It's Dangerous to Be a Boy NYT article

[Toni]

WTF, indeed.

Responses from the front page:
#2: males are more violent
#3 males being more violent is an advantage
#4 males by nature influenced by nurture
#5 taking a piss at #4
#6 me asking a question about whether violence = aggression, dominance, etc.
#7 Response to #6 maybe but it's nature
#8 It's nature but can be modified by nurture
#9 Me asking #6 for more
#10 taking a piss at #5
END OF PAGE 1

Page 2:
11 Image of art that I am interpreting as men being violent and perhaps it's the will of God or perhaps it's nature
12 Political rant/dig at perception of liberals
13 Response to political rant in #12
14 Response to 13, again mostly political
15 More than 2 lines! Thoughtful piece about ways that society lets men/boys down
16 Disagreement with some facts in #15
17 Mixed influences: nature plus nurture
18 Correcting some facts in #16
#19 Disagreeeing with #16 about side issue with more discussion of cultural reasons
20 Response to #19
End of page 2

Page 3
21 Response to 12 (political)
22 Response to earlier political post
23 Mostly disagreeing with the premise that boys are inherently violent/more violent'
24 Question about females/biological forces driving female behavior
25 2 words no description or discussion of why/how the two words are pertinent
26 Asking for information about those 2 words
27 Definition of 2 word term in #25
28 Me noting that few posters are willing to offer more than a sentence or two and posing the question about whether, if men are violent by nature, should they be awarded custody
29 Personal attack
30 Men are more violent but towards women and offer of Munchausen by proxy as strictly female

Page 4
31 Response to 29
32 Response to 30 with actual facts and links
33 Personal attack/deliberate misunderstanding of post
34 post in which you do not speculate whether is is nature or nurture but you're sure I'm deliberately misinterpreting responses and that many more are note nurture/combo vs combo
35 Nature/nurture

We're up to date


Maybe pages display different/different numbers of posts on your screen compared with mine but that's the first page on my computer. Most of the responses give nature the predominate place in driving male behavior.

I'm actually reading AND counting.

Are you looking at anything other than the poster's name to decide what you believe they mean?

FWIW, I think the entire discussion about violent behavior, aggression and male gender to be a very difficult discussion, no matter your position: it's nature, it's nurture, it's a mixture.

I also think it's one of the most important discussions we can have as a modern society.

Only Trausti said on page 1 that the cause of male violence is nature/dna alone. You only replied to Trausti, not to those who agreed it was a mix. Your later comment that 'so many posters here are saying that it's nature/dna and not culture' is therefore odd. And it's even odder that you should then play devil's advocate against it with a suggestion that men should be denied child custody as a matter of course, because that rather controversial suggestion wouldn't stack up even in the (incorrect) case that it was just nature/dna that caused the gender disparities, because even then most men would not be violent, and a very small minority of women would, and so you'd be suggesting awarding children to a certain parent regardless of actual circumstances. I don't think there's any doubt that (a) you're mischaracterising the responses by only noticing one type and (b) making provocative statements about child custody issues as a result, albeit while playing devil's advocate.

I get it. You’d rather attack me than contribute to the discussion.

Also your count is wrong.

 

[Toni]

And you followed that up by positing that perhaps men shouldn't have custody of children etc, because if some men are prone to violence, then by golly they all must be, ya? Its in their DNA after all.

If it's in their DNA to be more violent, shouldn't they spend less time with children?

Well Gee, its also more common in women to be more nurturing and more relationship and feelings less object and hard logic oriented. Will you conclude from that that women should stay at home to look after the kids and not be career oriented? Should we lock them out of the offices so they take care of their kids? Does me flipping this around make you realize how incredibly sexist this all sounds?

I postulated a position based on the premise that several posters held: men are more violent. I think most of us agree that violence plus childrearing is a bad mix. It is not my premise. I merely extended the premise to what, for me, was a natural conclusion: men should not raise children. I don't agree with that premise.

