Tin Pan Blues |
Saturday, July 10, 2004
REMINISCENCES OF A MISSISSIPPIAN IN PEACE AND WAR:
Electronic Edition. Frank Alexander Montgomery, b. 1830 Funding from the Library of Congress/Ameritech National Digital Library Competition supported the electronic publication of this title. Text scanned (OCR) by Victoria Strickland-Cordial Images scanned by Carlene Hempel Text encoded by Carlene Hempel and Natalia Smith First edition, 1999 ca. 650K Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999. http://docsouth.unc.edu/montgomery/montgom.html The highest ambition of all men in the south at that time, so far as occupation was concerned, was to be a planter, and to spend the most if not all his time on his plantation. For this, the merchant invested his profits, the lawyer his earnings, and indeed everybody saved all he could to attain to this ideal life. The planter living upon his own lands, surrounded by his slaves, a happy and childlike race in that day, dispensed a broad and generous hospitality; no one was ever turned from his door. For even the lowliest a place was found. His neighbors were everybody within a day's ride from his home, and frequent visits were made, the planter mounted on his splendid saddle horse, his favorite mode of travel, and his wife and children in the carriage. He was a proud man, proud of his wife and children, proud of his plantation and slaves, proud of his stainless honor, and ready to exact or give satisfaction for wrongs fancied or real, suffered or done, not by the deadly pistol concealed in the hip pocket, but by a meeting upon the field of honor, with mutual friends to see fair play. These were the halcyon days of the south, gone never to return, but the stories of those days, the sacred traditions, have preserved, and will, I hope, continue to preserve the same spirit in the descendants of those noble men, and keep them pure in race and upright and honorable. In this lies the hope of the south to-day. But what pen can do justice to southern society as it was before the war, its wide influence for good all over the land; mine cannot. I speak of a class and not of individuals, for there were rare exceptions who were coarse and rude, as there are to-day men who, forgetting the traditions of the past, destitute of gratitude and honor, flaunt themselves in Page 21 high places, scheming only how best they may deceive the credulous and achieve their ends. Friday, July 09, 2004
The Articulation of Two Worlds: The Master-Slave Relationship Reconsidered
Christopher Morris The Journal of American History, Vol. 85, No. 3. (Dec., 1998), pp. 982-1007.
Some "What really Matters" observations
1) It is important to me to see the regional identity process as malleable, not culturally determined, even though I still see the personality-sorting mechanisms issue as a crux variable. This will require some reconciling. 2) The dynamics of change over time are important -- are these linear, and modernizing, or something else? 3) Contingencies of the settlement process, based on resource networks and public policies. 3a) We need to stress more highly the migration choices and opportunities argument -- people could have gone anywhere but chose these places, sometimes passing through many different environments. Is the Ohio river or Mississippi river journey a great metaphor for this? 4) What about temperament and the "flush times?" Did that affect migration streams? 5) In the culture chapter I really am pushing the importance of structural factors. 6) Okay, so the higher % of Southerners in Ag, esp. in the Southern state, seems to coordinate well with the personality characteristics and behavioral choices model I've got going. 7) There is something of a reconciliation that will be required between individual choices (lots of similarities) and relative output differences, at the county and state level. Maybe it's structural after all.... (Though if the temperament = community thesis is right, it would automatically control for regional differences.) In other words, temperament, not birthplace, is the key variable. ie: Self-selection bias. 8) Resource patriarchy and geographic lumpiness. 9) Importance of Indiana consistency and variance, versus Mississippi lumpiness -- what does that mean in terms of complexity of development -- shouldn't Indiana be more specialized, and thus have greater variability? Lumpiness could be a result of the enhancement and protection psychology of segregation, though, huh? 10) How much of the data distributions (few individual differences, county consistency,, and lumpy geography) are a result of temperament, and how much due to assimilation, do we think? And is assimmilation just selection bias disguised otherwise? 11) The "correction of stereotypes" motive seems really important to me. Why, and to what end? 12) Here again, differences arose from circumstances, not from ideology [though the result was to create an environment that was ideologically constricted.] 13) It is of some importance to stress that the things that separated I&M then are not always the things that separate N&S in today's popular discussions of differences. Thursday, July 08, 2004
Personality Types
I wrote: A question straight out of PSY-21: I'm about halfway through Millon, and find his three part evolutionary personality model generally persuasive. I'm trying to forge a connection between it and some other reading I have done, especially Nisbett and Cohen's Culture of Honor, which argues that white Southerners have a distinct cultural psychology rooted in a herding culture in which resources were both scarce and easily stolen. A citation search of that book led me to Harry C. Triandis and Eunkook M. Suh, "Cultural Influences on Personality" Annual Review of Psychology (2002), 133-161, in which they (with some reservations) find that there is some universality of the so-called "Big Five" personality traits, and which they then set up alongside a cultural differences typology (Complexity, tightness, collectivity) that I also found intriguing. I Googled "big five" (I gather that this is a widely used introductory concept) and wondered how the "big five" framework fits in with Millon's three. At first guess it looks like at least a few of the "big five" seem to fit under Millon's self versus other polarity. If so,does it make sense to distinguish the factors into five rather than three groupings? Does that question make any sense? Having this typology might give me some useful hooks for grappling with my Indiana and Mississippi stuff, but I want to do so judiciously. Do these frameworks have merit? What cautions would you offer? Paul responds: Concerning the Big 5. I think that they would fall under Millon's discussion of personality attributes, which is to say that they are the personality structures and functions that are used to carry-out or meet the imperatives. For instance, being Neurotic is a way of staying safe. Being Agreeable is a way of fostering enhancements. Being Extraverted is an active way of creating enhancements or securing social resources for protection. Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Another Summary of the Big Five.
