What to make of this Atlantic gift link suggesting the US has three personality profiles by region, or that Trump voters are linked to neuroticism?
Well, around here Trump voters seem to fall into a few main categories.
- The Trumpian a-hole. These are the white, middle/upper middle class people who live in the suburbs, and affect a certain “country” vibe. They vote Trump/Republican, because they feel like they’re voting for their own way of life, and don’t care about the effects on anyone else. They’re very self-centered and tend to have a very set idea of how things should be.
- The timorous old farts. These are usually people in their mid 50s and up, who seem to be constantly afraid. They vote Trump/Republican because their rhetoric plays to this- they’re going to stamp out election fraud, they’re going to stamp out crime, they’re going to be tougher on criminals, and so forth. This demographic is pretty much driven by fear/neuroticism.
- The country bumpkins. These are the rural people who feel like the modern world is passing them by and rendering them and their way of life irrelevant. They’re not necessarily hostile toward minorities, but they are susceptible to rhetoric that implies that most urban programs are taking from them, and giving to urban minorities. They’re also mostly unfamiliar with city life in general.
Common things about all of them- they all tend to think of things as zero-sum games. Aid/generosity to one group is de-facto something being taken from another- namely them. They are usually pretty religious, and usually of the more conservative strains of their particular denomination, even when their denominations aren’t necessarily overly conservative (although most are members of conservative denominations). Religion is often a sort of catalyst or accelerant for these people, in that they view their religious teachings as reinforcing for their beliefs, not necessarily something that challenges their worldviews.
So in terms of the article and maps, looking at who won what county, it sure appears that the main divider is still urban/rural, not neurotic/friendly/creative. Even in states like California and South Carolina, the urban areas voted blue, and the rural areas voted red.
One of the arguments I’ve heard is that what kind of agriculture you have determines your cultural values.
In cultures where there was a lot of staple crops like corn or wheat, people generally don’t care abou ‘honor’ or reputation as much.
But in cultures that are more pastoral where people have livestock, the culture reflects a heavier obsession with things like honor and reputation. The reason is that its easier to steal livestock than it is to steal crops. So in cultures where thieves can steal all your livestock overnight, your family has to develop a reputation for viciousness so that you don’t get robbed. People can’t harvest and rob acres of wheat overnight, but they can steal lots of animals.
Because of this in new England, the culture tends to reflect the lack of obsession with honor since it was colonized by people who were farmers. But the south was supposedly more colonized by scottish settlers who were more pastoral, resulting in a culture more obsessed with things like honor.
This is a terribly shortsighted article. The main difference is between rural versus urban, not different geological areas of the city.
Rural people in New York state are a lot more similiar to rural voters in the south than they are to people in New York City. Just like urban voters in NYC are much more similar to people in Atlanta or Houston, than they are to people in NY state who live on a farm.
BTW the vast majority of people, north, east, south, or west live in a city, not a rural environment.