical thinking on test. For instance, in recent years, the “Go Green” business made huge impact on general spending behavior by forming consumers’ habit in considering whether a product is eco-friendly or “green” enough or not, making them feel like they are contributing part of the spending on alleviating environmental problems. At first glance, this trend seems to be healthy and appraised by majority of people, hardy anyone would against this goodwill of improving the environment by introducing products made of recycling or sustainable materials. However, The Economist has publicly against this business trend and directly criticized that it only generates excessive demand and spurs consumerism, and is not environmentally friendly at all. They argued that initial “green” ingredients are purely used as alternative terms to promote and sale products, what really matter are fossil fuel-intensive production chains, which are getting even worse as to treat such “green” inputs. Following, many other reports have shown within the nearest 10 years, via eco-front activities, the world has success in raising the general GDP, and so does the carbon footprint, skyrocketed for almost 3 times. The journal concluded that being responsible for the surrounding environment is highly appreciated, but only with full awareness of following butterfly effects, can the goal of approaching zero carbon emission be archived. As can be seen, The Economist challenged “pro-green” consumers with solid evidence of the hidden ugly truth that most of them have not yet been aware of, and required them to put the long appraised ideal on second thought. For the consumer side, listen and acknowledge this against view of point is worth the try. Not only does it help them to grasp the root of the problem, but also may generate more effective ways of saving the environment. Similarly, on large scale, there are always hidden truths or unpopular viewpoints for every things/events/phenomenon occurring on this world, and being solely depend on what he/she believe only make that person being conservative, arrogant, and narrow-minded.

Of course, differences in thinking may cause frustration at some points for involved parties; and to save time and energy, some would choose to walk away from conflicts. However, this antipathy toward disagreement starts from emotion, which is irrelevant to the fact that views are multidimensional. Isn’t that choosing to totally rely on what is perceived to be true, he/she forego a chance broaden his/her knowledge? If a person is able to accept the clash, he/she would become wiser and get further in the endless sea of knowledge.