"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose
views contradict our own."; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker daims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.
Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should control all economic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 24, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'circumstances'' or 'circumstance's'?
Suggestion: circumstances'; circumstance's
...with our own. Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counter...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 474, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
...h or in acknowledging the merits of the opponents viewpoint. Understandably, neither the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 262, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
...ts stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate tha...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 406, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...g and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassion...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['accordingly', 'also', 'but', 'conversely', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'for example', 'in fact', 'in my view', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247863247863 0.240241500013 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.138461538462 0.157235817809 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.105982905983 0.0880659088768 120% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0461538461538 0.0497285424764 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0307692307692 0.0444667217837 69% => OK
Prepositions: 0.140170940171 0.12292977631 114% => OK
Participles: 0.0410256410256 0.0406280797675 101% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.98204140616 2.79330140395 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0222222222222 0.030933414821 72% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0871794871795 0.0997080785238 87% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0188034188034 0.0249443105267 75% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0205128205128 0.0148568991511 138% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3523.0 2732.02544248 129% => OK
No of words: 532.0 452.878318584 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.62218045113 6.0361032391 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.454887218045 0.366273622748 124% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.34962406015 0.280924506359 124% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.276315789474 0.200843997647 138% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.199248120301 0.132149295362 151% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98204140616 2.79330140395 107% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 219.290929204 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537593984962 0.48968727796 110% => OK
Word variations: 66.5646337184 55.4138127331 120% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.1666666667 23.380412469 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.516303017 59.4972553346 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.791666667 141.124799967 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 23.380412469 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.541666666667 0.674092028746 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 57.1290726817 51.4728631049 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.99206349206 1.64882698954 121% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220887118836 0.391690518653 56% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0724835516386 0.123202303941 59% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0664846712655 0.077325440228 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.497128662848 0.547984918172 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.164187785586 0.149214159877 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.080986474855 0.161403998019 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0890316074217 0.0892212321368 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.241988056341 0.385218514788 63% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0471143846104 0.0692045440612 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144896023479 0.275328986314 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.147040774418 0.0653680567796 225% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.4325221239 77% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.30420353982 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88274336283 123% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 7.22455752212 69% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.66592920354 164% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.70907079646 185% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 13.5995575221 118% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.