In reality, I don't hold the position that men are inherently violent (and that women are not) or that men should not raise children. My position is that children do best when raised by fathers and mothers and that ideally, children are raised by more than one parent of any gender. Childrearing is a difficult task. For purely practical reasons, at least one other parent/parental figure is really important. I also think that children do best when they are raised by fathers and mothers, even if both fathers and mothers do not live together. A gay couple raising children would be wise to make sure that their children also had a lot of interaction/familial relationships with women; a lesbian couple would be wise to make sure that their children had a lot of interaction/familial relationships with men. Divorced/separated parents should learn how to get along well enough to both be positive influences and care givers in their children's lives, and so on for any combination of circumstances you can think of.

I believe the statistics indicate that women are the greatest perpetrators of child abuse. Specifically, their mothers. And when it comes to domestic violence, the perpetrators are about 60% men versus 40% women. So, its not quite as lopsided as you might think.

I actually don’t see it as ‘lopsided’ or that women (alone) are better suited to raising children. As you note, most child abuse is perpetrated by women. It isn’t clear whether this is because wome are, on average, more violent towards children or whether women are more likely to be abusive towards children because they are much more likely to be the ones caring for the children. I suspect the disparity is most likely due to the fact that women are very much more likely to be the ones providing the majority of care to children—but that’s only my suspicion. It’s been some years since I was familiar with child abuse statistics.

Note: I don’t think that most of the child rearing responsibilities should be borne by only one parent, no matter the genders. Child rearing is difficult and stressful in the very best circumstance. Where one parent has sole responsibility for child rearing, everybody is much better off if there is a community/family/network of people to share the load and provide support and nurturing to the children but also to the caregivers. And the joys and rewards! Too often in modern society, child rearing is a largely solitary endeavor. The reality is that raising children is a lot of work, physically and emotionally.

 

[ruby sparks]

....your count is wrong.

Nope. It isn't.

ETA: looking at page 2, no one suggested it was nature and not nurture and at least 3 posters agreed it was both.

Where you got that 'so many people here' are saying it's nature and not nurture is anyone's guess. In fact, as far as I can see, only Trausti suggested it.

And the consequent hypothetical suggestion about child custody was awry in any case.

 

[thebeave]

And you followed that up by positing that perhaps men shouldn't have custody of children etc, because if some men are prone to violence, then by golly they all must be, ya? Its in their DNA after all.



Well Gee, its also more common in women to be more nurturing and more relationship and feelings less object and hard logic oriented. Will you conclude from that that women should stay at home to look after the kids and not be career oriented? Should we lock them out of the offices so they take care of their kids? Does me flipping this around make you realize how incredibly sexist this all sounds?

I postulated a position based on the premise that several posters held: men are more violent. I think most of us agree that violence plus childrearing is a bad mix. It is not my premise. I merely extended the premise to what, for me, was a natural conclusion: men should not raise children. I don't agree with that premise.

In reality, I don't hold the position that men are inherently violent (and that women are not) or that men should not raise children. My position is that children do best when raised by fathers and mothers and that ideally, children are raised by more than one parent of any gender. Childrearing is a difficult task. For purely practical reasons, at least one other parent/parental figure is really important. I also think that children do best when they are raised by fathers and mothers, even if both fathers and mothers do not live together. A gay couple raising children would be wise to make sure that their children also had a lot of interaction/familial relationships with women; a lesbian couple would be wise to make sure that their children had a lot of interaction/familial relationships with men. Divorced/separated parents should learn how to get along well enough to both be positive influences and care givers in their children's lives, and so on for any combination of circumstances you can think of.

I believe the statistics indicate that women are the greatest perpetrators of child abuse. Specifically, their mothers. And when it comes to domestic violence, the perpetrators are about 60% men versus 40% women. So, its not quite as lopsided as you might think.

I actually don’t see it as ‘lopsided’ or that women (alone) are better suited to raising children. As you note, most child abuse is perpetrated by women. It isn’t clear whether this is because wome are, on average, more violent towards children or whether women are more likely to be abusive towards children because they are much more likely to be the ones caring for the children. I suspect the disparity is most likely due to the fact that women are very much more likely to be the ones providing the majority of care to children—but that’s only my suspicion. It’s been some years since I was familiar with child abuse statistics.

Note: I don’t think that most of the child rearing responsibilities should be borne by only one parent, no matter the genders. Child rearing is difficult and stressful in the very best circumstance. Where one parent has sole responsibility for child rearing, everybody is much better off if there is a community/family/network of people to share the load and provide support and nurturing to the children but also to the caregivers. And the joys and rewards! Too often in modern society, child rearing is a largely solitary endeavor. The reality is that raising children is a lot of work, physically and emotionally.

