In any field field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make meaningful contributions
“What an elder can see sitting down, a young one cannot see standing up” is a Yoruba proverb that highlights the depth of wisdom that the more advanced have acquired over their many years in a particular field. Their many varied contributions during their time are passed down to the next generation, serving as a base point for the jump forward. The beginner in a particular endeavor or field can bring a whole new way of approaching certain topics, problems or challenges, but that often does not equate to meaningful contribution.
In the year 1905, a young Albert Einstein was an examiner in a patent office when he published four papers on different physics topics which changed the landscape of modern physics. Only 26 years old at the time, he became an instant celebrity among erudite scholars of his time. This might serve as a strong argument for the notion that ‘young blood’ is the most important part of scientific discovery and that the hunger and drive that a beginner has will allow them to reach or even surpass the heights of experts in their field. Although much good can come from a fresh approach at problem solving, one that is not rigid in its methodologies it is still not a strong indicator of prowess in a field. Chemist John Goodenough, an eminent scholar and creator of the modern Lithium-ion battery was ninety-five when he was awarded his Nobel Prize in Physics after decades of outstanding work. An expert in his field and many other, his contributions have shaped modern society in ways that are difficult to assess.
Another point that is important to note is that very few beginners just do not possess the skill required to match the high experts in many fields. Many factors come into place in the determination of the capabilities of any person including race, gender, genetics and mental and physical conditions, and these vary widely across all spheres of life. A great example is the football player. Most players break into the first teams at the ages of 18-20 and exceptional ones even younger, but many do not start to perform well until the ages of 23-25 and the ‘prime’ or peak ability of a footballer is at the ages of 26-29. To take a 29 year old and their depth of knowledge on movement, vision and ability honed after a decade of continuous training and preparation and juxtapose it against the inchoate skills of afresh 19 year old would be a great blunder. The background of the two players can be considered but that will only serve as a footnote, more often than not the results will be the same.
In many workplaces the junior colleague that does well, even exceedingly is not automatically promoted to Vice President of Operations because there is a depth of knowledge still yet to be revealed to them. A tyro can stumble upon a breakthrough through sheer luck, or determination one time, but the steady flow of impactful contributions are made by experts in their field.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-18 | Adesina Boluwatito | 83 | view |
- In all levels of education affection should be focused first on theory in order for students to understand the concepts rather than practical s to what extent do you agree or disagree 50
- In any field field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make meaningful contributions 83
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
- We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own 83
- All too often companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary 83
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, so, still, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2438.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 510.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78039215686 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75217629947 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68249626953 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547058823529 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 744.3 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.1808951829 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.411764706 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0 23.4991977007 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.82352941176 5.21951772744 35% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => 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: 0.176365451857 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0535125893297 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564745429554 0.0758088955206 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103885911643 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0311474400983 0.0667264976115 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.04 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.