There’s not a definition of what they mean laid out in the article, but I think the way they use it (relationships and context vs components) suggests a similar view to Dramatica’s, though my guess would be that they are viewing “holistic” from a linear point of view.
What I found jarring was the suggestion that thinking styles develop from philosophies rather than the reverse. For instance, they suggest easterners are more holistic because their culture developed around Confucius emphasized relationships. It doesn’t seem to have struck them that maybe Confucius emphasizes relationships because he was already a holistic thinker.
As for thinking styles matching geography and changing over the course of a generation, I think Mental Relativity addresses this in a couple ways. First, remember that everyone can use both styles. The idea is that everyone is preconsciously pulled in one direction or another, but can consciously train to use either. So the Hokkaido or the two groups on either side of a river could both be preconsciously pulled the same direction and yet have trained themselves to go in opposite directions.
Second, there are some interesting ideas in Mental Relativity for how DNA passes info to the next generation. I haven’t looked at it in a while and almost certainly can’t do the explanation justice, but it’s something like this. DNA carries the accumulated history of ones ancestors. This accumulated information guides one by way of a sort of average of that information. And yet, the newer the information in the chain is, Mental Relativity suggests, the stronger the pull. So if a culture has a thousand years of farming well known lands in their history, but suddenly finds themselves hunting a wild frontier, the pull of that hunting generation may or may not be strong enough to equal or outweigh the past thousand year. That’s a very brief explanation that leaves out a lot, but hopefully gets the idea across.