Ya know, there's an old saying that goes, "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones".

 

[Toni]

I postulated a position based on the premise that several posters held: men are more violent. I think most of us agree that violence plus childrearing is a bad mix. It is not my premise. I merely extended the premise to what, for me, was a natural conclusion: men should not raise children. I don't agree with that premise.

In reality, I don't hold the position that men are inherently violent (and that women are not) or that men should not raise children. My position is that children do best when raised by fathers and mothers and that ideally, children are raised by more than one parent of any gender. Childrearing is a difficult task. For purely practical reasons, at least one other parent/parental figure is really important. I also think that children do best when they are raised by fathers and mothers, even if both fathers and mothers do not live together. A gay couple raising children would be wise to make sure that their children also had a lot of interaction/familial relationships with women; a lesbian couple would be wise to make sure that their children had a lot of interaction/familial relationships with men. Divorced/separated parents should learn how to get along well enough to both be positive influences and care givers in their children's lives, and so on for any combination of circumstances you can think of.

I believe the statistics indicate that women are the greatest perpetrators of child abuse. Specifically, their mothers. And when it comes to domestic violence, the perpetrators are about 60% men versus 40% women. So, its not quite as lopsided as you might think.

I actually don’t see it as ‘lopsided’ or that women (alone) are better suited to raising children. As you note, most child abuse is perpetrated by women. It isn’t clear whether this is because wome are, on average, more violent towards children or whether women are more likely to be abusive towards children because they are much more likely to be the ones caring for the children. I suspect the disparity is most likely due to the fact that women are very much more likely to be the ones providing the majority of care to children—but that’s only my suspicion. It’s been some years since I was familiar with child abuse statistics.

Note: I don’t think that most of the child rearing responsibilities should be borne by only one parent, no matter the genders. Child rearing is difficult and stressful in the very best circumstance. Where one parent has sole responsibility for child rearing, everybody is much better off if there is a community/family/network of people to share the load and provide support and nurturing to the children but also to the caregivers. And the joys and rewards! Too often in modern society, child rearing is a largely solitary endeavor. The reality is that raising children is a lot of work, physically and emotionally.

Ya know, there's an old saying that goes, "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones".

I'm not sure what this means in context of my post or this thread?

 

[Toni]

....your count is wrong.

Nope. It isn't.

ETA: looking at page 2, no one suggested it was nature and not nurture and at least 3 posters agreed it was both.

Where you got that 'so many people here' are saying it's only nature and not nurture is anyone's guess. In fact, as far as I can see, only Trausti suggested it.

And the hypothetical suggestion about child custody was awry in any case.

On MY page 2 (which may be different than the page 2 displayed by your computer/version of the thread) almost none of the posts dealt with the OP at all.

On my pages and by my reading, a number of people suggest that it's nature or predominately nature. Although a fair number of posts are devoted to what a terrible person I am in one way or another.

Again, I was hoping to get some actual responses to the OP rather than cryptic two word posts or pictures or political derails. Instead I get personal derails.

It doesn't matter to you that I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe that men should not be parents or should not have custody of children, never mind my 'posting history' that everybody likes to use as an excuse to attack me personally but where I often talk about how I think men should have equal custody/ responsibility for childrearing (with an exception for very early infancy where mom is breastfeeding because--and only because--breastfeeding works best when mother is able to directly feed the child and mothers pumping to prepare for several days separation from their child on a regular basis is unduely stressful physically for the mother and for the baby. Many babies adapt to switching between bottle and breast but some do not do it easily).

I like men. I don't see men as violent beasts. I am appalled at men being characterized that way. I'm appalled that people excuse overly aggressive/violent behavior as being simply a man's nature that he must mightily struggle to overcome. I'm appalled that some people think that boys/men must deal with violence and aggression because they are boys and it's their nature and the nature of other boys and men. I think men make excellent parents. I was closer to my father than to my mother and think he was the better parent for me (less true of some of my siblings). I think my husband is an excellent father and was from the very first day of parenthood onward. I don't see my husband as violent or aggressive or out of control. I don't see most men that way. I think society/culture has done a huge disservice to men by characterizing them as being aggressive/violent/unemotional.

