I think when you compare men and women together, the breakdown of nature vs. nurture is probably something like 50/50 where 50% is nature and 50% is nurture; however, I believe women are more prone to nurture and men less prone. I would surmise that for men, it's more like 80%/20% nature/nurture and for women, it's more like 20%/80% for nature and nurture.
I think this is why women are far more likely to take a nurture/culture influences everything stance whereas men are less likely to take this stance than women. Women are projecting themselves onto their belief. For women, nurture plays a huge role. This is also why women are more likely to be permanently damaged by their past influences, whereas men are far more likely to get over past trauma. For women, this trauma shapes them entirely (80% of their being is shaped by their past) but for men, it does not (only 20% of a man's being is shaped by his past).
Obviously though, this 80/20 between men and women varies with some men probably being closer to 20/80 and some women being closer to 80/20 but on a normal curve where the mean is 80/20 for men and 20/80 for women.
I think in the question of nature/nurture we need to look at it more through the lens of a gender bias. The lack of gender evaluation of nurture/nature causes significant issues.
For example, when it comes to immigration, many White people think we can bring in military aged males and just "educate" them but it doesn't work that way. On the other hand, we might be able to bring in young girls and "educate" them BUT it would make sense to neuter the women so they cannot procreate, otherwise their genetics carryforward to possibly create a man who would then be inferior and no amount of culture could correct for it.
I wonder if anyone has any data on my hypothesis? I'm pretty sure I'm probably right but I don't have any data to support it. Essentially the Y chromosome is likely the "static" variable that creates this unchanging essence of the man "nature" and the X chromosome is the one whose nature is more easily influenced by the environment rather than the internal program. That would be my hypothesis anyway.
If intelligence were so superior, every life form would compete for being smarter than others. But it doesn't even apply to humans, and the reason "today" it is so good is because sufficient intelligence can lead to a lasting increase in technology which can not only compensate other genetic shortcomings, but provide even superiority.
So the magnitude at which people are capable to divert from their genetic setup depends on their intelligence primarily. It's not about gender. If anything, women are way more bound to their nature as men are, as they are wired to want to reproduce, and pursue feasible men since adulthood or even before (even if it means perpetually presenting themselves as to attract them), whereas men are not wired to want to reproduce as much as women are. Even biologically seen they can delay that much longer than women can, who at some point become infertile, and before that no longer attractive.
The distinction between "nature" and "nurture" is arbitrary. It all depends on intelligence and some other circumstances as to how much a person can divert from their nature. The reason more intelligent people have a lower reproduction rate is because they *do* divert from their nature, which leads to lower reproduction rates. Genetically that means it is disadvantageous.
And how do you define "nature" and "nurture" even? A lot of factors of "nurture" are dependent on "nature" (aka genetics).
> For example, when it comes to immigration, many White people think we can bring in military aged males and just "educate" them but it doesn't work that way. On the other hand, we might be able to bring in young girls and "educate" them BUT it would make sense to neuter the women so they cannot procreate, otherwise their genetics carryforward to possibly create a man who would then be inferior and no amount of culture could correct for it.
Given that women strongly tend to be conforming to whatever culture they are in, they are more prone to indoctrination and propaganda. Add to that their lower capacity of rationality and thus increased emotionality (required to be feasible mothers and caretakers). So they regurgitate jewish pro-immigration propaganda disproportionally often. Also, and this may be a consequence of that behavior, they tend to invite barbarians or incite wars in order to have native men fight, so that the superior men survive, with whom they can reproduce, even if not willingly.
Our cultural pursuit of "Equality" and "Democracy" does the rest to ensure women are caught in the illusions. Because "equality" means men have to make sacrifices in order to have women pushed into positions of authority. Someone competent has to step back so that an incompetent women can take his place.
But note that women (as a collective) are not to blame for their behaviors. It would be idiotic, which I also say cynically, as giving them that much agency of free will is mistaken. It is on us men, and our ancestors, that we let the jew worm itself into the upper echelons of our culture, politics, economy, media, education, science only to have it all rot away for so long. It is also only men who can fix it, and the best we can hope for is to remove the brainwash imposed on our women so that they do not stand in our way when the time of the rope comes.