We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
Learning is a never ending process. The pot of knowledge is never full. Whether it be academics, spiritual sciences or personality development, the productivity to learn is far greater to learn from people than to learn from books. The statement prompts that the abundance to learn is comparatively high when learning from people with similar views as ours than from whose views differ. In my opinion this is true and I strongly agree with it. I support this by elaborating it in two reasons
Contradictory to the physics statement that ‘opposites attract’ when it comes to learning people with similar views tend to learn more the person with views which are agreeable to one. It is a human tendency to incline towards easier paths than towards complex paths. With a person with similar views the learner is in line with the thoughts. He or she doesn’t have to think much or try to accept things which are in contradiction to their views. For example when a school going girl Gregg stood up for global warming and climate change people who had similar views supported her. Many of these people attended her meetings to learn her perspective and approach towards reduction of global warming than the people who did not believe in climate change. So people find it easy to connect and learn from people with same views.
People in general unknowingly like the people who are in line with their views rather than those who contradict. This eventually leads to them tending to spend more time on that subject rather and learn more from them. For example in a class room a student has a view on the strategy on how to execute a math problem. The student prefers to interact more and learn with energy from a teacher who has a similar view rather than a different one. So this unknowing favour toward the people whose view matches can affect the learning process and want them to learn more from them.
Some may argue that people will learn more only when they think out of the box or learn from a person of different view. Even though they do learn few new things this way, it is not true when it is compared to the learning efficiency and enthusiasm when learnt from a person with common perspective.
| 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 |
| 2023-10-28 | raghavchauhan619 | 83 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 91, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
...ites attract’ when it comes to learning people with similar views tend to learn more t...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...them to learn more from them. Some may argue that people will learn more only when t...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, so, thus, for example, in general, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1821.0 2235.4752809 81% => OK
No of words: 388.0 442.535393258 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.69329896907 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44813752707 2.79657885939 88% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 215.323595506 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476804123711 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 704.065955056 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0430285768 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8421052632 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4210526316 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.21951772744 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.407466104046 0.243740707755 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14033025657 0.0831039109588 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111948521192 0.0758088955206 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.280664493819 0.150359130593 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0681889944252 0.0667264976115 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.1392134831 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 48.8420337079 139% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.1743820225 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.92 12.1639044944 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.38706741573 89% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 100.480337079 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 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.