Hmmm. More evolutionary claptrap.
Let's run it through the mechanics of evolution and see if it makes any sense. The docile, agricultural humans had an evolutionary advantage such that their docile, agricultural offspring outcompeted the offspring of the cunning, tough hunter/gatherers, who died off en masse leaving the meek to inherit the earth.
Sorry, guys, doesn't wash. Evolution requires a LOT of death and survival of the fittest. (Darwin: "Nature is red in tooth and claw"). And if the offspring of BOTH survive together and can ultimately interbreed, evolution hasn't occurred at all.
Evolution always comes down to speculation and comes up short on evidence.
Just because they grew crops doesn't mean they quit hunting. Its not an either/ or situation.
The "docile" agriculturist was able to store food and live densely with others and would have been more than a match for hunter/gatherer bands who also had to deal with periodic shortages with no stored food to draw on. Starvation and predation of the H/G were most likely the cause of the Agriculturists prevailing, not direct competition.
It could have favored the planners, meek or not. A hunter wakes up, "me hungry, me go kill, me eat". That takes care of today. The farmer wakes up, sows his crop, and waits, while living off of last year's harvest which will carry him through the year. Of course, he still hunts too, but can take a day off from time to time to see a play or go to a museum. Less dangerous than hunting woolly mammoth.