I think society has done a huge disservice to all by characterizing men as aggressive/violent/unemotional/ the leaders.

I think society has done a huge disservice to women by characterizing men as aggressive/violent/unemotional/the leaders just as it's done huge disservice to women and to men and to society by characterizing women as passive/overly emotional/subordinate.

I'm opposed to rigid gender roles.

I think that society and families need to look at the unconscious (and maybe conscious) ways they do a great disservice to boys and to the men they become by treating them as aggressive/violent/unemotional beings and forcing them to deal with increased violence, etc.

I think that EVERYONE is harmed by this as well and society as a whole.

But go ahead and discuss what you think I think instead of the topic of the thread.

 

[thebeave]

I believe the statistics indicate that women are the greatest perpetrators of child abuse. Specifically, their mothers. And when it comes to domestic violence, the perpetrators are about 60% men versus 40% women. So, its not quite as lopsided as you might think.

I actually don’t see it as ‘lopsided’ or that women (alone) are better suited to raising children. As you note, most child abuse is perpetrated by women. It isn’t clear whether this is because wome are, on average, more violent towards children or whether women are more likely to be abusive towards children because they are much more likely to be the ones caring for the children. I suspect the disparity is most likely due to the fact that women are very much more likely to be the ones providing the majority of care to children—but that’s only my suspicion. It’s been some years since I was familiar with child abuse statistics.

Note: I don’t think that most of the child rearing responsibilities should be borne by only one parent, no matter the genders. Child rearing is difficult and stressful in the very best circumstance. Where one parent has sole responsibility for child rearing, everybody is much better off if there is a community/family/network of people to share the load and provide support and nurturing to the children but also to the caregivers. And the joys and rewards! Too often in modern society, child rearing is a largely solitary endeavor. The reality is that raising children is a lot of work, physically and emotionally.

Ya know, there's an old saying that goes, "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones".

I'm not sure what this means in context of my post or this thread?

Maybe you don't understand the idiom. I'll let this guy explain it to you:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js-wIGt7gy0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Toni]

I actually don’t see it as ‘lopsided’ or that women (alone) are better suited to raising children. As you note, most child abuse is perpetrated by women. It isn’t clear whether this is because wome are, on average, more violent towards children or whether women are more likely to be abusive towards children because they are much more likely to be the ones caring for the children. I suspect the disparity is most likely due to the fact that women are very much more likely to be the ones providing the majority of care to children—but that’s only my suspicion. It’s been some years since I was familiar with child abuse statistics.

Note: I don’t think that most of the child rearing responsibilities should be borne by only one parent, no matter the genders. Child rearing is difficult and stressful in the very best circumstance. Where one parent has sole responsibility for child rearing, everybody is much better off if there is a community/family/network of people to share the load and provide support and nurturing to the children but also to the caregivers. And the joys and rewards! Too often in modern society, child rearing is a largely solitary endeavor. The reality is that raising children is a lot of work, physically and emotionally.

Ya know, there's an old saying that goes, "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones".

I'm not sure what this means in context of my post or this thread?

Maybe you don't understand the idiom. I'll let this guy explain it to you:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js-wIGt7gy0[/YOUTUBE]

I understand the idiom. I don't understand its use here. Can you please be more clear about where you think I am throwing stones?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I get it. You’d rather attack me than contribute to the discussion.

How to Toni:

1. Say something provocative and borderline if not explicitly sexist. Make sure you're reading it into something so you can claim to just be "following the logic".

2. Play the victim to deflect from owning point 1. Maybe hide behind gender while doing so. He's a man attacking a woman! Woe is you!

 

[ruby sparks]

But go ahead and discuss what you think I think instead of the topic of the thread.

I was discussing the topic of the thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

It seems virtually a no-brainer that men are more violent than women because of both nature and nurture. I don't think anyone knows the exact proportions and in any case the proportions will vary greatly from person to person and situation to situation and it is likely EXTREMELY complicated.

My own, amateur guess is that of the two, nature generally plays the slightly bigger role. I say this because of the evolutionary timescales involved before (the arguably thin veneer of) human socialisation really got sophisticated and/or we 'civilised'. We only have to look at most of our ape cousins, etc.

