> Are there any which are known not to?

Are there any behavioral differences known not to have a genetic basis? Yes. When in Southeast Asia, I don't show people the soles of my feet (it's not considered nice, at least in some places). In Europe I have no qualms about showing people the soles of my feet. Behavioral difference. Yet my genes don't change when traveling from A to B.

> Why would you assume human populations to follow a pattern distinctly different from all the rest of biology?

What exactly are you claiming about "the rest of biology"? Are you confusing human populations that look slightly different from each other but belong to the same species with different species of, say, felines?

Oh, I see. The cultural difference between Julius the labrador, living here, never having hurt a living being in his ten years of life, and the yapping terrier living next door, killing cats and rodents on an industrial scale.

Well, dog behavior is due to a large part to how they are handled by humans, and what kinds of humans pick which kinds of dogs is to a large part cultural. But yes, there is a genetic element, you're right. The hugely artificial creatures created by dog breeders aren't a very convincing example for broad statements about "the rest of biology", though.

Because humans haven't been around long enough for one to expect that sort of genetic variation. Possibly because the link between behavior and genetics is nonexistent. I don't know enough about the topic to know if there is a link between genetics and behavior. Do you know if there is?

There is quite a lot of evidence that species of animals that work in cooperative groups engage various forms of behavior that seek to equalize outcomes for the group, even to their (individual) detriment. Notable examples include apes.

My statement was about the genetic basis for behavior in humans and whether there has been enough time for genetic based human behavior to have much variation.

You would not expect populations separated by thousands of years of existence under wildly differing conditions to evolve different patterns of behaviour? Please elaborate.

Your last sentence of your original post was

"...evolved different inbred attitudes..."

This refers to evolved in the sense of genetics. Of course human populations have different patterns of behavior. But the question is whether these patterns are cultural versus being genetic. My response above has to do with the genetic basis of behavior differences.

EDIT: Thousands of years may not be enough time to cause a genetic basis for differences in human behavior. This was the original objection raised by interfixus. The objection does not seem reasonable given the lack of evidence given for said objection in the context of interfixus complaining about the sloppy thinking in the article.