TL;DR: A bunch of aggressive male baboons died in an accident many generations ago and the group was better for it due to the culture and genes that passed on as a result.
A good argument for Eugenics if ever there was one -- I tend to be against it in principal, but sometimes I look at the war and devastation in this world caused primarily by aggressive greedy men (and occasionally women), but I like to think there are better solutions, especially because it opens the door to people being sterilized for stupid reasons like scoring low on an IQ test or getting on the wrong side of some politician [1] (interestingly, Eugenics is still 100% legal in the United States [1])
It's not genetic; it's entirely a cultural change. (Hence the title of the article!) This is specifically addressed in the text:
> A decade after the deaths of the more aggressive males in the troop, Forest Troop preserved a distinct social milieu accompanied by distinct physiological correlates. Critically, as noted, no adult males in F93–96 had been troop members at the end of the tuberculosis outbreak. Instead, these males had subsequently transferred in as adolescents, adopting the local social style.
Actual quote: "Often, such differences reflect environmental factors (e.g., a correlation between quantities of rainfall and foraging time) or, in theory, could reflect genetic drift. However, increasing evidence suggests that group-specific traits can also represent “traditions” or “cultures” (the latter term will be used, commensurate with the near consensus among primatologists that the term can be appropriately applied to nonhuman primates)."
In other words, your "TL;DR;" is a complete ... uh, lie and seems to mostly to be about further some agenda you have.
