The ideas mentioned are all interesting conjecture, but hard evidence is rather short. A history shows that attempts to map human behavior to human genetics tends to reflect the biases of the mappers more then anything. That said, here is my breakdown of what I think of the ideas:

1: There may be a bit of truth in it, but but cultural factors out weight any genetic basis in human society. Just consider how many non-European societies are not tied to the ideal they push.

2: Very likely correct, as long as you keep the "slightly" in there.

3: Possibly true, but the argument is weakened when you realize just how common out of marriage affairs are in some species.

4: Pure conjecture. And sharply weakened when you consider how many Christians seek to become a martyr. In fact, I suspect that the percentage that wants to become a martyr is fairly close. The difference is that Muslim fanatics see themselves in a war to be won through military power, while Christians see themselves in a cultural conflict to be won through conversion.

5: Possibly true.

6: Very likely correct.

7: The pattern is true, but the connection to birth patterns is conjecture. And of course Bill Gates was never a great programmer, though the authors where likely more correct then they thought when they tied him to criminal behavior.

8: Probably true to some degree, but not likely the only reason.

9: Once again, probably true to some degree but not the only reason.

10: Some of the underlying material they mention is clearly true to some degree or another, but the generalization they are making is wrongheaded. Women often do see specific mistreatment when the guy in question is just a general bastard. And there certainly is a connection between sex/power games and human prehistoric mating behavior. But much of it is cultural behavior that can not be cleanly tied to genetic basis. And because the two are so intertwined it is very dangerous to say that something is caused by one or the other.

More importantly, the generalization they draw is far too broad. While what they talk about is almost assuredly true for some cases, it is also almost assuredly incorrect in others. And I think the evidence leans towards a conclusion based more on society then genetics.

And these matters are important, for the simple reasons that society is something we can change, genetics is something we can not.