"I'm not clear what your quibble is about Buddhism. Something to do with whether nirvana is an end goal or a byproduct? My criticisms of Buddhism aren't that detailed."

Again -- "you criticize Buddhist ideas (and Christian too, btw) on the basis of misguided practitioners.[And] [t]hat's like criticizing and doubting shovel's usefulness because kids cannot use it properly." I cannot be more clear and, as far as I’m concerned, I’d say that it’s pretty intelligible.

"there's less of a straightforward biological explanation of human actions"

Only that there (in all likelihood) is (a straightforward biological explanation).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/

"tangled knot of personhood"

And what, exactly, is that? Continuous notion of self (whether imaginary or real)? Some supposedly objective category based on further categories arbitrarily chosen and varying depending on who you ask? Something else entirely? And don't start with agency -- animals have the same agency as humans, and as I said motivations don't matter. What's important is the ability. Obviously, because human is simply an animal, too. So again, do you deny those folks I mentioned previously -- IQ around 90, little to no education and parenting, basically asocial, ruled by their whims and instincts -- personhood? If so, that's pretty close to eugenics :barf:

"you have to add psychology, sociology, and references to culture to account for the complex symbols we use that further detach us from nature"

You don't have to add, they simply explain in more detail (i.e. merely as specializations). And not only human psychology, sociology, etc. but also the one you label animal. Also, nowhere they talk about detachment from nature. That’s merely your personal twist. And of course, there's still that link above…

But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