A Critique of The Seville Statement on Violence

Author Abstract

The Seville Statement on Violence (SSOV) (Adams et. al., 1986) is criticized for its probable chilling effect on research by evolutionary psychologists and other scientists and scholars¹ working from a sociobiological perspective. It is also critiqued for supporting a tendency of some interest groups to attempt to limit research, theoretical work and scholarly dialogue that they believe contradicts their world view and social-political agenda. The polemical style, factual content, reasoning and use of language is analyzed and questioned. The endorsement of the SSOV by the American psychological Association (APA, 1990) is reviewed. The social responsibility of scientists is also briefly discussed.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Drs. Judith Anderson and Charles Crawford of the Simon Fraser University's Department of psychology and Dr. Marguerite S. Barratt of the university of Wisconsin's Department of Child and Family Studies for their suggestions and encouragement.

(All paragraph references are to the Seville Statement on Violence, a copy of which is attached.)

The authors of the SSOV present themselves as mainstream human evolutionary scientists ("...from relevant sciences...") (1st ¶) criticizing mainstream human evolutionary science ("...in our disciplines...") (1st ¶). At best both of the above are rather questionable presentations. For example, in the definitive work that re-energized the field of sociobiology and sparked much debate on the issue of our biology's effect on our behavior (Nesse, 1984, p. 575)--E.O. Wilson's sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), in the approximately 2,513 references only 4 of the 20 SSOV signatories appear. R.A. Hinde has only one of his 13 references dealing with humans; 3 other signatories (Barnett, Ginsberg and Scott) have a total of 7 references, all on experiments with rats, dogs and mice. In a much quoted introductory sociobiology text by an even more frequently quoted author--Social Evolution (Trivers 1985), in 750 references only 1 of the 20 SSOV signatories was cited-R.A. Hinde, again with only 1 of his 7 references dealing with humans. He is identified in the SSOV as being in the field of animal behavior as is Scott while Barnett is listed as an ethologist and Ginsburg as a behavioral geneticist. The beliefs that the SSOV assigns to mainstream sociobiology are not supported by either Sociobiology or Social Evolution and both were published before the SSOV . Nor do These assigned beliefs represent the consensus of the literature in the field in the decade before the writing of the SSOV.² In the more comprehensive and international Social Science Citation Index (1987) covering the period immediately before the writing of the SSOV (1981-1985) a similar pattern emerged with Barnett, Hinde and Scott standing out from the others with almost half (47%) of the total entries. Of the 20 signatories 17 had publications listed; only 6 had works in the area of sociobiology with Barnett, Hinde and Scott again accounting for 81% of these entries. only 14% of the total journal entries were in Ethology and Sociobiolopy or Behavioral and Brain Sciences (arguably the two premier journals in the field) again Barnett, Hinde and Scott accounted for 70% of these entries with 2 other authors contributing articles. Of the total journal entries 27% were in Aggressive Behavior. The Science Citation Index c1986) for almost the sane period (1980-1984) tracked a similar pattern with Barnett, Hinde and Scott having 51% of the entries of the 14 signatories who had publications listed.

