I have discussion to do , just your opinion on the post, ok. nothin long but maybe 200 or 250 words.
1. Browse through the facial/head diagrams from Vaught’s Practical Character Reader (1902) . What do you think about the main idea Vaught is making? Place these ideas in the their historical context and comment on the implications of this view. Are some remnants of these ideas visible today? Give examples.
2. Nature and Nurture in Popular Culture Collapse
We’ve all the heard about the so-called “Nature – Nurture” controversy and are familiar with such sayings as “The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree,” or “Like Father, Like son,” or he’s “A Chip off the Old Block.” In fact, the “apple” saying has been found in more than a dozen different cultures in (of course) different languages. Indeed, the notion that “human nature” largely affects what we choose to do and how we do it has been embraced by people who otherwise differ in fundamental ways. Eugenics, for example, has flourished in democratic, facist, communist countries, has been embraced by people of different races, ethnicities, religious backgrounds (even atheists), and social classes. For it to resonate with such different categories is testimony to the power and seductiveness of the ideas.
Historically, much in popular culture seemed to lean toward the “nature” side of the equation. Cartoons such as Dick Tracy (all the bad guys were biologically deformed), and Lil Abner (drawing on the “white trash studies of eugenicists), movies such as Frankenstein, Tobacco Road, and GATTICA, as well as countless television shows and science fiction short stories and novels emphasize this theme. What do you see in popular culture these days to support the “nature” argument. Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not?