Are we getting more stupid? According to Gerald Crabtree, a scientist at Stanford University in the US, we are.  You may not want to hear this, but Crabtree believes that human intelligence reached its peak more than 2,000 years ago and ever since then has been going downhill. “If an average Greek from 1,000 BC were transported to modern times, he or she would be one of the brightest among us,” Crabtree told The Guardian.

    At the heart of Crabtree's thinking is a simple idea. In the past, intelligence was critical for survival when our ancestors had to avoid dangerous animals and hunt for food. The difference of being smart or stupid is often life or death. However, after the spread of agriculture, when our ancestors began to live in dense ( 稠密的）farming communities, the need to keep their intelligence in peak condition gradually reduced. This is not hard to understand. Most of the time,pressure is what keeps us going – you need the pressure from your teachers to finish your homework; the pressure of looking pretty prompts(促使) you to lose weight when summer comes. And the same is also true of our intelligence – if we think less, we become less smart.

    These mutations(变) are harmful to our intelligence and they were all developed in the past 3,000 years. The other evidence that Crabtree holds is in our genes. He found that among the 2,000 to 5,000 genes that we have that determine human intelligence , there are two or more mutations in each of us. However, Crabtree's theory has been criticized by some who say that early humans may have better hunting and surviving abilities, but people today have developed a more diverse intelligence. For example, spearing a tiger doesn't necessarily require more brainpower than playing chess or writing a poem. Moreover, the power of modern education means a lot more people have the opportunity to learn nowadays. “You wouldn't get Stephen Hawking 2,000 years ago. He just wouldn't exist,” Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick, UK, told Live Science. “But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights(洞察力) that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation.”

    So long as teachers fail to distinguish between teaching and learning, they will continue to undertake to do for what only children can do for themselves. Teaching children to read is not passing reading on to them. It is certainly not endless hours spent in activities about reading. Douglas insists that "reading cannot be taught directly and schools should stop trying to do the impossible."

    Teaching and learning are two entirely different processes. They differ in kind and function. The function of teaching is to create the conditions and the climate that will make it possible for children to devise the most efficient system for teaching themselves to read. Teaching is also a public activity: It can be seen and observed.

    Learning to read involves all that each individual does not make sense of the world of printed language. Almost all of it is private, for learning is an occupation of the mind, and that process is not open to public scrutiny. If teacher and learner roles are not interchangeable, what then can be done through teaching will aid the child in knowledge. Smith has one principal rule for all teaching instructions. "Make learning to read easy, which means making reading a meaningful, enjoyable and frequent experience for children."

    When the roles of teacher and learner are seen for what they are, and when both teacher and learner fulfill them appropriately, then much of the pressure and feeling of failure for both is eliminated. Learning to read is made easier when teachers create an environment where children are given the opportunity to solve the problem of learning to read by reading.

    Tyler Skiuzacek's father，Patrick，could not sleep through the night．It was 2007，and Patrick had just returned from a year in Iraq，where he served in the U．S．Army．Patrick Skluzacek was energetic and happy when he left for Iraq，Tyler says．But when he returned，he was unhappy and drinking alcohol too much．It turned out Patrick was suffering from sleep panic attacks．Patrick would wake up every night．His heart would beat too fast．He would sweat．The nighttime panic attacks prevented Patrick from feeling good the next day，because he was so tired．

    Almost 10 years later，Tyler was in a position to help his father．He thought he could make a computer program that might help his father．So he entered a competition in Washington，D．C，trying to solve the problem Tyler's father and other U．S．war veterans(老兵)，were having．People called them “night terrors.”The students had 36 hours to come up with a program．They called it myBivy．That name comes from bivouac，a military term for a safe place to sleep．

    The application uses a smart watch and a smart phone together．The watch tracks the wearer's heartbeat．It sends the data to the program on the smart phone．Research shows that a person's heart rate will increase right before a night terror．So if the wearer's heartbeat started to rise，my B ivy would respond．The smart watch would vibrate(振动)and gently wake up the sleeping person．That was enough to prevent a night terror from happening．

    Patrick wore the watch for two weeks to get used to it．Then，Tyler turned on the application．On the first night，the vibrations from the watch prevented 10 nightmares．Patrick said he had not slept that well in many years．Tyler and his team won the contest in Washington，D．C．The prize was $1，500．Then the group tried to raise more money from investors，and they were surprised when they took in over$25，000．By the spring of 2016，Tyler and his team were testing the app with volunteers，and hoped to make it availab1e to the public soon．

    When my sister Mertie told me she had put out tomato plants last summer, I was quite impressed.