The SSOV imputes many beliefs to an undocumented group of scientists and then rebuts these beliefs. They have created a biologically pessimistic straw scientist³ and then have demolished her/him. Fox has called the SSOV a "...shop worn denunciation of ideas that no one ever really had in the first place..." 1988, p.4). For example, in the first paragraph of the SSOV, the authors state that "...biological findings have been used to "...justify violence and war...." Is there a single, reputable, contemporary scientist working from any perspective, who uses "...the theory of evolution..." to justify not only violence and war, but also genocide, colonialism, and suppression of the weak" (1st ¶)? who? Is there any discipline in which the consensus is ".. . that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors." (4th ¶)? what discipline? In the sixth paragraph the SSOV raises the apparently unresolvable nature-nurture issue, implies that biologically pessimistic straw scientists believe exclusively in the nature side of the argument and then gives a brief but quite well-written, reasoned resolution of the issue, integrating the two viewpoints in a scientifically balanced manner. However, every one of the six sentences in this paragraph would probably be accepted by almost all scientists working from an evolutionary perspective. The SSOV states this paragraph as if it were refuting the consensus of a field--a "...classic example of what..." Somit called "'...disingenuous draftsmanship.'" (1990, p. 555). The SSOV implies that some straw scientist believes "... that in the course of human evolution..." "…aggression was… maximally selected under natural conditions." (7th ¶). Again, what reputable, contemporary evolutionary scientist has stated this? (See also somit, 1990, p. 555) who believes "...that humans have a 'violent brain.'"⁴and that our "...neurophysiology.. compels us to react violently." (8th ¶)? At what university is the scientist who states "...that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation." (9th ¶)? Finally, would the authors of the SSOV please identify the biologically pessimistic straw scientists who hold that biology condemns humanity to war (last paragraph)? A more representative statement by a contemporary evolutionary psychologist is: "Empirically, most personality traits such as dominance, aggression and extraversion appear to show moderate heritability" (Buss, 1984, p. 1139). The Seville statement on Violence might have been somewhat useful and appropriate 30 or 40 years ago (van den Berghe, 1991), but it is a potentially harmful anachronism at this time. A major effort of the SSOV organization appears to be the refutation of the German Nazi Ideology prevalent through World War II which Adams (1991, p. 17) believes made that war possible.

The SSOV suggests that evolutionary scientists believe in the naturalistic fallacy--that what is, should be (thereby justifying the status quo). This calumny is so common that many evolutionary scientists include a disclaimer rejecting it in virtually every work which touches on a sensitive topic (e.g. Smuts, 1992, p. 2-3).⁴ They are painfully aware of the potential for this misuse of their work among others and do what they can to prevent misuse from happening (e.g. Wilson, 1978).

Superficially, the Seville statement on Violence reads as a reasoned scientific statement, refuting other scientists' work, which they believe to be in error (1st ¶). However, a serious rereading of the statement reveals that it is not written in the language of science but in the language of socio-political activism. For example, the term "scientifically incorrect" (4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th ¶) is infrequently found in scientific journals. Researchers will use such terms as: not demonstrated, proven, supported etc., but regardless of the quality (or lack thereof) of any work, rarely is it deemed: "scientifically incorrect." This is the language of political correctness. "...the open, considered rejection of these misstatements..." (1st ¶), "misstatements" is a political euphemism for lies. How often is it used in scholarly discourse? "...alleged biological findings... " (1st ¶), alleged is a legal term used in court. Indeed, the tone of the SSOV is that of a theoretical orientation on trial or at an inquisition.⁵ The flavor of the SSOV is that of a statement of religious belief, a catechism (See also Fox, 1987). In the final paragraph, the purpose of the Seville Statement is couched in the language of activism: "Freed from ... bondage," "empowered," "transformative tasks," "collective," "inventing peace," "consciousness." The letterhead of the American organization promoting the SSOV describes itself as a "Support Network." An exegesis of the SSOV makes a clear distinction "...between violence and struggle." legitimizing the latter (Adams, 1991, p. 36-37).

The SSOV makes a number of statements of putative facts. They bear closer examination. In the first paragraph a major assertion of the SSOV states "Because the alleged findings have contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our time... claiming that the work of evolutionary scholars has induced pessimism in the public. Just how pessimistic were the times from the publication of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New synthesis in 1975 to the writing of the Seville statement in May of 1986? Bailey (1988) feels "There are gross difficulties in assessing public opinion as such basic attitudes and feelings" let alone accessing how much the work of scientists affects public opinion. Mueller's (1979) work on expectations of war indicates a complex system that is most driven by immediate international tensions but is also affected by educational level, personality variables and political orientation. The Data Archivist for the center for social science computation at the University of Washington (Pierce, 1992) is "virtually certain that no data sets exist" which would provide any scientific basis for determining whether or not that this '¹atmosphere of pessimism in our time," (1st ¶) or the "wide spread beliefs" and/or "stereotypic thinking on the inevitability of war" (APA, 1990) actually ever existed. This author's search of the Public Affairs service Data Base (1972-February, 1992) with the aid of the political science librarians at the University of Washington produced no works relevant to pessimism about the inevitability of war or violence due to "biologically based stereotypic thinking. ¹¹ A search of the sociofile computerized data base (1/74-8/91) produced only one work which even touched on pessimism and violence or on pessimism and war caused by biological concepts--Goldstein's (1974). This was an analysis of the neurosciences as a whole from a Marxist perspective ("dominant classes," "objective conditions," "class antagonisms") without any number crunching. There are no citations in the SSOV, but in other writings some SSOV signatories and supporters cite only 4 studies (Adams, 1987; Eckhardt, 1972; Granberg, 1975; Wahlstrom, 1985) done on college students to support their premise that "...alleged biological findings..." ".. have contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our tine..." (1st 1) Using college students as a representative sample of the world's population is just one questionable aspect of these papers, but a complete critique of these studies and how they are being used is beyond the scope of this work. However, Adams himself reported a contradictory "paradox" in his 1987 study (Adams, 1989b, p. 331-332) and in addition this study was done after the SSOV was written. Eckhardt's work was done in 1972, before sociobiological thinking was revived by E.O. Wilson's work in 1975, the same year Granberg's work was done. None of these works have lead to additional studies nor much interest among social scientists in general. In any case, the authors of the 5gov are apparently not familiar with the contemporary evolutionary literature, which is not usually pessimistic, even about issues of war and violence (e.g. Alexander, 1979).

