The author asserts that to have friends who are similar to you ‘gives you more to talk about’ and to have friends who are different ‘gives you more to think about. However, the astute reader will note that the author is referring to ‘people’ and not ‘friends’, and that Friends is plural. Therefore, the author must assert that the advantages of having friends who are different are more powerful than the advantages of having friends who are similar.

The plural use of ‘friend’ in this sentence immediately gives the reader pause. The author believes that ‘people’, plural, are the key to understanding his point. However, this belief is unfounded. The plural term friend has more meaning than ‘people’, and the author’s assertion that ‘having friends who are different give you more to.

. is a self-serving generalization.

Plenty of research shows that the plural use of ‘friend’ is improper, particularly in American English. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines friend as ‘one who is known and liked by another; a companion, associate, or associate. The singular ‘friend’ is the correct usage, regardless of the number of friends one has. This point becomes further apparent when one considers that ‘people’ can refer to individuals, such as employees, or to groups of people, such as a crowd. Therefore, the phrase ‘having people who are different give you more to think about’ suggests that one should have friends who are quite different from one another. However, it is doubtful that the author would claim that having friends who are very different gives one more to think about. That, in fact, would not give one more to think about, since one could simply give one’s attention to the difference between friends, and not to those friends themselves. In this context, ‘people’ refers to a group of people with whom one interacts, and the author’s assertion implies that ‘having friends who are different’ is more valuable than having friends who are similar.

The author’s contention that having friends who are similar ‘gives you more to talk about’ is equally dubious. If one has friends of one’s same age, race, or gender, then talking about such topics becomes redundant. Living in a different environment, with different interests, friends, and backgrounds, could stimulate one’s thought processes. The friendships that the author describes are, presumably, friendships of convenience, and spending time with friends who are similar diminishes the value of those friendships. Moreover, one cannot discuss the differences between friends if they all think alike. When the author discusses ‘people in general’, he is referring to groups of people who share common interests. These groups include classmates, teammates, co-workers, and acquaintances. By comparing the experiences of these groups, one might gain insight into the perspectives of a variety of people, and might learn that, while one might find a particular topic interesting, others might find it boring. The plural use of ‘people’ in this context is fitting, as the author is comparing his relationships with different people, rather than simply individuals.