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
The author claims that we can usually learn more from people with similar view-points and not the vice versa for the reason that disagreements cause stress and impedes learning. While undue disagreement and discord can indeed be a source of stress hindering gain of knowledge; constructive debates with people from opposing view-points is the very the basis for learning and developments.
At the first instance, the statement appears to have considerable merit. After all, as claimed by a socialist Walter Lippmann, in his book titled ‘Public Opinion’, if people hold different opinions and are unable to persuade each other, this may cause conflicts which may further exacerbate into abhorrence for each other. A mere look on an ongoing political or religious debate on television news channel, where people vociferously try to impose their viewpoints on others by compensating the cogency of their arguments with their high pitches, is enough to understand this point. Moreover, when there is a fundamental difference in the ideologies of the people involved, with neither one willing to budge from his or her standpoint, then there is little scope for learning. For example, a person who appreciates the democratic system of governance can learn little from a staunch and ardent follower of communism. Likewise, a biology student can rarely learn about the process of natural selection from a person whose rigid religious views have no space for Darwinian’s principles in the first place.
However, otherwise, constructive disagreements and discourses with people having contradictory views are fundamental to learn and understand situations from different perspectives and gain knowledge. Listening to guardians and teachers, help young students learn about the importance of regulations imposed on them and the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour; whereas listening to their mentee helps guardians understand the value of children’s privacy and freedom. Likewise in a diverse country like India, discourses between different religious and cultural groups have allowed better understanding of each others’ creed and behaviour paving for religious harmony. Or positive discussions between countries with completely different system of governance, values and priorities promote reconciliation and world peace. The recent diplomacy between Donald Trump and Kim Jung Un that almost averted an inevitable war is a glaring example.
Moreover, discussions among scholars and professionals with contrasting views, where everyone’s opinion is based on his or her background, expertise, and experiences, result in creative solutions and serve for the advancement of knowledge. In physical science, a discourse had been underway between theoretical physicist for last two or three decades about two opposing theories of physics: the wave theory and the quantum theory. The ultimate consequences of the debate is the emergence of a new ‘string theory’ that is more universal and mathematically corroborates with the two contrasting theories mentioned above. Similarly, in healthcare, constructive debates between medical professionals, at times, result in a better line of treatment for a patient or disease. Disagreements between lawmakers give rise to modern laws better reflecting the contemporary values of the society. Legalization of ‘same gender marriage’ in France could be a case in focus.
In conclusion, while undue disagreements can be a source of stress and obstacle in learning, especially when there is a fundamental and rigid difference in ideologies; however, discussions based on reasoning and common ground among rational people with different opinions is the only way for a situation to develop, knowledge to advance and individuals to learn.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 340, Rule ID: THE_EXACTLY_THE[1]
Message: Duplicated 'the' in the phrase: 'the very the'. Did you mean 'very the'?
Suggestion: very the
...ith people from opposing view-points is the very the basis for learning and developments. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 482, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Likewise,
...of children's privacy and freedom. Likewise in a diverse country like India, discou...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 986, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...os; in France could be a case in focus. In conclusion, while undue disagreements...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, likewise, look, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, whereas, while, after all, for example, in conclusion, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 32.0 14.8657303371 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 58.6224719101 145% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3271.0 2235.4752809 146% => OK
No of words: 565.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78938053097 5.05705443957 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87542086881 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.27468355011 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 310.0 215.323595506 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548672566372 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 1004.4 704.065955056 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.15526392 60.3974514979 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.55 118.986275619 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.25 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.25 5.21951772744 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224176903614 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731198041947 0.0831039109588 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111737787192 0.0758088955206 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153085214704 0.150359130593 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.134790297837 0.0667264976115 202% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.0 14.1392134831 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.14 48.8420337079 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.1743820225 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.6 12.1639044944 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.34 8.38706741573 123% => OK
difficult_words: 190.0 100.480337079 189% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => 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.