Yale researcher Dan Kahan studied the personality and cultural differences of Americans and found a fascinating distinct cluster: white hierarchical individualistic men
Making up around 1/6th of the population, this cluster has markedly different views about risk, guns, environment, and more.
For example, here's white hierarchical men on climate change vs everyone else:
Hierarchical individualist men don't just not overlap with everyone else on the risks of climate change, they're on a different planet.
But hierarchical individualists aren't universally fearless people. They just have different risk assessments.
For example, white hierarchical individualists find the idea of gun regulations to be incredibly high risk, but almost no one else does. Here's the full chart of risk perceptions:
Kahan's fascinating research further solidifies that differences in views of reality are fundamentally motivated by personality and values differences.
Curious whether you're a hierarchical individualist or an egalitarian communist? Here's the test:
The Cultural Cognition Project appears to have stopped in 2018 without a note as to why, but this Squarespace site has all the old blog posts
(Note: you may need to rewrite the links, as they no longer own their domain name)
1 - Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.
2 - American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.”
In 1974, the RAND Corporation ran the then largest randomized control trial on healthcare.
They recruited 2,750 families, totaling 7,700 people under the age of 65. Families were randomly assigned to one of five types of health insurance plans:
- Three cost-sharing plans: 25 percent, 50 percent, or 95 percent coinsurance, subject to a co-pay limit (~$5000 today)
- Unlimited fee-for-service care (the same plan as above, but with a 0% co-pay)
- Free care from a nonprofit HMO
The RAND Health Insurance Experiment followed these families for 8 years.
It found:
- Cost-sharing reduces healthcare utilization by 25-30%, with no effect on health outcomes for almost everyone.
- Poor people in the top 80% of initial health ended up with a 3% lower general health index under free medicine than under full-priced medicine.
- Low-income participants with chronic conditions did have a small measurable increase in hypertension, but this was the only one of thirty measures that was significant.
- No meaningful differences in rates of death.