Other assertions bear examination, in the fifth paragraph the SSOV states that warfare's "...biological connection is primarily through language...." In the ninth paragraph it is claimed that "the emergence of modern warfare has been the journey from the primacy of emotional and motivational factors, sometimes called 'instincts' to the primacy of cognitive factors." These are broad generalizations that could easily be challenged; have they been accepted by the corpus of serious scholars on war? While the authors of the SSOV do not openly state that the effect on the public of scientific findings--" incorrect," "alleged," "misstatements" or otherwise--is a criterion for judging these findings, the tenor of the statement seems to indicate that they have taken the first step onto that slippery slope. Taking this analysis a step further, let us suppose that some scientific findings in fact "...contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our time..." (1st ¶). This criticism could have justifiably been made of Galileo or Darwin. Should science be rejected because it shatters paradigms or other cherished illusions? Must we allow only a have-a-nice-day, happy-face science full of affirmations?

The reasoning in the ss0v is rather unsettling and of questionable appropriateness for a scientific and professional journal. Each of the five propositions contains much that most evolutionary scientists would agree with; although the SSOV implies that they do not. However, the conclusions and implications that the SSOV arrives at are not warranted by their exposition. The third proposition (7th ¶) for example would be largely acceptable to most scientists interested in human and animal behavior (Somit, 1990, p. 555), however, the conclusion probably would not; it states that "Violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes." What then are the origins of war and violence? Solely cultural? Does our evolutionary biology and, therefore, our genes play no role? Even a biologist and animal ethologist who endorsed the SSOV (Frans de Wall), as quoted in their July, 1990 Newsletter (p. 2), states that "I view aggressive behavior as a fundamental characteristic of all animal and human life." Calling war "... biologically possible..." (5th ¶) suggests that it is an unusual occurrence, such as running a 4 minute mile was "biologically possible." War is oppressively common (e.g. Richardson, 1960; Sorokin, 1937; Wright, 1965), as is violence. As Arthur Koester (1976) said: "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums." By correctly asserting that we have not inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors (4th ¶) the SS0V avoids discussing the issue of any biological inheritance of our war making tendencies from our human ancestors (Somit, 1990, p. 555, Manson and Wrangham, 1987, p. 3). In spite of statements to the contrary (e.g. Hinde, 1987), the SSOV denies any possibility that humankind's evolutionary biology might affect contemporary war making and violent behavior. It implies that research, theoretical work and/or intellectual dialogue in this area is neither scientifically legitimate nor socially responsible (SSOV Newsletter, 4). The S50V defines warfare as "...a product of culture." (5th ¶). They seen to be trapped in a kind of dualistic ideation that somehow separates biology and culture, as if culture could exist without people (who are biological beings) . They define science as a "...human cultural product..." (1st ¶). could human science exist without the human biological organ known as a brain? On a more subtle note, the mentality of the authors of the SSOV is revealed by their calling language a "...social skill..." (9th ¶). This seemingly ignores or is unaware of the biological component of language acquisition and universal grammar (Chomsky, 1959). Human biology is intimately, extensively and complexly involved in warfare as it is in every human activity. Would any reputable scientist deny this? The signatories of the SSOV seen to be engaged in intellectual denial and magical thinking and apparently believe that by defining warfare as they do as an exclusively cultural (5th ¶), rational, learned process (9th ¶) they can eliminate it by simply teaching peace and strongly believing that peace is possible (Adams, 1991, p. 11, p. 40-41).

