Look at the people around you. Some are passive, others more aggressive. Some work best alone, others crave companionship. We easily recognize that there is great variation among the individuals who live near us. Yet, when we speak of people from elsewhere, we seem to inevitably characterize them based on their country of origin.

        Statistics specialists, when they speak of national averages, often make the same mistake.

        Newly published research shows how erroneous such overviews are. Three researchers analyzed decades of values-based surveys and found that only between 16% and 21% of the variation in cultural values could be explained by differences between countries. In other words, the vast majority of what makes us culturally distinct from one another has nothing to do with our homeland.

        To determine what factors really are associated with culture, the authors combined data from 558 prior surveys that each measured one or more of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These are traits, such as individualism and masculinity, that describe work-related cultural values. (They are not a measure of visible cultural traits, such as food or dress.) Though the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions has been questioned, they have the singular benefit of having been in use for decades, which allows for historical and international comparisons.

        The researchers found that both demographic factors, such as age, and environmental factors, such as long-term unemployment rates, were more correlated with cultural values than nationality. Occupation and social economic status were the most strongly correlated, suggesting that our values are more economically driven than we usually give them credit for.

        The evidence implies that people with similar jobs and incomes are more culturally alike, regardless of where they live. Vas Taras, the lead author of the study, puts it this way: “Tell me how much you make and I will make a pretty accurate prediction about your cultural values. Tell me what your nationality is and I probably will make a wrong prediction.”

        Taras says our erroneous belief that countries are cultures has caused businesses to teach their employees useless or even harmful ways of interacting with their international peers. Chinese and American lawyers might be trained to interact based on the assumption that the Chinese person is less individualistic, even though their similar social economic situations make it probable they are actually quite alike in that regard.

        The country, as the unit of authority, is often a convenient way of generalizing about a population. However, our focus on countries can mask broad variations within them. In the majority of cases we would be better off identifying people by the factors that constrain their lives, like income, rather than by the lines surrounding them on a map.

解析：D。根据题干中的the end of the passage可定位至原文最后一段。该段主要讲对国籍过分关注可能产生的影响。最后一句又进一步暗示：在大多数情况下，在对人们进行辨别时，我们最好通过限制他们生活的因素，比如收入，而不是通过地图上那些界定他们的线条。言外之意就是，在对人们进行辨别时，经济因素要胜过国籍因素，D项与此内容相符，其中Nationality对应该句中the lines surrounding them on a map，socio-economic status对应该句中的income，indicator of one’s values对应该句的identifying people，故D项为正确答案。

错项排除：原文指出，通过国籍来判定个人特点这种做法并不可取，A项与此相悖，故排除。B项利用最后一句的majority和constrain进行干扰，但原文说的是在大多数（majority）情况下，在对人们进行辨别时，最好通过限制（constrain）他们生活的因素，并不是说大多数人受制于他们的国籍身份，故B项排除。C项利用最后一段第一句中的the unit of authority进行干扰，但arguable在文中无依据，故排除。