We can normally learn more from like-minded persons than from those who have contradictory viewpoints
People with similar points of view can supplement and substantiate the perspectives we already have.
We are more keen on listening to those/what we agree with rather than those we do not agree with. Therefore are more likely to learn from people we agree with.
Like-minded people have similar interests and exist within our sociopolitical comfort zones. We spend more time with people of similar tastes,thinking and ideas. And since we subconsciously pick up habits/traits and/or viewpoints from those we hang out with. More time spent equates to greater influence.
People we do not agree with make us think and if we like arguing/debate(and I'm guessing the people using this website do) then we will/do spend 'more' time with those who challenge our positions on issues and topics. We being, keen on learning and exploring knowledge appreciate opposition. We like exile/refuge/extraction from our comfort-zones/safe-places into a mental-verbal wrestling ring.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
As noted in the debate definition
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are like peas in a pod. So very similar and like minded. In Alice in Wonderland they argue about everything. Contrariwise this and that.
They 'are' like-minded as they have similar interests (such as arguing, are both raconteurs and so on).
People who have shared-interests flock together and the fact that we spend time with these people enables us to adopt knowledge,ideas and habits from them. That time spent is more than the time we spend with people who are not like-minded and do not understand us.
Opposites attract and like repels like. There is a magnetic pull that draws us to exotic/strange/unfamiliar places and people. We, all of us are curious and adventurous at heart. And we get bored of the same kind of crowd all the time; mostly agreeing with us. Or in the case of the Tweedles always disagreeing. Monotonous patterns are uninteresting/draining. Kai zen(good change) is what the Japanese might call this need to grow and rise.
We learn most from those who reject us, challenge us and put us through hell. They teach us about what we really like (not them nor their alien cerebration). They are living examples of what we have a hard time tolerating. They even, more often than not; are capable of 'changing' our minds.
The people we do not think like are the only ones who can help/make us think outside the box. Those sitting in the box with us; cannot do that. They are the only ones who can teach us to look at an idea from a renewed point of view. They are thus the 'only' ones who teach us to think, the only people we learn anything from.
Being around people who different creates tension insecurity and a general sense not belonging
Being around people who are different creates tension insecurity and a general sense not belonging:
People who are different make us nervous; we're scared of novel encounters. It causes stress/tension and that causes a host of problems,complications and diseases. The call for our zeitgeist is to be happy/relaxed and serene. This cannot be achieved around people who provoke us by not understanding us or thinking like us.
We are incompatible with people who are too different. Their presence disturbs us and in the long run/term we don't learn anything from them except that they caused incredible irritation/frustration.
Frustration/discomfort is key to learning. If you stick to safe zones and safe people you will never learn anything. The idea is to create a stressful stimulus and environment so you can learn and can be tested on how you have changed.
Otherwise be stagnant,superficial and never be judged. The latter translates to no growth and no learning.
Children grow better and are healthier in happy homes
"The growth of a child demands a positive and cheerful environment around him/her. A similarity in focus of the parents helps toward this end. "- [[http://www.syvum.com/cgi/online/serve.cgi/gre/awm/awmis001.html]]
A child is better reared in a home where parents get along; there are no conflicting methods of bringing up baby and there are no post-natal traumatic events that may affect the child later in life.
A happy child in a serene home grows into a happy/satiated adult.
Counterargument: Both parents cannot be there all the time and therefore should be interchangeable this can only happen if they are pretty much the same.
Both parents could be abusive and like-minded. Perhaps both parents enjoy yelling or child molestation or child beating or you see where I'm going with this?
Parents who are not like-minded can make up for for where the other parent falls short.
If one parent is an expert at dealing with emotions and the other is fairly verbose but cannot handle feelings. Then the emotionally developed parent cab easily handle the child's temper tantrums.
While the other one being wordy can tell the child bed-time stories.
Division of duties is difficult when both parents are good and bad at the same things. and division of duties is necessary as both parents cannot be there all the time.
Like-minded people coming together for a social / charitable cause certainly benefits society in general and individuals in particular, thus contributing to the overall well-being of the nation.
"Like-minded people coming together for a social / charitable cause certainly benefits society in general and individuals in particular, thus contributing to the overall well-being of the nation.
Example 1.3a) Charitable trusts for educational purposes would be able to provide education free of cost to the underprivileged. "
People who think alike tend to gather a lot and most gatherings/balls involve charity. Charity helps the downtrodden. Like minds create and encourage philanthropy. And great minds think alike.
Great minds do think alike and fools never differ.
It is people who think differently from other who found social ventures/charities and so forth. While the sheep provide funds and have parties the real thinkers/learners are the ones challenging social norms or the disparate economic state of people of their nation/city/district.
