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.

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.

Disagreement often exists when we arrange group discussion for writing a research paper; for most people, disagreement may happen in this process no matter how easy the theme is. The different attitudes toward disagreement may influence the effect of discussion. However, the disagreement likes a two-edged sword, which needs finding its benefits and drawbacks.

Nobody is indeed willing to receive counterpoints from others, which may cause diffident and stress to make us spiritless, even inhibit learning. For instance, when some people argue against our summary, we may feel embarrassed, especially when doing group speech. This uncomfortable experience affects our learning efficiency and discourages us from learning much. Nevertheless, is it possible to obviate or avoid any disagreement all the time? I believe that no one theory is absolutely correct. Those seemingly eternal rules like Newton’s mechanic theory, Einstein’s relative theory cannot escape the destiny of being revised even negatived in the future one day, let alone our research product. The assumption behind a theory always changes with the surrounding environment, leading to the conclusion’s validity loss. Plus, the most painstaking and meticulous people make some minor errors because of the cognitive limitation. Considering the nature of the disagreement, scholars need to be realistic rather than immersing in self-satisfaction.

Whether disagreements bring stress or not depends on our attitude toward it rather than itself; the different person may respond to the same difference in a contrary way. For the optimistic, to some degree, receiving diverse sounds from others is a good thing because these perspectives can make them think critically and systematically, strengthening the primitive argument and reducing the possibility of being overturned in the future. For the pessimism, any opposition, even though objective, makes them feel diffident since they misunderstand others’ counterarguments as stains of their intelligence and try to inhibit learning from others to restore their confidence. Therefore, overlooking different personal characters and merely ascribing to dissent is obviously blind.

Even if the disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning, it does not mean learning from those contradicting our views is not as much as those sharing our views. For one thing, this stress pushes us to review the unperfect reasoning process to find some ignored mistakes and motivate us to collect data or enrich knowledge once again. When we confront some difficulties in correcting, we can also ask the objector for help. In contrast, discussing with favorer relax us, but at the same time easily adhere us to a one-side view which impedes any further learning. Now, what are the possible counterpoints? Perhaps one may say that learning from the supporter is more effective than the opposition in revision. That is because the supporter is familiar with the assumption and frame of reference regarding the affirmative view to pinpoint the error’s details; simultaneously, the discommender is usually reluctant to probe deeply. However, it still cannot conceal The Claim’s irrationality, considering a good argument need to be comprehended and accepted by the public who lack professional knowledge.