GRE essay: Do we learn the most from people whose views we share?

[Grad2009]

Do we learn the most from people whose views we share?

The speaker asserted that we learn more from the people whose ideas are in accord rather than from the people whose views contradict ours. In my opinion the statement above is relative and actually depends upon the situation and mostly on its entities. So I support as well as oppose the speaker’s claim depending upon the condition described below.

Considering, two intellectuals of the same field are in debate on some topic in which both of them have established their mastery. They could gain enormously by disagreement and the end result of their discussion may come from such a direction which they have never thought of. For example, two research students, working in a project, can find out the “missing link” with constant debate and disagreement, for which they may have searched in many irrelevant paths individually, without discussing it before. In this case, the disagreement can not impede learning.

Again, the authenticity of certain pre-established facts never attracts our attention just because of our agreement with the fact. Actually, we do not give a thought considering it as a hypothesis because nobody opposed this fact before. In this case, a firm disagreement and the insatiable quest to explain the phenomenon could reveal many untold things. Galileo and Einstien’s discoveries are two fine examples of the above fact. Galileo opposed the theory that sun is moving around the earth whereas Einstien established the fact that time and mass are not constant which were previously supposed to be so. Both theories opened up the new domains of study and we have learnt many things afterwards.

However, aside from the foregoing provisos, absence of accordance in views sometimes inhibits learning when two stubborn person fight for the establishment of their own theory. As a supporting example we can consider two neophytes are in debate with the results of their experimental analysis where both of them have come to a wrong conclusion, adamantly trying to establish their results. In this case learning has become a secondary issue.

Additionally, opposition could be intentional from one or both end for personal gain. Two engineers, working in a company where one is holding a slightly superior position than other, can oppose each other to establish their superiorities during the discussion of a probable solution of an exigent condition of the project. Here the ultimate motive is to establish the superiority and henceforth to gain the superior position, not the solution of the urgent condition.

As a conclusion, I must say that the speaker is fundamentally correct when disagreements are not meant for learning but for some other reasons, otherwise it is always a healthy practice to counter attack certain established theory for better understanding.

[Grad2009]

please rate....