Of course, saying that nature plays a role does not mean that nothing can be done about it. Clearly that's totally incorrect. The variation across societies and over history shows us that quite profound changes happen, and can be brought to happen.

As to 'nurture', while it may be true that in some (informal) ways, culture encourages male aggression, it's also true at the same time that it also very strongly discourages it, especially in our 'western', developed countries in recent times, but everywhere and throughout history to some extent. A lot of the time, 'social rules' have censured and punished it and continue to do so. This is particularly true of formal rules such as laws, codes of behaviour and other regulations.

 

[Toni]

The cultural forces that lead men towards violence also shames them for being the victims of violence. As was rightly noted in the OP, we usually hear about violence against women, but violence against men is more common. Prostate cancer is also quite common, but we hear almost exclusively about breast cancer instead.

The mortality rate for breast cancer is higher than that for prostate cancer. And the treatments for prostate cancer are usually do not involve changing the physical exterior. So your example fails.

Even were what you claim true, that would not make the example fail. Note I didn't say that prostate cancer has higher mortality than breast cancer, nor did I say anything about their treatments. I was talking about the fact that breast cancer is talked about frequently and prostate cancer is almost never talked about. Men are not encouraged to see themselves as victims and are less likely to get themselves checked, nor are the victims as likely to draw as much empathy. It is much easier to sell women and children as victims. Men are considered more expendable. That's probably got a lot to do with biology (1 man can fertilize dozens of women; so women are biologically more valuable than men when it comes to breeding and keeping the species going). It may also partly explain why males are more violent towards other males.

I'm not sure that 'victimhood' is the issue or right word here so much as it is vulnerability and toughness. Men are not 'supposed' to be vulnerable, except, perhaps, to puppies and maybe kittens and babies or a good steak. Men are supposed to be tough, physically and emotionally and mentally. Not just strong: tough, meaning to ignore needs and pain. This is imo, (self)destructive on multiple levels. If you talk to most married women, they are the ones who push their husbands to get checkups and who encourage their spouses to monitor their health/attend to health needs. Sure enough, married men tend to live longer than single ones.

I think that the type of cancer is particularly difficult for men to contemplate: prostate cancers strike particular fear in the hearts and minds of a lot of men: fear of aging, fear of loss of sexual potency. Fear of death, yes, but more immediately, fear of things that many men associate with being a man.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think that’s all pretty spot on, Toni.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Men are supposed to be tough, physically and emotionally and mentally. Not just strong: tough, meaning to ignore needs and pain. This is imo, (self)destructive on multiple levels.

Yes it is. But that's only half of it. Men who do show vulnerability and who are indeed victims are far more likely to be laughed at or not taken seriously than women are. Society generally doesn't want to accept men as victims, pushes them to feel tough as you put it and not show vulnerability, and society tends not to accept it if they do.

If a man is beaten by his wife never fights back, and finally calls the police on her, guess who is very likely the one going to jail? Its quite possibly not the wife.

 

[Toni]

Men are supposed to be tough, physically and emotionally and mentally. Not just strong: tough, meaning to ignore needs and pain. This is imo, (self)destructive on multiple levels.

Yes it is. But that's only half of it. Men who do show vulnerability and who are indeed victims are far more likely to be laughed at or not taken seriously than women are. Society generally doesn't want to accept men as victims, pushes them to feel tough as you put it and not show vulnerability, and society tends not to accept it if they do.

If a man is beaten by his wife never fights back, and finally calls the police on her, guess who is very likely the one going to jail? Its quite possibly not the wife.

I think that society/other men/even women do not want to see men as victims of violence at the hands of women. I think that's less true of men being the victims of violence at the hands of other men. For the most part, people respect and have sympathy for men who have been victims of violence. There are some notable exceptions, sure. This is different than women who report violence at the hands of men. They are often blamed or their injuries or attack is discounted. Taking the two together, it seems that society or segments of society do not want to sympathize with victims of violence.

That said, men do have it worse in regards to not receiving sympathy or feeling able to even admit to being the victim of violence.

