We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
The statement asserts that we usually learn more from those whose views agree with our thoughts, and not from those who disagree with us. While this could be like true in some opportunities, I consider that we can learn a lot from the people whom vision is in opposition with ours. For this reason, I disagree with the statement. In what follows, I will give my reasons.
First, hearing to the people whom speech is different from ours can give us a lot of new points of view and new ideas. Therefore, we would learn from the other side of our vision. This exercise should be done with the intention to ear the others and try to learn from they. It is important to keep apart all prejudices that could blind our mind. For instance, if I think that the inflation rate is due to anything else but monetary emission and I have to face a debate with an economist who is a specialist in monetary policy, the first thing that I have to do is ear his ideas. Then, once I check his arguments, I will have the opportunity to argue with him. If I discover that his ideas and explanations are correct, I will have to agree with him. Consequently, I will learn more, making the disagreement the way to knowledge.
Second, if we only pay attention to people whose ideas we share, we will miss the opportunity to ear new points of view, and, thus, the opportunity to increase our intelligence and knowledge will be reduced. This is especially important when our ideas are wrong. It is really necessary for every person on Earth, more if we are looking for the scientific truth, to have intellectual honesty. Such characteristic is developed only if we are open to new ideas. Because we could be in a place where our ideas and thoughts are incorrect, the only way we have to know this is seeing what the other side has to show. If we see that the person whose ideas are opposite to ours shows true arguments, we will have to change of mind due to our intellectual honesty. Suppose that a person is a strong defender of the Communist Ideas. If this person would have the chance to see all the horror that the Communism has done, he or she could change his/her mind, and this is only possible if this person is open to ear different voices.
However, there are some scenarios in which the debate with others will not be useful to learn more and better ideas. This is the case in which the debate turns into a very strong fight full of screams and insults. In such hostile environment is impossible share the ideas with the other side in peace. Consequently, we will not take any advantage from what the other side has to say. This situation is often seen in some television programs, especially in those which are dedicated to talk about politics. I have seen many such shows in which the people with clearly different opinions were arguing until the point to damage each other. When the violence appears, the opportunity to learn diminishes strongly.
To close, I think that it is really important to learn from others whose views are opposite to ours. The amount of knowledge that we can earn from the other side of our ideas has not limit. This is only possible in an environment full of peace and respect. We should be open-minded, have intellectual honesty, be respectful and accept the scientific truth if it seems, not matter from which side it comes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'limited'.
Suggestion: limited
...rom the other side of our ideas has not limit. This is only possible in an environmen...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 407, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s, not matter from which side it comes.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, look, really, second, so, then, therefore, thus, while, as to, for instance, i think
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 27.0 11.3162921348 239% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 83.0 33.0505617978 251% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2751.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 605.0 442.535393258 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.54710743802 5.05705443957 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95951083803 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52559387291 2.79657885939 90% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.401652892562 0.4932671777 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 870.3 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 21.0 6.24550561798 336% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.4274578774 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.7419354839 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5161290323 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96774193548 5.21951772744 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318758866039 0.243740707755 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0885043852301 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0970193281077 0.0758088955206 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21271316191 0.150359130593 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0741403716621 0.0667264976115 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 14.1392134831 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 48.8420337079 141% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.1743820225 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.11 12.1639044944 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.8 8.38706741573 81% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 100.480337079 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.