To carry this analogy a little further, there is the question of where religion fits into the paradigm. The authority of Nature for a farmer is absolute, with specific rules that do not change, and must be scrupulously observed by the farmer for his survival. To question or attempt to circumvent these rules may mean the loss of his crop, and subsequent starvation. Therefore the trait that enables a farmer to prosper is unquestioning obedience to a higher authority, in this case Nature. Doing the same thing in the same order every year ensures his continued survival. So it might follow that a person who leans to the farmer side of the spectrum is more comfortable with an organized religion, with a specific doctrine and rules, and a leadership hierarchy.
The authority of Nature for a hunter is a little different. Hunters cannot take the same action over and over again, or they will starve. A hunter has broad guidelines to follow for catching his food, but he is mostly left to his own devices. He can say that usually the caribou are around here at this time of year, but he can't stand in this certain place and know that the caribou will show up. And he may have to fight someone else for that caribou. So he may have quite a different conception of authority than a farmer. He can't say, "If I follow the rules, I will be fed." He has to be ready to change course at any time, and he may not see accepting authority as the key to survival.
This may account in part for the differences in a liberal and conservative approach to faith.