I passively agree with the speaker’s assertion that we learn more from people with whom we share common views than from those whose views contradict our own. In order to state my position more clearly I would like to quote a popular adage: "Change is the essence of Life". Change is nothing but a contradiction to some assumed values and beliefs. Change in its rudimentary stage may cause chaos and disagreement, but eventually it is accepted for the general good. Similar is the case with people whose views contradict our own; it may, under some circumstances cause stress and inhibit learning, but it does not imply that we learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.
Like every coin has two sides; similarly, everything- views, beliefs, theories etc. has two sides- pros and cons. When we communicate with people whose views we share, we are just looking at one side of the coin. For example, a person with a view that dowry is not a social evil is communicating with other person who share the same view. The eventual result of this conversation would be that both of them will be persistent on their view without bothering to look at the consequences of the dowry system. No doubt there conversation would be calm and without any stress but is it really fruitful? Did they learn anything new from their conversation? Did they try to judge the ill effects of the dowry system? No. This conversation would have resulted in a different outcome if the views of interacting persons had been opposing rather than similar. When we communicate with people whose views contradict our own, we think rationally. Rather than clinging to our views only we try to reason out things, think rationally to evaluate both pros and cons and last but not the least we develop an ability to listen to others. Thus, interacting with people of opposing views not widens our circle of knowledge but also broaden our outlook.
However, interaction with people of opposing views is not always as beneficial as it may seem. There are circumstances where disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning- as stated by the speaker. Consider a situation where the two interacting persons are of completely different disciples. For example, a person who is staunch believer of mythology interacts with a person who believes only in scientific theories. Now, if these two people interact on a particular topic, say, existence of Almighty, there conversation will cause stress and inhibit learning without giving any fruitful result. This is because, as the two person are of completely different disciples and beliefs, their argument will be restricted to their own circle of disciple, hence, such a conversation will be stressful and vague. Similarly, irrelevant contradictions in views inhibits learning. The communication between two people is beneficial as long as both of them state relevant points. For example, if a person 'A' claims that "Earth is flat" while a person 'B' claims that "Earth is spherical", then such a conversation is a mere waste of time. It is because, the claim of person 'A' is irrelevant as it is scientifically proven and universally accepted fact that Earth is spherical (the claim made by person 'B'). Such a conversation does not enhance our knowledge or widens our outlook rather it inhibits our learning as we our wasting time in irrelevant conversations.
As long as the conversation is relevant and among the people of same disciples it is beneficial and fruitful. Hence, the assertion that we learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views we contradict is correct only under certain circumstances.