Answer:
German artist Albrecht Dürer created this engraving around the year 1500, showing a witch riding a goat. Between her legs, she holds a distaff, or stick used for spinning wool.
Answer:
Explanation:
On March 4th, when Charlie took the Rorschach Test, he was supposed to view the images of the inkblots and freely imagine what he saw in them. But Charlie only saw the inkblots for what they were: blobs of ink. Even when Burt tells him to imagine, to pretend, to look for something there in the card, Charlie can't. He struggles to give a true description of the cards, pointing out how one was "a very nice pictur of ink with pritty points all around the eges," but again, this isn't the response that the psychologist is looking for.
Like ambiguously shaped clouds in which people "see" images of people and animals, the inkblots have enough random, busy shapes on them for people to interpret them as many different things--people, animals, scenes, conflicts, and so on. The idea is that the psychologist will pay attention to what a person thinks he or she sees in the inkblots, which is supposed to provide insight on what that person thinks and feels overall.
As a result of Charlie's inability to properly take this test, he worries that he's failed and that he won't be a candidate for the treatment to increase his intelligence. And while he gets frustrated with himself during the test, and while Burt seems to get almost angry--as evinced when his pencil point breaks--I wouldn't say that Charlie is angry in this situation.
But what this scene does reveal about his character is that perhaps he's already smarter than we expect. By insisting on seeing the inkblots for what they really are, and by failing to imagine scenes and images that are false or skewed, Charlie shows that he's not just honest but scrupulous. This early evidence of his good character foreshadows the upcoming conflicts he has with the men at the bakery as well as the researchers themselves, who are less scrupulous.
This is a legitimate response to an open-ended query of Turkle.
Turkle hopes that by posing these questions, people would think carefully about the fact that many kids and adults would prefer to consult robots and computers about personal or intimate concerns than seek professional guidance from knowledgeable and experienced people who have dealt with situations comparable to their own and have the expertise and experience necessary to provide genuine aid.
Sherry Turkle questions why we would want to talk about love and loss with a machine that doesn't comprehend the course of human existence. Have we really lost faith in our ability to help one another, too?
Learn more about Turkle here:-
brainly.com/question/17518424
#SPJ9
This question refers to the short story "The Talking Skull".
Answer and Explanation:
<u>In "The Talking Skull - A Fable from Cameroon" by Donna L. Washington, the theme concerns how thinking too highly of yourself and talking too much can bring you trouble. The author uses the character of the talking skull to teach that lesson</u>. The skull is found by a man who considers himself a scholar and who talks and talks about things that are only important to him, but that no one else wants to hear. <u>When he asks the skull "What brought you here, brother?" or, in other words, what caused its death, the skull immediately replies, "Talking."</u>
The man does not pay attention to what the skull is saying. He only cares about the fact that its talking. <u>The skull makes it clear that not everything is worth saying</u>, but the man does not listen. He tries to make the skull talk in front of the villagers, but no avail. He is finally thrown out by them since they are tired of his ideas and talks. The skull once more talks, only to remind the man that not everything is worth saying.
