I agreed with you about Gladwell and deference. I agreed with you about the Japanese having better training. I'm not sure what you want out of this. It seems like the idea that culture influences behavior is deeply offensive to you. How come?
My reason is that I just don't like sloppy reasoning to spread dangerous tribalist memes.
What's your reason for continuing to insist on using the word "culture" after you had already agreed on the non-factor of deference and importance of training ?
I believe culture is a real thing that influences behavior. The word simply refers to group norms around behavior and attitudes. Any group of any size will have a culture.
I believe that culture is a poor explanation for events in some cases. As you pointed out, it is probably not a good explanation in the case of deference (although I am not well-versed in the differences between Japanese deference and Korean deference), but that doesn't mean that cultural explanations are invalid altogether.
In particular, a training program will have a certain culture (set of attitudes and behaviors that get inculcated in the trainees), partly influenced by the national culture (including financing levels, collaboration with foreigners, etc.), and partly evolved on its own.
If not for culture, how do you explain the differences in training? I'm not saying your view is invalid, I just haven't heard what you think about this yet.
