Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
Human beings are some of the most social creatures on planet earth. As a part of this process exchange of ideas plays a vital role both via simple dialogue and arguments. Presenting contrasting views on a topic allows one to develop more nuanced thinking not just about the topic on hand but also increases the overall scope of understanding in that domain. Therefore I will have to disagree with the author's claim that discussing controversial topics with those who have contrasting views is not useful.
Our social fabric is entrenched in the constant feedback that we continue to receive as we go about our daily work. Further we humans tend to work on a system of core beliefs that are naturally very difficult to shake. Each individual has a system that manages to sync the two so we are able to take positive feedback without altering our core beliefs much. However, when someone does provide feedback that can alter our core belief, I believe people do tend to at least stop and look at themselves in the mirror. Although the conversation might be an uncomfortable one I think most people would be willing to introspect and change if necessary. Even animals tend to use positive and negative feedback to a lesser extent to be stable and improve,
Taking the example of scientific research which runs on constant feedback with widely different ideas on what might work and what might not. It is important in such a scenario for the scientists to discuss these contrasting ideas and their correctness so as to reach an optimal standpoint and save millions of dollars. Nevertheless, the examples of scientists adamant about their core beliefs which some had spent their entire life establishing are not absent. But this does not negate the scope for questioning the core beliefs and bringing forward new ideas.
We need not look further than our political systems are also in constant remodeling. The governing mechanism of the Roman Emperors is prominently different from that of today’s modern democracy. Although we have preserved many of its traits, nevertheless, the democracy we have today in many of the developed nations are built on this idea of discussion and debate between people of different opinions and beliefs. The very idea of a parliament or congress is to create a platform which can foster a healthy mechanism for discussion between people with divergent outlooks.
Human society is built on the mutual exchange of ideas and opinions. It is highly improbable that people will not change their opinions when questioned even if it's their core beliefs.
- The following appeared as part of the Dean s newsletter The University of Wabash is considering a community service requirement for all undergraduate and graduate students We believe that the objective of any university is to produce well rounded and char 74
- Over the past three years there has been a marked increase in cases of sidewalk rage similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road but instead among sidewalk walkers The result is an increase in assaults property damage and disruptions of 60
- The following was presented as part of a business plan by Apex Corporation To answer the increased demand for artisan coffee Apex Corporation is releasing a new line of coffee Gourmet Select Apex Corporation will first introduce the coffee into major supe 69
- Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs 83
- Technology while apparently aimed to simplify our lives only makes our lives more complicated 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 359, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... scope of understanding in that domain. Therefore I will have to disagree with the author...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 253, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...contrasting ideas and their correctness so as to reach an optimal standpoint and save mi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 161, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
... their opinions when questioned even if its their core beliefs.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, therefore, as to, at least, i think
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 12.9106741573 15% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2157.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 431.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00464037123 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71608820475 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522041763341 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 669.6 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4354315957 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.526315789 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6842105263 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36842105263 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
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: 0.318598968394 0.243740707755 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083979415067 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0853365702763 0.0758088955206 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1695900715 0.150359130593 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0600165633205 0.0667264976115 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.