"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."
There is no doubt that discussing ideas is beneficial for us. Many people share each other’s ideas in order to analyze it and increase their knowledge. Although the statement mentioned in the question is not thoroughly wrong, I am, to a great extent, on the belief that sharing contradictory views is not as disadvantageous as the statement might impose to the readers. To clarify, the number of people who take a specific side is not always equally distributed among the two groups which contradict or support our idea. This illustrates that each person takes a side based on the process of thinking and conclusion. Therefore, the opposite views don’t attempt to impede learning although they bring about stress.
Suppose the case of presidential election in each country that two candidates often have more chance comparing to the others to win the election. What if people exchange their knowledge of these two candidates despite their contradictory beliefs? Some might think that such discussion is fruitless because the followers of each side do their best to defend their popular candidate. Note that this debate becomes harsh as the scale of the issue gets larger. It is true that these discussions lead to some kinds of stress but the advantages of this type of talk take precedence over this feeling. The main reason that justifies my view is that individuals can recognize whether they have exaggerated specific characteristic of their popular candidate by listening to the contradictory views and possibly draw conclusion from disagreeable views.
Another compelling issue that highlights the difference between persuasive and contradictory ideas is that no one has ever improved by listening to his favorable sides that he often shares. It is not feasible to learn more by always holding the same side since continuous agreements ossifies thinking. While some people prefer to incline to a specific side, the others are eager to challenge the contradictory view to omit wrong ideas or correct their mistakes. It has been said for many years that people who don’t impugn their surrounding facts would never be able to accomplish a great task. For instance, scholars and erudite physicists such as Albert Einstein used to be flooded with lots of opposite point of views; however, he thought about all aspects of such opposing views in order to build his theories based on trustful facts. As a result, individuals must consider contradictory views as well as agreeable ones to assure themselves whether a particular issue is genius or not. It should be emphasized that, holding contradictory views solely are not beneficial but the summation of agreeable and opposing views is more promising.
In sum, although this question is controversial and hard to reach a consensus, as far as I am concerned, analyzing the contradictory views is essential for improving the current side in which we are as well as learning from them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 231, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h we are as well as learning from them.
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'while', 'for instance', 'no doubt', 'such as', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'it is true', 'to a great extent']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.215648854962 0.240241500013 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.173664122137 0.157235817809 110% => OK
Adjectives: 0.108778625954 0.0880659088768 124% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0496183206107 0.0497285424764 100% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0515267175573 0.0444667217837 116% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125954198473 0.12292977631 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0400763358779 0.0406280797675 99% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.91891688885 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0400763358779 0.030933414821 130% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0973282442748 0.0997080785238 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0114503816794 0.0249443105267 46% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0152671755725 0.0148568991511 103% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2957.0 2732.02544248 108% => OK
No of words: 478.0 452.878318584 106% => OK
Chars per words: 6.18619246862 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.58838876751 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.355648535565 0.366273622748 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.290794979079 0.280924506359 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.225941422594 0.200843997647 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.1589958159 0.132149295362 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91891688885 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 219.290929204 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535564853556 0.48968727796 109% => OK
Word variations: 63.9930724475 55.4138127331 115% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6194690265 97% => OK
Sentence length: 23.9 23.380412469 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7070526095 59.4972553346 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.85 141.124799967 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9 23.380412469 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.674092028746 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 52.9794979079 51.4728631049 103% => OK
Elegance: 1.38888888889 1.64882698954 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117056218582 0.391690518653 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0970734159593 0.123202303941 79% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0433561197067 0.077325440228 56% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.486874757795 0.547984918172 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.160045890409 0.149214159877 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0492921885562 0.161403998019 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441599108539 0.0892212321368 49% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.408151940939 0.385218514788 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0839659666365 0.0692045440612 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0865126065526 0.275328986314 31% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0161433107125 0.0653680567796 25% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.4325221239 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.30420353982 94% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 12.0 7.22455752212 166% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 13.5995575221 110% => 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.