    Since she was a garden-beginner, Mertie researched exactly how far apart to space her tomato plants; what kind of fertilizer to use; how to keep away the bugs（害虫）, etc. Once they were planted, she took care of them daily, anxiously awaiting the juicy tomatoes to appear. But, day after day, her plants were tomato-less while all of her neighbors who had also put out tomato plants were already enjoying the fruit of their labor.

    Frustrated (upset), Mertie gave in and went to the market to search fresh tomatoes. While paying, Mertie told the farmer her troubles. The farmer paused to think for a moment and then asked, "Well, what kind of tomatoes did you plant?"

    "I think they were called Big Boy," Mertie remembered.

    "Well there's your problem," the farmer explained. "Big Boy and Better Boy tomatoes have a 95-day growing period whereas regular tomato plants produce fruit in as few as 70 days…you just have to wait a little longer for the Big Boys."

    With that new knowledge, Mertie went home with excitement, knowing they would be worth the wait.

    Thinking about my sister's gardening experience, I had to smile. She just didn't know that Big Boy tomatoes took longer--neither did I--but once she discovered that information, she was no longer discouraged and upset about the lack of tomatoes on her plants. Instead, she was encouraged and excited to see them a few weeks later.

    It makes me wonder how many of us have "Big Boy" dreams in our hearts, yet we just don't realize that they are of the "Big Boy" variety so we are discouraged and worn out with the waiting process. Instead of waiting with excitement, we give up on our dreams and figure we must have done something wrong to stop them from coming to pass. Frustrated, we see other people's dreams coming true, and we wonder why ours haven't yet been achieved.

    In many countries, authority is seldom questioned, either because it is highly respected, or because it is feared. Because rank has been important in certain societies for a long time, people have been trained never to question those in authority. For example, children are not expected to question their teachers in school. It may be considered improper for young businessmen to suggest ideas that differ from those of older, more experienced members of the business.

    In other countries, including America, children are trained to question and search for answers. When a child asks a question, he will often be told to go to the library and find the answer for himself. By the time students reach the age of 14 or 15, they may be developing exciting new ideas in all fields of science and arts. To encourage such creativity, there are many national prizes offered to students every year for their scientific discoveries and artistic accomplishments.

    This interest in questioning and searching may be considered by some people as bad for young people's manners, that young people lack respect for authority. This impression may be created when visitors notice young Americans asking questions and arguing with older people. However, this is because many Americans have a different attitude toward authority than may exist in other areas of the world. In a work or business situation, ideas are freely and openly discussed and argued. It is important to remember that it is the person's ideas that are being questioned, not the individual himself. The two are quite separate. The purpose of the searching, questioning, and arguing is to find the facts in a particular situation, and therefore a solution, so that the work of the business can progress in the most effective manner possible.

    As was mentioned earlier, you may notice the same questioning in social conversations. Although some individual may think that Americans are rude because of the direct manner with people, they are merely trying to learn more about your ideas.

Is forgiveness against our human nature? To answer our question, we need to ask a further question: What is the essence of our humanity? For the sake of simplicity, people consider two distinctly different views of humanity. The first view involves dominance and power. In an early paper on the psychology of forgiveness, Droll （1984） made the interesting claim that humans' essential nature is more aggressive than forgiving allows. Those who forgive are against their basic nature, much to their harm. In his opinion, forgivers are compromising their well-being as they offer mercy to others, who might then take advantage of them. 

The second view involves the theme of cooperation, mutual respect, and even love as the basis of who we are as humans. Researchers find that to fully grow as human beings, we need both to receive love from and offer love to others. Without love, our connections with a wide range of individuals in our lives can fall apart. Even common sense strongly suggests that the will to power over others does not make for harmonious interactions. For example, how well has slavery （奴隶制） worked as a mode of social harmony?

From this second viewpoint of who we are as humans, forgiveness plays a key role in the biological and psychological integrity of both individuals and communities because one of the outcomes of forgiveness, shown through scientific studies, is the decreasing of hatred and the restoration of harmony. Forgiveness can break the cycle of anger. At least to the extent the people from whom you are estranged （不和的） 'accept your love and forgiveness and are prepared to make the required adjustments. Forgiveness can heal relationships and reconnect people. 

As an important note, when we take a Classical philosophical perspective, that of Aristotle, we see the distinction between potentiality and actuality. We are not necessarily born with the capacity to forgive, but instead with the potential to learn about it and to grow in our ability to forgive. The actuality of forgiving, its actual appropriation in conflict situations, develops with practice.