Culture is not tightly constrained by genetic nature.

Evidence

In an insightful analysis, Stephen Jay Gould (1987) notes that the major explanatory battle is not between nature and nurture as commonly framed. Rather, it is whether nature operates as a determinist that has culture on a “tight leash,” as Edward Wilson (1998) argues, or as a potentialist that has culture on a “loose leash,” as Gould (1987) contends. … Evidence supports the potentialist view. Humans have created societies with diverse natures: aggressive and pacific ones, egalitarian and despotic ones, altruistic and selfish ones, individualistic and collectivistic ones, enlightened and backward ones. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 155

Categorization

• XREF: The tight-leash vs loose-leash frame connects to vault claims about ordinary people rationalizing harmful policy — if culture is not genetically fixed, ideology explanations gain causal force. — connects to: Cultural-structural reproduction limits social speed more than biology does. — Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration: A New Theory of…, 273; Culture supplied the water capacity that genes alone could not, enabling endurance running adaptations — Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success: How Culture…, 256; Forager water-procurement know-how is nonobvious cultural knowledge that genes could not supply — Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success: How Culture…, 255 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 155