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
In my opinion, I mostly disagree with the idea that we can acquire more knowledge from people whose views we share than those whose views go against our own for two main reasons, as stated below. However, I do concede that it is easier to learn from people we have more commonalities although we can learn more from people whose thoughts contradict our thoughts.
First, the people who contradict our view give us the opportunity to question our own view. Just because we believe something does not necessarily mean that is the truth. The people contradicting our views might actually have true knowledge about something. For example, consider a flat earth believer. If he does not engages in conversation with people who believe that the earth is round, he may never get out his notion of the flat earth. If he only joins in conversation with other flat earth believers then that might make him more doctrinaire about his own idea. Thus it is always beneficial for us to have our thoughts questioned. This will help us remove any wrong views we might have ourselves.
Furthermore, even if we have the right views, it can still expand our knowledge if we get to know someone who opposes our views. One might say what is the benefit of knowing a flat earther for a round earth believer. There are actually two. First, with enough conversation and logic, we might be able to convince them that their idea is wrong. Second, even if we fail to change their views, we might still learn valuable insight about why they thought what they thought and how they have acquired that thought. This will help us eradicate the problem at the root.
On the other hand, we can easily accept the input from the people we share views with. If we have any shortcomings in our own beliefs, then the people who share our thought might be the proper person to have a discussion with. For example, consider a person who wants to be more religious, the last thing he needs is to talk with someone who does not believe in religion.
To conclude, it is indeed a topic of debate with lots of gray areas. But for greater benefit, for society and for ourself, we should always engage more with the people who contradict our own thought than the people who share our thought.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-12-26 | Mirza Raquib | 50 | view |
| 2023-12-26 | Mirza Raquib | 50 | view |
| 2023-12-15 | Mirza Raquib | 50 | view |
| 2023-12-14 | Mirza Raquib | 54 | view |
| 2023-10-07 | MEHUL DESAI | 66 | view |
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve 50
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 58
- Argument Topic The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies 58
- 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 54
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 319, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'engage'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: engage
...r a flat earth believer. If he does not engages in conversation with people who believe...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 319, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'engage'
Suggestion: engage
...r a flat earth believer. If he does not engages in conversation with people who believe...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 443, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...r get out his notion of the flat earth. If he only joins in conversation with othe...
^^
Line 3, column 570, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...im more doctrinaire about his own idea. Thus it is always beneficial for us to have ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, still, then, thus, for example, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 62.0 33.0505617978 188% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 58.6224719101 72% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1857.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 400.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6425 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39676735417 2.79657885939 86% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 215.323595506 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.4625 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 552.6 704.065955056 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.67394053 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.4285714286 118.986275619 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0476190476 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.398993544698 0.243740707755 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126593792498 0.0831039109588 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148745124417 0.0758088955206 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272696264952 0.150359130593 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.180513889442 0.0667264976115 271% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.1392134831 70% => 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: 9.63 12.1639044944 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.91 8.38706741573 82% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 100.480337079 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.