There is a well-established literature in science education that points to the value of conceptual conflict. If what follows interests you, I would suggest searching online and exploring the work in greater detail.
The concept of conceptual conflict addresses the important observation that we can learn about some topics either informally or formally. For example, much of the work in this area concerns physics. Many have never taken a physics course, but everyone is exposed to physical phenomena. We experience the results of electricity flowing in electrical circuits, gravity, and the laws of motion daily. It might be useful to argue that we learn some things formally (school) and other things informally (daily life). What educators hope is that what students learn in school will influence behavior in daily life. Psychologists would call this transfer. Others might call it useful or practical learning.
It turns out that informal learning and formal learning can result in different ways of understanding. In addition, the informal “model” tends to be triggered by daily stimuli and the formal model by school stimuli. Hence, it may not be the case that learners forget what they learn in school, it can be that this understanding is ignored when it should be relevant.
Conceptual conflict is the remedy to the inconsistent models of a given phenomenon. It results from the activation of the flawed informal model so that the inconsistency with the formal model becomes obvious. This conflict is hoped to reconcile the two models. The science education research demonstrates the success that is possible demonstrating phenomena (predicting a physical occurrence) based on personal flawed models and then demonstrating reality (the voltage in the two wires leading to a light bulb is the same).
The simultaneous existence of flawed and correct models would seem a possibility in any situations allowing direct observation. Hence, psychology, education, economics, etc. likely allow flawed models to exist and be resistant to informed efforts at modification. Any personal model of a phenomenon could be flawed or more likely partially flawed. This was really the key to Piaget’s observation regarding cognitive development (remember Piaget). Piaget recognized that we were model builders through the process of equilibration resulting from accommodation and assimilation. A model works until it is challenged by what it cannot explain and then the experience causing the conflict may generate a change in the model.
Experiencing personal conceptual conflict is what all learners should be seeking. Avoiding conflict is the lazy way out and limits personal growth. If your PLN includes only those pushing what you endorse or find compelling, you are being conceptually lazy. If you are not willing to seriously consider challenges to your understanding, there will likely be blind spots you fail to recognize.
I think I see so many examples of this when it comes to problem-based and project-based learning. I have a similar reaction to a superficial exposure to coding experiences. There is so much solid research demonstrating the inefficiencies of these approaches endorsing the ideas without careful consideration is flawed thinking. There is some solid research demonstrating circumstances in which these approaches have value. This is one of those situations when the model must be sophisticated to tease apart the differences in application. The degree of success of learners depends on educators making the effort to build sophisticated models.
Embrace conceptual conflict. If you rely on a PLN for personal development, make certain your PLN includes those examining issues from different, but legitimate perspectives.