Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.
Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The author claims that people mostly learn from the individuals who have the same attitude toward the issues, rather than the ones with the opposite perspective. The writer also further supports the claim with the reason that the disagreement of thought leads to the anxiety which ceases the learning. I fundamentally disagree with this proposition and its clue. In what follows, I will list my potent reasons to support my disagreement.
First of all, the challenge of the belief leads to the flourishment of that same belief, and it is not achievable unless different outlooks over the topic are considered. A lucid example which adherents my state is the contradiction occurred over the geocentrism and heliocentrism in the past. By this conflict which proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, and was against the previously believed fact that the earth is in the center all planets and sun orbit around it; the new perspective is presented in the field of science. It also leads to extra exploration and enhancement in the field of astronomy which would be accessed unless this contradiction between the viewpoint occurred and scientists considered this difference.
Besides, this crucial fact should be assessed that modern science is shaped based on the various domains instead of the sole-source which was in the past. The variety of scientific areas means there will be some topics toward which all areas do not share the same perspective. In this case, the mature reaction over the variances and having a holistic attitude toward the topics will be beneficial for the sake of enhancement in the field. For instance, in my graduate field which is Building Science and covers all fields related to the mechanical, civil, and architectural engineering, by having the biased and partial stand over a topic, the ultimate result will not be in its optimum level and accountable for three mentioned engineering areas.
Finally, the writer reason which stress caused by the conflict stops the learning is invalid. Actually, I agree that the debate leads to the stress, and human being according to his inherent feature of questing the safety realm, mostly prefer to stand in the familial environment. However, this fear of going beyond the safety zone could lead to failure in the fields of education and knowledge. According to Iranian proverb ‘a wise enemy raises you up while a dumb friend knocks you down’ the importance of the gaining novel stands in the knowledge is more crucial than the repeating your belief with a dumb friend. The point is to know how to control the stress caused by the conflict of perspectives, and have to ultimate and holistic view over this contradiction and believe that this tension and pressure will end with boosted and informed stand.
To wrap it up, according to the aforementioned reasons, people learn more from the various views instead of repeating one. As the current knowledge’s multi-domain requires these various beliefs, and the challenge of believed idea could outcome with the better result.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 182, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'areas'' or 'area's'?
Suggestion: areas'; area's
... in the past. The variety of scientific areas means there will be some topics toward ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 444, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'raise'?
Suggestion: raise
...g to Iranian proverb 'a wise enemy raises you up while a dumb friend knocks you d...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a could outcome with the better result.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, finally, first, however, if, look, so, while, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2558.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 497.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14688128773 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80951748527 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513078470825 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 770.4 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8892329355 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.631578947 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1578947368 23.4991977007 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.10526315789 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162681058488 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0527392505496 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515465923806 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0926440723788 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386704716988 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.