A bloke called David Goodhart has come up with new labels with which to classify people. I think they are interesting because they integrate aspects of personality in a slightly different way.
As I understand it, from an item in a radio prog and too scant a reading...
Conventionaly the "somewheres" are the conservatives and the "anywheres" the liberals. "Somewheres", as the label implies, need to be "located", they need a nation, a tribe, a family, a club or whatever. They need external structure within which to operate. This might be a hierarchical system/class/group system, a political party, a team, a group of fellow football, or whatever, supporters. They tend to be nationalistic and vote for things like Brexit and Trumpian politics. They tend to seek patrony and the approbation of others.
"Anywheres" are happy to live anywhere providing they are given the means to achieve their aims. Less clannish, more independent of action and thought, more inclined to construct their own value set within the common ethical and moral frame (mostly). But if they deviate it is due to a personally considered plan rather than a flock tendency; there will be a rationale, rather than a rationalisation, behind their actions.
Probably not so different from other ideas, other ways of dividing humans into types - but, somehow, I like the implications of constraint and freedom. As a wanna-be anarchist I would, of course, want to embrace the "Anywhere" label. In truth . . . Well, that's another stiry!
is the whole thing - much more in it than I have mentioned above of course. The "portability" of the "anywhere's" attributes is very important. Is this why foreign students and researchers are valuable, it is not only their knowledge they bring but an attitude.