Thanks, ** Mandelstam**!
A search on Google for “Nature Nurture” brought back a lot of hits. My impression is that there is a growing consensus that neither nature NOR nurture are wholly responsible. For example, from this site (bolding mine)
This suggests that genetics does not produce monsters in benign situations so much as monsters from bad situations that non-predisposed people might have been able to work through or shrug off.
Further down in the same article is something that nicely explains the phenomenon I was trying to relate: (again, bolding mine)
That saying someone comes from a nice house or had a stable childhood doesn’t mean so much since a child’s experience is their own. I realize that the next sentence in the quote ties this in with genetics, but the self-determination, or at least individuality, is still relevant.
I guess that my biggest problem with a genetic argument for serial killer tendencies is the implication that there is some kind of SK-Gene: I can accept a genetic component of the sort that Jim B. mentions (“** kinetic activity–some babies are more active than others…**”) that when coupled with environmental factors can lead to psychopathic behavior.
There are other bits in this article which discuss the hereditary angle (and related complexities), as well as discussing some of the difficulties of testing various aspects. A neat overview.
Re: Kaczynski;
He /does/ sound like someone who is ideologically motivated – a sociopath rather than a psychopath. Discussing him may bring something to the debate, as long as it’s noted that his psychology is significantly different from Ted Bundy, Edmund Kemper, et al.