power distance as a culture as whole versus a culture's acceptance of hierarchy only within organizational settings). More pointedly, d'Iribarne questions the generalized conclusions that Hofstede draws from the data, imposing Hofstede's own value system on what the data show. For instance, d'Iribarne questioned Hofstede's conclusions from the uncertainty avoidance statistics, arguing that Hofstede superimposes his own view that data. For d'Iribarne, Hostede simply presumes that showing high stress at work correlates with weak uncertainty avoidance, while d'Iribarne asserts that the presence of high stress could just as readily indicate high stress results from high uncertainty avoidance, since no external control exists in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Finally, d'Iribarne questions Hofstede's implicit assumption of uniformity in complex organizations, let alone entire national cultures. Such assumptions of uniformity are useful, d'Iribarne writes only "if one thinks of a culture specific to a close-knit community." Instead, though, d'Iribarne notes that in most situations, "society is split into more or less antagonistic groups" and in any case, "meaning is not only received but produced"; in short, Hofstede does not allow for the fact that people do not remain static in how they interact with one another. Philippe d'Iribarne fills out the bare bones of Hofstede's simplified structure, a point with which Hofstede himself acknowledged when he wrote that, "The two approaches are complementary -- mine is more quantitative, d'Iribarne's more qualitative. I provided a skeleton for the countries he studied, and he provided the flesh. The skeleton I proposed is a worldwide structure in cultural differences among cultures." Other academics also point to a fundamental flaw in the common application of Hofstede's culture dimensions. Hofstede's culture dimensions and scores are national or "ecological" in nature and do not apply to individual people living in the sampled countries: In Hofstede's analysis, the correlations of his culture variables are significant when aggregated to the national level but not significant at the individual level. This means that no cultural implications can be drawn about individual people living in a certain country; to do so is to commit an “ecological fallacy”. To avoid this fallacy and resulting confusion Brewer and Venaik recommend avoiding the use of the Hofstede dimension scores in management research and training. The same authors compare the Hofstede culture dimension scores with equivalent dimension scores from the GLOBE culture model and show severe problems in face, discriminant and convergent validity across the two models.