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.
Since the dawn of humanity, people have always been struggling with contrasting aspects of social life entailing debates and discussions over different topics. In this vein, people have always expressed their ideas using tools from scholar gatherings in the past to opinion dissemination through social media in the contemporary era. While a proportion of people maintain that individuals are more likely to learn from like-minded counterparts, I hold a different view, believing that people with colliding views possess more valuable details to share. This essay will explore a couple of reasons supporting my perspective in the following paragraphs.
First of all, constant exposure to contradicting opinions provides people with a notable opportunity to be able to be aware of invisible aspects of their own perspective. To put it in other words, people who are debating are individuals that exhibit a vast array of contrasting human qualities. Thus, they own distinct views and exploit various ways to approach a single topic. Therefore, it would be much beneficial to learn about other people’s reasons for holding a view since it can help people to know other aspects of their thoughts. For instance, religious people can attain a deeper outlook towards their viewpoints while discussing with biology and medical researchers. In fact, they will know more about the effects of their religious rituals on their health and lifestyle.
Secondly, regarding the fact that discussing a preferred subject with its opponents could be significantly challenging, people will search more to gain a solid body of knowledge in order to be able to answer all the questions about it. This can be very advantageous for the fact that people will learn more from diverse sources from old books in the deep parts of libraries to a wide variety of eBooks, articles and other teaching materials on the Internet. Hence, they would regularly evaluate their beliefs and update their information through which they can gain knowledge about other things, too. Consequently, they can make progress via a sophisticated, systematic and logical process which has copious offers and gifts.
From another perspective, having shared a profound and rooted base of beliefs, it could be likely to learn from like-minded people much easier. To be more specific, people who share a converging school of thought usually have built their opinions using the same materials and have way too much in common. Thus, it could be easier to understand the other one’s point of view deeply and learn and remember it effortlessly. Besides, it is always pleasant to be acknowledged by other fellows and be encouraged and praised to have an elaborated viewpoint. As a result, it is somewhat rewarding to debate with people whose views we share.
On the whole, taking all the aforementioned reasons and examples into account, I assume that people are more likely to learn from counterparts who have contradicting views compared to them. Not only will this help them to find the flaws of their own perspective and have competent attitudes, but it also can help them to enhance their knowledge to be able to answer all the challenging questions. However, having discussion with people whose views are similar to us can be worthwhile to some extent, too.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 210, Rule ID: HELP_TO_FIND[1]
Message: This phrase is probably grammatically incorrect. Write 'help them find' instead.
Suggestion: help them find
...ws compared to them. Not only will this help them to find the flaws of their own perspective and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, first, hence, however, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in fact, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 58.6224719101 147% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2791.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 534.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2265917603 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86753714731 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503745318352 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 847.8 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6741313831 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.863636364 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2727272727 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.18181818182 5.21951772744 176% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More 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: 0.282869785307 0.243740707755 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0920434664637 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0748265420525 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173141382514 0.150359130593 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362052283279 0.0667264976115 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.