For example Nordic countries are ranked way up top on both individualism and interpersonal trust(also social capital in general from the other studies I've seen), while being very progressive and left wing in their policies. I feel that directly contradicts what you're trying to take away from this study.
Also for example there's a chicken-egg situation happening too, because we see a correlation between individualism and wealth of a country, wealthy countries tend to be more individualistic, so are they more wealthy because of individualism or is individualism a consequence of becoming rich? I think it's the latter mostly, at least in Western context, because, as Inglehart has argued, in very poor material conditions we are forced to cooperate and submit to the will of the collective, because otherwise that might mean that we'll be banished and denied physical sustinence(also the reason why poor countries tend to be more religious, because that's one way for people to help and relate to each other). On the other hand when a country goes through rapid industrialization, means of self-sustinence become more available to people - you can get a job at a factory now and not submit to a will of a very oppressive father, because now suddenly you can stay alive and thrive without him, so you get a chance to become more individualistic.

Really cool that people are posting stuff like that here though. :)