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.

Essay topics:

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 speaker claims that we can learn much more from people whose views we share and not the vice versa for the reason that disagreements can be a source of stress, thus inhibiting leaning. While undue discords can cause stress and hinder the learning process; otherwise, constructive discourse with people having contradictory opinions is the very basis for learning and advancement of knowledge.

At the first instance, the claim appears to have considerable merit. According to a socialist Walter Lippmann in his book titled ‘Public Opinion’: when people have different opinions and are unable to each other, this may cause conflicts, at times, exacerbating into abhorrence for each other. After all, a mere look on an ongoing political debate on a television news channel, where panelists vociferously attempt to impose their viewpoints on others by compensating the lack of cogency of their argument with high pitches, is enough to understand this point. Similarly, when there is a fundamental difference in the ideologies of the people involved with neither one willing to budge from his or her standpoint, there is little scope for learning. For example, a student can learn little about the benefits of democracy from a staunch communist. Likewise, a biology pupil can rarely learn about ‘natural selection’ from a person whose religious beliefs have no room for Darwinian’s principles in the first place.

However, otherwise, constructive disagreements are fundamental to learn and understand situation from different perspectives. By listening to their guardians or teachers, young children can learn about the importance of regulations imposed upon them and the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour. Whereas, by listening to their wards, guardians and teachers can realize about the importance of privacy and freedom. In a diverse country like India, discussions between different religious or cultural group have helped people understand and respect others’ customs and beliefs, thus paving for communal harmony. Similarly, discussions between two nations with completely distinct system of governance, values and priorities, have paved for world peace. The recent diplomacy between Donald Trump and Kim Jung Un that almost averted an inevitable war could be a case in focus.

Moreover, discussions between scholars and professionals with contrasting views, where everyone’s opinion is based upon his or her knowledge, experience and expertise, results in creative solutions thus advancing knowledge. For instance, theorists have been debating for nearly two or three decades about the two contradictory theories of atomic physics: the wave theory and the quantum theory. The ultimate consequence of this debate is the emergence of a new ‘string’ theory that mathematically corroborates both the opposing theories mentioned before. Similarly, debates between medical professionals, at times, give rise to a new line of treatment for a disease or a patient. Disagreements between lawmakers result in modern laws better reflecting the contemporary societal values. Legalization of ‘same gender marriage’ in France is a glaring example.

In conclusion, while undue discords and debates can be a source of stress impeding the learning process, especially when there is a fundamental and rigid difference in the ideologies of the people involved; debates based on reasoning and common ground between rational participants is the only way for a society to develop, knowledge to advance and people to learn.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, likewise, look, may, moreover, similarly, so, thus, whereas, while, after all, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in the first place

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3064.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 535.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.72710280374 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22868508403 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 215.323595506 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54953271028 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 945.9 704.065955056 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.6460710589 60.3974514979 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.904761905 118.986275619 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4761904762 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57142857143 5.21951772744 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.223618340489 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0704852742476 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124718918017 0.0758088955206 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160241956663 0.150359130593 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.163621537373 0.0667264976115 245% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 14.1392134831 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.25 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.19 8.38706741573 121% => OK
difficult_words: 180.0 100.480337079 179% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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.