(from http://users.wmin.ac.uk/~buchant/wwwffi/introduction.html#Appendix%202:%20Test%20Items%20and%20Scoring ) Factor I : Extraversion (AKA Surgency) This trait reflects preference for, and behavior in, social situations. People high in extraversion are energetic and seek out the company of others. Low scorers (introverts) tend to be more quiet and reserved. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (27) is about average. Factor II : Agreeableness (AKA Friendliness) This trait reflects how we tend to interact with others. People high in agreeableness tend to be trusting, friendly and cooperative. Low scorers tend to be more aggressive and less cooperative. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (21) is relatively low. Factor III : Conscientiousness (AKA Will or Dependability) This trait reflects how organized and persistent we are in pursuing our goals. High scorers are methodical, well organized and dutiful. Low scorers are less careful, less focussed and more likely to be distracted from tasks. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (29) is relatively low. Factor IV : Neuroticism (AKA Emotional Stability) This trait reflects the tendency to experience negative thoughts and feelings. High scorers are prone to insecurity and emotional distress. Low scorers tend to be more relaxed, less emotional and less prone to distress. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (25) is about average. Factor V : Openness (AKA Culture or Intellect) This trait reflects 'open-mindedness' and interest in culture. High scorers tend to be imaginative, creative, and to seek out cultural and educational experiences. Low scorers are more down-to-earth, less interested in art and more practical in nature. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (21) is relatively low.
The Big Five factors of Personality (A Lecture summary)
From ( http://www.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/011382000/BigFive.html ) The Big Five represents a taxonomy (classification system) of traits that some personality psychologists suggest capture the essence of individual differences in personality. These traits were arrived at through factor analysis studies. Factor anal ysis is a technique generally done with the use of computers to determine meaningful relationships and patterns in behavioural data. You begin with a large number of behavioural variables. The computer finds relationships or natural connections where vari ables are maximally correlated with one another and minimally correlated with other variables, and then groups the data accordingly. After this process has been done many times a pattern appears of relationships or certain factors that capture the essence of all of the data. Such a process was used to determine the Big Five Personality factors. Many researchers tested factors other than the Big Five and found the Big Five to be the only consistently reliable factors. Strict trait personality psychologists go so far as to say our behaviour is really determined by these internal traits, giving the situation a small role in determining behaviour. In other words, these traits lead to an individual acting a certain way in a given situation. Allport, Norman and Cattell were influential in formulating this taxonomy which was later refined. Allport compiled a list of 4500 traits. Cattell reduced this list to 35 traits. Others continued to analyze these factors and found congruence with self- ratings, ratings by peers and ratings by psychological staff, that eventually became the Big Five factors. The Big Five factors are: I – extraversion vs introversion II – agreeableness vs antagonism III – conscientiousness vs undirectedness IV – neuroticism vs emotional stability V – openness to experience vs not open to experience Cross-cultural studies looking at the replicability of the Big Five have been less extensive due to the costs and difficulties involved. One reason for looking at cross cultural consistency is that it could provide an evolutionary interpretation of the way individual differences have been processed or encoded as personality categories in language. A Dutch analysis found 5 factors as well, the first 4 being similar to 4 of the Big Five, and the 5th being closer to unconventionality and rebell iousness. A German factor analysis replicated the Big Five factors. A problem with interpreting cross-cultural data is language translation. Some mistranslation may result in underestimating cross-cultural generalizability. Work has been done to reduce th is problem and higher congruence has been found with correlational analysis. Overall, the Big Five have been studied in 7 languages. The 5th factor (openness to experience) has the weakest replicability. There was a need for an integrative framework for measuring these factors. The NEO Personality Inventory was created by Costa and McCrae and originally measured only neuroticism, extraversion and openness. The other factors were added later. There are other measures of the Big Five, such as the BFI (Big Five Inventory) and the TDA (Traits Descriptive Adjectives). The NEO has the highest validity of the Big Five measurement devices. What do the five traits mean? (*put up overhead) Keep in mind that the traits fall on a continuum and this overhead shows characteristics associated with each of the traits. Looking at these characteristics we can formulate what each of the traits mean. E Extraversion – means a person is, talkative, social and assertive A Agreeableness – means a person is good natured, co-operative and trusting C Conscientiousness – means a person is responsible, orderly and dependable N Neuroticism – means a person is anxious, prone to depression and worries alot O Openness – means a person is imaginative, independent minded and has divergent thinking |
