The role of nature versus nurture in individual outcomes has been a central question across biology, psychology, and neuroscience. The complex interplay between genes and environment has been highlighted in various studies, leading to the understanding that the correlation is bidirectional whereby genes can modulate responses to the environment and environmental factors can modulate expression of genes. On a practical level, this results in evolutionary selection of variants that are more favorable in specific cultures versus others. Some ways in which these cultures can be defined are whether they are individualistic versus collectivistic, agricultural versus industrial, and dietary habits (Laland et al., 2010). Recently, a powerful example has been unveiled that highlights the convergence of culture (East Asians versus European Americans), brain anatomy (thickness of the prefrontal cortex), and genetic variation (allele of the dopamine D4 receptor gene) (Yu et al., 2019).

In the atomic version of the article, there is little background information or examples of concepts. An overview of previous literature on the topic is missing, as clearly demonstrated by the lack of any citations or references to seminal works from relevant fields. This makes it difficult to contextualize this publication and evaluate its contribution to the field. It is important to note that the original study contains extensive references to previous literature on concepts in cultural psychology. The outstanding questions or knowledge gaps in the field are somewhat vague in both versions. Further, while the researchers consistently refer to differences between Western and non-Western cultures, the atomic version omits these important distinctions.

The methodology employed for exploration of the topics of genes and culture is unclear, leaving readers uncertain about the criteria used for referencing and selecting studies. To enhance the coherence and relevance of the research, a more explicit statement of the research question would be beneficial. By clearly defining the research question, the concepts discussed in the article could be more purposefully directed towards addressing specific inquiries, thus improving the overall flow and coherence of the article. There are only a few paragraphs on the topic of genes while the majority of the article covers a wide variety of concepts from cultural psychology, including traditions, personality traits, degree of independence, and cultural history/evolution. Accordingly, the link between genes and culture does not seem to be the main focus of the article. This is consistent with the information presented in the atomic article.

Finally, the researchers call for interdisciplinary approaches to deepen our comprehension of the intricate relationship between genes and culture. Rather than relying solely on broad categorizations of cultures, the article suggests considering individual differences and using a more nuanced framework. An interdisciplinary perspective could significantly enrich research on these topics. This is also mentioned in the atomic article. Overall, the article's value is somewhat obscured by a lack of focus, which is amplified in the atomic version. Rather than offering substantial depth on a few specific points, the article appears to prioritize breadth, covering a wide array of topics within a limited space. To this end, the article could benefit from a more concentrated exploration of key themes, allowing for a deeper analysis and more substantial takeaway points.

References
Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature reviews. Genetics, 11(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2734

Yu, Q., Abe, N., King, A., Yoon, C., Liberzon, I., & Kitayama, S. (2019). Cultural variation in the gray matter volume of the prefrontal cortex is moderated by the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). Cerebral cortex, 29(9), 3922–3931. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy271