issue1:第一次发文章，所有回的我都会帮忙改一篇你们的，谢谢

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

帮我拍的筒子们可以把你们的地址一起发上来，我也回拍一下啦。谢谢~topic:
we can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.

————————————————————————————

It is advocated that communication with those who agree with us benefits us while those holding differents views from ours are considered obstacles for our learning. However, this argument is weak in that it underplays how enlightening diparity in opinions can be and exaggerates the rosy picture of seemingly desirable dispute-free discussion in which all minds think alike.

More can be explored when people are encouraged to express their own opinions, which often turn out to be different. An ancient Chinese fable decipts how four blind men perceive what "elephant" is. They tried to feel the elephant but no one could manage to touch it as a whole. One who happened to put his hands on the leg believed that elephant was a cylinder. And he who touched the body contradicted it by describing it as a wall. As we human beings are limited in our ability to have a knowledge of the world wholly, any subjects or issues to learn to us is like an elephant to a blind man. Rather than turn a deaf ear to those perceiving the "elephant" not the same way with us, we are expected to embrace different thinking because only by doing so can we finally achieve a complete understanding of what the "elephant" is. Should we fail in doing so, we would just stay ignorant, adhering to the misconcept that the "elephant" was a wall or so.

Furthermore, ruling out any disagreement whether by simply ignoring or by violently forcing people contradict to silence can be extremely dangerous, resulting in severe harm for humanity. Endless tragedies have been witnessed in the last century, from Nazi's ruling to what East German was like before 1989, illustrating that when nobody is able to voice his or her own view especially when it doesn't go where goverment allows, no freedom is claimed. The elimination of free speech, which is the usual outcome of limiting discussion with those who agree, actually interferes with human rights, thus likely leading to rebels where forced to silence but infirated people resort to violent way to display how they argue against the government. Actually it has been proven that not listening to disagreements can merely be self-deceptive when disagreements still exist even though it is not heard or even prohited by law. This, surely, does nothing useful in problem solving and dispute settling, but making excuses for  prosecution against humanity.

It is undeniable, however, sharing the same opinion diminishes, to the largest extent, the possibility of arguing, which sometimes end in meaningless complaints against each other without any sensible outcomes. Sometimes negotiators find it impossible to reach consensus as a significant amount of time is wasted in quarelling, and anger and dissatisfaction inhibits sensibility in discussion. Nonetheless, the solution to this should be better self-control not a total elimination of difference and disparity.

To sum up, a free debate where all sides maintaining their own perpectives is far more worthy than a seemingly smoothly reached agreement when people are forced to plaud some certain idea. Otherwise, our expansion of knowledge of the earth, the nature and all the subjects is withstalled and even human rights of freedom in speech is deprived. Were that to occur, with the whole human civilization jeopardized, what is the point of sharing the same view?