That argument still requires evidence that those personality differences exist, aren’t learned (other primates have learned behavior, too – see e.g. http://www.radiolab.org/story/91694-new-baboon/), and are significant to the very complex behaviors under discussion.
The other area it ignores is the degree to which humanity’s distinctive advantage is plasticity. We can learn to do things like be comfortable in an enclosed space full of strangers – imagine a subway full of baboons! – which doesn’t mean that biology can’t be a factor but does mean that it’s really important (and hard) to critically test those assumptions.
Simon Baron-Cohen has been pushing that idea for a long time but while they’ve gotten a lot of attention for his career, his conclusions are far from definitive. There are various papers contesting his conclusions and review articles have failed to support the bold claims – e.g. https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2...
That doesn’t mean that there’s nothing here but I find it telling that the neuroscientists I used to support were far more skeptical than, say, the Damore fans here. This topic came up a bit and there was a strong consensus that the science was still too early to say anything — there are low level biological differences (e.g. percentages of white matter) but that hadn’t been linked to high-level skills, and the few low-level differences were still being studied to identify the cause. This is all complicated by the plasticity of the brain based on usage so answering even simple-sounding questions is usually a significant percentage of multiple people’s research careers.