Without the sheep/retinue/followers the cause is meaningless
Praxis: putting ideas to action. Only the shallow socializing elite can provide momentum for a cause. Charitable or otherwise.
We need groups/throngs of people to charge ahead and give weight to a cause.
"Similar thinking in a group of people handling projects aids in achieving targets and striving for for higher goals each time. This in turn helps boost the overall economic scenario.Example 1.4a) The sales group of a company may work out ways together to boost the sales and achieve the targets to make the company a profitable one. "-[[http://www.syvum.com/cgi/online/serve.cgi/gre/awm/awmis001.html]]
Innovation/genius thus invention/progress only augurs and blooms under the wing of unique thinkers. Only these people can lead the like-minded to better lives/hopes and dreams/goals.
What would the like-minded do without the weird/creative? The answer is in H.G Wells' book ,"Time machine".
Again the topic asserts that like-minded people aid in learning and that is certainly not the cause for those who spend their lives partying for fund-raising.
I like meeting new exciting people as much as visiting new and exciting places. The brimming beat of human movement is gripping in itself but to be around someone very strange is an innovation. We are nothing like members of Sub-Saharan tribes but wouldn't it be fun to step into a tribe under its customs(so long as no one gets killed or tortured)?
We are nothing like that favorite Professor with her wealth of knowledge/experience and uncombed hair. But she is interesting and one of the few lecturers we learn anything from. Her lectures are easy to connect with not because we think like her. But because she thinks so starkly differently; that we learn from her. To elaborate she is so not like us it is entertaining and engrossing. She enlightens us with original ideas; thoughts that never occurred to us and so it is easier for us to learn from her than say a professor who is only saying what we are thinking. If we were thinking it already we didn't learn anything.
And yes in the latter case; we 'do' think about opposing points of view and what supports them as well as our pet-favorite ideas. But only someone who doesn't think like us and reincarnate our preexisting notions into knowledge/learning.
A lot of people are put off by the new and strange. Maintaining a safe distance from those labeled weird/kooky/odd is common social practice; especially around puberty and later life is not very different.
Most people prefer professors that are like them; who are saying things we intuitively understand. If we are thinking exactly what a professor is saying we have the assurance that we are on the right track and are conceptually close to what we should have learned from the subject.
Thinking like your teachers enables better learning, invokes greater confidence and makes the learning experience quite fruitful.
A teacher/parent who thinks like you shares your strengths and weaknesses accommodating them accordingly. It is easier to approach such a teacher and this teacher will able to understand your queries/difficulties because s/he is coming from the same place.
AGAINST Point 1.1. Similarity in thinking does not bring in any new knowledge. Instead, it leads to conformity which may sometimes prove detrimental. One must consider all related aspects, whether in favor or in opposition.
"Example 1.1a) Political decisions: Any proposal put forth is accepted only after successfully passing through lengthy debates in parliament. Such discussions aid in evaluating the proposal from various standpoints.
Example 1.1b) Corporate decisions: A faulty plan might be approved if everyone examines it from the same viewpoint. The merits and demerits of a project need to be evaluated from all point of views."
dissecting example a)
If everyone in politics agreed on everything there would no improvement. Any issue the people are divided on will be ignored or dealt with in a jaundiced/partial/subjective manner.
dissecting example b)
Entrepreneurs bring new ideas/products, new twists on old ideas/products and/or something new to be successful. An entrepreneur cannot copy/re-engineer an existing brand's product/service if s/he wants to be successful and right with the law. It is crucial in business to be able to grow/innovate and not be stagnant otherwise the business fails and is eaten in a dog-eat-dog-town.
Products/services can only be sold to a market. The market must comprise of like-minded people who like the product/service for it to take off.
Like-minded have many many like-minded friends who will buy what they sell. Socialites and celebrities usually have successful brand/book launches for this reason,
Contradictions reveal shortcomings and without addressing them, a theory cannot be validated. Eliminating deficiencies helps in improving the quality of knowledge.
"AGAINST Point 1.2. Contradictions reveal shortcomings and without addressing them, a theory cannot be validated. Eliminating deficiencies helps in improving the quality of knowledge.
Example 1.2a) Scientific research: A hypothesis is validated only after the researcher is able to prove all the cases. "- [[http://www.syvum.com/cgi/online/serve.cgi/gre/awm/awmis001.html]]
Reiterating that learning/growth is a process of trial-error and elimination. The inability to reject formerly or generally accepted truths
inhibits an advancement of thought/learning.
Most scientists think alike; mostly agreeing on topics such as evolution,global warming etc.
Thinking alike does not stop people from being critical or from thinking altogether.
Individuals are perfectly capable of thinking and agreeing at the same time.
What do you think?