To your points:

"We must disagree, because your conclusions seem wrong to me.  I do value finding out why, and don't think knowing diverse opinions from mine are a superfluous distraction."

Knowing diverse opinions isn't the distraction I was referring to.

"A) is true for my wife, and myself.  We are quite the opposite of each other, and I do the things she doesn't like to do, and vice versa.  I know many similarly opposite couples, and believe the fraise "opposites attract" is based in reality in many cases."

That such may happen to be true for you in certain instances, doesn't make it a universal truth that such will always be the case.

"B)  If two people are interested in and study the same thing, that will duplicate effort.  While two people being interested in, and studying different things, will result in more total and more diverse knowledge, between them.  My wife knows many things I don't, and visa versa."

No.   That is not a "duplication of effort".  That is two different people independently researching and formulating their own conclusions, so they don't have to rely on each other's.... which is an inferior approach to self-education.  See Rational Epistemology    

More "diverse knowledge" between two people, as you propose it, is inappropriately self-limiting.   A more useful range of diverse knowledge is where both share the entire extent of the diversity.... not just separate pieces of it.   What you advocate is specialization, which has its place, but is not the higher or more universally advantageous road that you present it to be.   

Of course, specialization might enhance the usefulness of a group that collaborates, and of course that has its applications... but it is not a universally superior approach to marital relationships in all instances.   Some types of knowledge must be thoroughly understood and shared with equal understanding and conviction by both parties to a relationship for the relationship to be successful.   

To not understand this, from one's own life experience, is to reveal considerable blindness or indifference to meaningful discussion in favor of promoting any discussion no matter what impractical suggestions that might require.  Such a cavalier approach to discussion is more of a distraction from a meritorious quest for truth, than a sincere approach to that end.  

Hi Katrina,

We must disagree, because your conclusions seem wrong to me.  I do value finding out why, and don't think knowing diverse opinions from mine are a superfluous distraction.

A) is true for my wife, and myself.  We are quite the opposite of each other, and I do the things she doesn't like to do, and vice versa.  I know many similarly opposite couples, and believe the fraise "opposites attract" is based in reality in many cases.

B)  If two people are interested in and study the same thing, that will duplicate effort.  While two people being interested in, and studying different things, will result in more total and more diverse knowledge, between them.  My wife knows many things I don't, and visa versa.

"If you have a partner that is your polar opposite, they will like to do all the things you don't like to do" 

A)  That is hardly true and does not necessarily follow in the real world.... so why spin wheels on such an impractical and improbable discussion?

B)  "...more diverse in total knowledge..."   presumes a lot that cannot be reasonably presumed.... so, the discussion lacks sufficient merit to be useful.

Is the point of the Canonizer superfluous distraction with impractical dialogue, or constructive discussion in the common interest of that which contributes to a better world?   

Definitely, questions of values and priorities.

If you have a partner that is your polar opposite, they will like to do all the things in the household you don’t like to do, and so on?  So that your partner will be interested in, and becomes expert at different things than you, so that you, as a couple, can be more diverse in your total knowledge about how to live the best life, and such?