"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."

Before entering the context, as said “Adversity always brings into the opportunity”; does this hold true for disagreement? Does disagreement could unleash the potential in learning or it only magnifies the crack between the opposition, breeds the hatred, and impede in the learning curve. I am pretty confidence, most of the crowd would conceive to the latter; as they view disagreement would bring in the disadvantages points than advantages. Today, we would delve into this issue as below.

Needless to say, the disagreement always brews into the stress and impede in the learning process. Both parties are neither seeking for the common ground nor try to listen to the opposition’s opinions, both of which are rooted out firmly in their stance and profoundly to proclaim their wisdoms are indeed the most constructive and workable in the argument. If that is the case, six-core would not be emerging from the Chipset market, this chipset is primarily developed by engineers in Bangalore, India. The Chief designer challenged their crews to be able to draw out with the robust design and succeeded to the predecessor of i7, yet they prevailed in the end after 6 years of technical scrambling to fine tune on Six-Core Xeon. The strayed of argument, different perceptions, and the misalignments from core values would not bring in the fame and recognition in Bangalore as the small Silicon Valley in India today.

The virulent disagreement and criticism could be extended to the field of political. The atmosphere in political field is even tense, constantly backfire, not seeking the common ground of understanding nor joint-force with each other. Often one of each worthy opponent would be citing the certain law enactment to bring down the opposition. The debating from Abraham Lincoln over Stephen A. Douglas was seen at least the most stark physically and morality attack. Lincoln emphasized that “The Slave Power” should be abolished and threatened that Douglas was defying the value of republicanism meanwhile Douglas backfiring by skirting that Lincoln was never exercised the practice in Freeport Doctrine where the settler are free to choose whether to allow the existence of slavery or not. In the end, they only left the crowd with rhetoric and needless to say they were not fostering the intimation of learning in disagreement process.

Though, debating is at least seen as the paradox way to gain the learning from disagreement. When debating, both oppositions would present their materials, factual argument, and the consistency of axioms to prevail over the trial or in competition. Take the homicide case in a courtroom trial. Priori entering to the “Battlefield”, both defense and prosecutor attorneys would need to congregate and organize their testaments in the most “Unorthodox-Striking” way. When the trial begins, both attorneys would try to point out the weaknesses in opposition and manifest it largely, so that, it would be one side favors from juries. Apart from that, during the “Assailant”, both attorneys would need to devise a plan to counteract the bombardment from opposition; it is in this process, the attorney could build up their confidence, eschew the onslaught and overrule the statement if any before the final conviction is put by the judge.

To sum it up, it has become a notion for public to “Eradicate” the sense of disagreement in the learning process, nonetheless this philosophy does not hold true for the group of people whose idealism, views, standpoints and beliefs are downright contradict to the opposition, to excel in themselves, they need to engage in the dispute, controversy and disagreement in the formative way of debating. As Confucius emphasized, we should give up this relationship if the belief we are holding are straying at each other.