"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."
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose
ideas contradict ours? The speaker daims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause
stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in
my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than
from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive
to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's
typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless
rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message
heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the
merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers
learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and
biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.
Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental
assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of
paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by
debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution
to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a
laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should
control all economic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's
claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to
debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is
primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal,
community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive
rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain
undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about
autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective
parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate
dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns
of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the
latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring
job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing
political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to
understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the
stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by
the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned
discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon
which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally
correct.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 24, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'circumstances'' or 'circumstance's'?
Suggestion: circumstances'; circumstance's
...d with our own. Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counter...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
... or in acknowledging the merits of the opponents viewpoint. Understandably, neither the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 23, column 84, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
...ts stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate th...
^^^^^^
Line 30, column 49, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...g and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassion...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, conversely, finally, however, if, look, so, for example, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3055.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 532.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74248120301 5.05705443957 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98204140616 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537593984962 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 935.1 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 4.38483146067 433% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.5781068727 60.3974514979 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.291666667 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.29166666667 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 41.0 4.97078651685 825% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278197059139 0.243740707755 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0772867976219 0.0831039109588 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0868080856639 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0580050248674 0.150359130593 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0784217400446 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.8420337079 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.01 12.1639044944 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.