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.
Given that disagreement can lead to stress and limit learning, the question is that whether or not we can learn more from people whose views contradict ours. I believe that although undue discord can impede learning, we can learn more from wise discourse and debate with people whose ideas oppose ours because in this way we can better expand our knowledge and identify our weaknesses.
On the one hand, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. A major problem regarding to disagreement is that it focuses too much on negative aspects of human interaction. Most of the time contradiction can cause people only pay attention to flaws and faults rather than to positive points. Immoderate discrepancy ignore how different ways and ideas can help individuals to make better decisions and improve their activities. As a result, people might be disillusioned to learn from opposite views. The best example is when two people have personal hostility and want to speak about a special subject. All the time, both sides of debate tend to consider the negative aspects of their counterpart’s words and try to tease each other. In this condition, they oppose each other whether intentionally or unconsciously and do not attempt to learn anything from each other.
Additionally, disagreement can inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful debate and discourse. For instance, a biology student can learn less from a religious person about the evolution process of humans and other creatures, as their basic view is completely different and they reject each other. Most of the time, discourse among them might lead to argument and other negative ethical results.
Despite the negative points mentioned above, I claim that if discussion is based on reason and logic, even opponents can learn from their debate and advance their knowledge. For example, teenage conflict with their parents is something common in all families. Rational discussion can encourage teenagers to listen their parents ‘experience in order to learn how certain behavior can naturally carry some undesirable consequences and it is better for them to avoid doing such demeanor. At the community level, through an objective speech, an environmental activist can come to understand the legal economic concerns of people whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn more about the potential public health expenses to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low employment rate. So, through an impartial discourse, they can cooperate each other to keep condition balance in order nobody to hurt.
According to my experience, the level of learning from debate with people whose ideas are in common with us is not as high as those whose ideas contradict ours. This is because like-minded people usually cannot add many things to each other. They usually think alike.
In conclusion, in my view, we can learn from different discussions whether by our opponents or by adherents. It is important the debate is built on correct and rational assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 85, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...nd limit learning, the question is that whether or not we can learn more from people whose vie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 29, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'circumstances'' or 'circumstance's'?
Suggestion: circumstances'; circumstance's
...aknesses. On the one hand, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counter...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, if, regarding, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2671.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 506.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27865612648 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88382179729 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53162055336 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 829.8 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0643856282 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.291666667 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0833333333 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.21951772744 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.457867550143 0.243740707755 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121574798028 0.0831039109588 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.1289536868 0.0758088955206 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26133480286 0.150359130593 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132807822642 0.0667264976115 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.