Answer:
Investment theory of creativity
Explanation:
Researchers Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart have proposed a theory called the <u>investment theory of creativity</u>. According to the authors, creative people are like good investors: they buy low and sell high. Their research show that creative ideas are rejected as bizarre or ridiculous by most people when they first come out, and thus they are worth little. Creative people are willing to champion these ideas that are not generally accepted, and it is in this sense that they are "buying low". They try hard to convince other people of the value of the new idea, and eventually they turn them into supported and high value ideas. Creative people "sell high" when they move on from the now generally accepted idea on to the next unpopular but promising idea.
A real world example of this theory was famous filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. When most of his movies first came out, they usually were met with mixed or negative reviews, as was the case of films like <em>A Clockwork Orange </em>(1971) or <em>The Shining </em>(1980). However, after a few years, they were widely recognized as cinematic masterpieces.
The producers can create their maximum combination of goods,
as long as the producers address the consumer desires. In this way, they may
likely be efficient with the resources they get and use in a way of creating
goods that will be useful and that it won’t go to waste.
The answer is “both saw it as a necessary response to the privileges of royalty and aristocrats”
Though both agreed that Revolution was necessary in France against royalty and aristocrats, what Washington an Jefferson disagreed on was American intervention to aid the French Revolution. Jefferson felt the United States owed France aid in war since after the French had aided in the American Revolution they signed a treaty promising to provide aid if France then after went to war. Washington on the other hand felt that their obligation to the treaty had been terminated since the king whom they signed the treaty with was now dead, and he did not otherwise think it would be a good idea to engage Americans in the French Revolution because he worried that it would not only be too expensive for the newly formed nation but would also cost too many American lives
(Sorry for the unsolicited history lesson, oh well, maybe it’ll help you with later questions)
sample answer:
To make his essay "Symptoms" more relatable to readers in the United States, most of whom have never experienced war firsthand, John Steinbeck uses the analogy of childbirth. By comparing the soldiers’’ experiences at war with a mother’s experiences during childbirth, Steinbeck draws a parallel between the physical pain and the endurance that both display. He also notes that, just like a mother is able to forget the reality of the pain associated with childbirth and can go on to have more children, a soldier does not talk about his experiences at war because his body and mind attempt to block out those painful and traumatic memories. Steinbeck uses this analogy to make the war experiences more personal and more relatable to his readers because he knows that although most of his readers have not been in a war, they probably understand or even relate to the pain faced by a woman during childbirth.
Answer:
A second interpretation from the 2005 CAT scan suggested that Tutankhamen’s broken leg occurred during:
Carter’s recovery of the body.
Explanation:
It was English Egyptologist Howard Carter, along with his team, who on October 28, 1925 excavated the mummy of King Tutankhamen. There have been several theories concerning the injuries found and the possible cause of Tutankhamen's death. For instance, his leg injury was believed to have occurred during a chariot race.<u> However, a second interpretation from a CAT scan performed on the mummy in 2005 claims the leg was likely to have been broken when Carter was excavating the body. Still, different researchers defend different theories. Nevertheless, the belief that Tutankhamen died violently has been almost completely refuted.</u>