 

[Toni]

Men are supposed to be tough, physically and emotionally and mentally. Not just strong: tough, meaning to ignore needs and pain. This is imo, (self)destructive on multiple levels.

Yes it is. But that's only half of it. Men who do show vulnerability and who are indeed victims are far more likely to be laughed at or not taken seriously than women are. Society generally doesn't want to accept men as victims, pushes them to feel tough as you put it and not show vulnerability, and society tends not to accept it if they do.

If a man is beaten by his wife never fights back, and finally calls the police on her, guess who is very likely the one going to jail? Its quite possibly not the wife.

I think that society/other men/even women do not want to see men as victims of violence at the hands of women. I think that's less true of men being the victims of violence at the hands of other men. For the most part, people respect and have sympathy for men who have been victims of violence. There are some notable exceptions, sure. This is different than women who report violence at the hands of men. They are often blamed or their injuries or attack is discounted. Taking the two together, it seems that society or segments of society do not want to sympathize with victims of violence.

That said, men do have it worse in regards to not receiving sympathy or feeling able to even admit to being the victim of violence.

I think I wrote this badly: I think that most men who, say, are mugged or get into a fight st a bar, etc. are regarded with some sympathy, although perhaps some: didn’t you have more sense than to carry cash, pick a fight, not be able to avoid a fight. And more: men who avoid confrontations or fights as being seen as ‘less manly.’ Different than knowing how to diffuse a situation or laugh off attempts at bullying.

It’s a razor thin edge to walk, I think. Boys:men are supposed to avoid fights, to be smart enough to avoid them or diffuse a situation. At the same time, they must not seem to be weak or cowardly—they cannot run away literally or figuratively. If they are bested in a fight, they still get some respect. If they run or hide—it’s worse than being weak. It’s being a coward. Men are not allowed to be cowards, even when, as the Bard so eloquently stated, discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[ruby sparks]

Men are not allowed to be cowards...

The classic example of this 'rule' being played out in society is/was during actual wars. For example, the 'white feathers of cowardice' campaign during WW1 in Britain. Many women, including some early feminists, took part, and the suffragette movement supported the war.

 

[Toni]

Men are not allowed to be cowards...

The classic example of this 'rule' being played out in society is/was during actual wars. For example, the 'white feathers of cowardice' campaign during WW1 in Britain. Many women, including some early feminists, took part, and the suffragette movement supported the war.

View attachment 24890

I'm aware.

No one that I know of is suggesting that only men and boys pressure men and boys to hold some supposedly masculine standard of stoicism and strength.

But if your point is that the pressure and expectations are pervasive,then yes, I agree.

 

[ruby sparks]

No one that I know of is suggesting that only men and boys pressure men and boys to hold some supposedly masculine standard of stoicism and strength.

I know that.

But if your point is that the pressure and expectations are pervasive, then yes, I agree.

Yes, that is my point. And to flesh it out a bit (and temporarily setting aside the 'nature/dna' component, to a degree) the fact that human societies have been and are still at least somewhat patriarchal, it is my view that what I might call 'the social agenda' has been more set by men than by women (albeit it is/was a combination involving complicated interactions). I think this would have been more true of the example of the white feathers in 1915 than today of course, now that traditional gender roles are quite a bit more fluid and relaxed in 'western' countries, even if traditionalism still persists, for a variety of reasons.

Also, we shouldn't, imo, judge the early feminists by today's standards, and in any case it was only some of them. There were also feminists of that time who opposed the war and did not hand out white feathers. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the idea for the white feathers campaign originated from the (male) military hierarchy, in order to pressure men to enlist. This would seem to support my suggestion that men, by and large, historically, called more of the shots. Literally, in cases like this.

 

[barbos]

It seems virtually a no-brainer that men are more violent than women because of both nature and nurture. I don't think anyone knows the exact proportions and in any case the proportions will vary greatly from person to person and situation to situation and it is likely EXTREMELY complicated.

My own, amateur guess is that of the two, nature generally plays the slightly bigger role. I say this because of the evolutionary timescales involved before (the arguably thin veneer of) human socialisation really got sophisticated and/or we 'civilised'. We only have to look at most of our ape cousins, etc.

Actually, I read that they determined (study of adopted children ) it's nature 75% and only 25% nurture. Basically, nurture is greatly overrated