Sapolsky is kinda sus. His general approach seems reasonable but he tends to promote speculative and even debunked theories, and puts a lot of weight on the evo- part of evopsych, even as he acknowledges that genetic influences are heavily mediated by the environment. This might have something to do with him spending so much time studying baboons (relatively simple primates) and reading a lot of his experience into humans.
The lectures from one of his courses at Stanford,
Human Behavioral Biology, is on youtube. It has millions of views.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3DRegardless, his contribution to the sociopolitical discussion of "free will" is a valuable countersignal to the crypto-christian moralism that is laser-focused on virtue ethics that ignores as much context as possible. We should be cautious to ground too much of that argument in scientific evidence, however, since science above all else is subject to revision and such revisions can render the counter-arguments untenable. It would be a much wiser strategic choice to ground such arguments instead in a philosophical basis and only the most well-supported scientific evidence,
not bleeding edge research or fields in their infancy like neuroscience. That's less trendy and less likely to sell books, however, which is what Sapolsky like most people involved in the discourse are primarily concerned with.