I am of the opinion that what is learned in theoretical history today is probably too complex, over-thought and basically inaccurate. There may only be a mere 500 years separating us from our Tudor ancestors, but in that time the world as we knew it and as we know it has overcome great change. It is this vast change, I think, which enables our generation to develop intelligence.
It has been argued that if one were to take a young child from Elizabethan England and bring it into the year 2007 and we were to bring up that child as a normal millennium-born, that this child would develop into a replica of today’s stereotypical kid. The child would be exposed to a range of ethnicities, cultures, tastes and challenges in our world, none of which it would have experienced in its rightful place. However, who is to say that the parents of the child had the capacity to learn as we have? Surely, genetically, the lack of variety in stimulating the brain would render people less apt for adopting that ‘brightness,’ that quick deciphering mechanism some possess today. And, hence, over a period of time, such an underdeveloped mind is passed on to subsequent generations, which will find they always have to start the slow process of teaching themselves how to learn and handle new things from scratch.To develop intelligence, you need to write good works. This is where essay writing services can help you to think creatively. It will also help in studies when there is not enough time for study.
Did people five centuries ago have the intelligence we have? Would they have had it were they exposed to more of the world? And ergo, is it the fact that society today is such a colourful melange of anything and everything that we have recently evolved into a species which is able to tolerate more information? What is it that really defines intelligence?Intelligence determines how a person thinks. Creative thinking is important and you need a samedayessay review resource that will help develop creative thinking. It will also help with your studies.
The grounds on which I based my opening point about history are explained by this theory. History 500 years ago was a character-dominant place to live, and decisions were made due to the agendas of those dominant people; the monarchs, heretics and rebel leaders. I find it unlikely that each of them thought too hard about their decisions. With hind-sight, historians can now produce new theories that extend what is an already large collection of factors influencing a single decision, whereas in reality, the monarch did not know what the consequences of his actions would turn out to be. That is precisely how history is made, how we are making it today, and how it will continue to be made. When Henry VIII decided to break from Rome , I don’t think he was as concerned with what the Church thought of him as he was about fulfilling his selfish desire for an heir and that attractive new wife he would get. Should we not judge character and not events leading to events? We cannot apply modern-day patterns of thought to those of historical people- they just wouldn’t have been the same.