The SSOV appears to be written within the tradition of humbling science before society, disciplining it and using science to pursue political objectives. This is not in any society's best, long-term interests (e.g. the late USSR). Historically the most productive scholarship in preventing war and violence seems to have come from pluralistic democracies where there are autonomous institutions (such as science) engaged in open debate. The authors of the SSOV "...recognize that science.. cannot be definitive or all encompassing;" (1st ¶) Superficially, most scientists would agree with this. However, the SSOV implies that scientists will serve society best by agreeing with an ideologically predetermined view of the nature of problems--"The so-called biological explanations of violence having been refuted, research should be pursued into the cultural and socio-economic causes of violence." (SSOV Newsletter, 3)--this is also counter-productive. Most evolutionary scientists would agree with the SSOV authors' suggestion that scientists can best discharge their social responsibility in solving the problems of war and violence from "...our particular disciplines..." (1st ¶). Many evolutionary scientists would also add: by doing research, theoretical work and engaging in scholarly discourse in an atmosphere that is without accusations of being socially harmful. Again, most evolutionary scientists would agree with the SSOV (e.g. Shaw, 1989) "...that wars begin in the minds of men," (last ¶)--which, however, is a comment on the evolved, adaptive design of our minds. (Many evolutionary scientists would add: that it also begins in the minds of women). It then becomes established and extended by cultures and societies (Barash, 1986). Let us scientifically study those minds, cultures and societies without ideological constraints. For even theoretically sound, well designed experiments that produce unexpected results can prove valuable (Platt, 1964) including those formulated from an evolutionary perspective which can sharpen our understanding of violence and warfare.

This author is sure that the signatories of the Seville statement on Violence are well-meaning, and it is socially responsible for scientists and their associations to communicate effectively with policy makers and the public, especially to correct misperceptions of scientific findings. Even in these relatively optimistic days of May 1992, violence and war are of the highest concern; they were even more so in May of 1986. Well meaning, scientifically based criticism, done in a scholarly spirit and manner, of a theoretical perspective and its research is essential for advancements in a field (Kuhn, 1970). However, the probable effect of the SSOV and efforts like it is to stifle human evolutionary research and researchers--this is believed by many in the field (e.g. Munro, 1991). Who will read and be affected most by this statement? The general public? Highly unlikely. It will be read mostly by scientists, scholars, and intellectuals. What is the most likely effect: "...to dispel the wide spread belief that human beings are inevitably disposed to war as a result of innate, biologically determined, aggressive traits..." and ".. .to eliminate unfounded stereotypic thinking on the inevitability of war" (APA, 1990) and to reverse the "...atmosphere of pessimism in our time..." caused by "...alleged biological findings... (1st ¶)? Or will the SSOV cast a shadow of social and scientific unrespectability on work done from an evolutionary perspective in any discipline? The latter seems more likely (Hamilton, 1991).⁶

What is ironic about all of this is that evolutionary scientists are much less biologically pessimistic than the authors of the SSOV seem to be (e.g. Smuts, 1992). The SSOV appears to fear the "dark side" of humanity much more, than do evolutionary scientists who, this author believes, are more familiar with it (e.g. Daly, 1988). The authors of the SSOV seemed to feel that if we opened up the debate on the causes of violence and wars to evolutionary factors we would become hopelessly passive (SSOV Newsletter, p. 4). The opposite appears to be the case. A more complete knowledge of the evolutionary, biological origins of the deep structures of human nature can allow us to more creatively, scientifically, and effectively study war (Manson and Wrangham, 1987), because "The ultimate purpose of understanding war is to prevent it." (Shaw, 1985, p.158). Evolutionary scientists are doing so (e.g. Barash, 1982, 1984).

More of the SSOV could be challenged; in order to most clearly demonstrate this position only the most salient elements of disagreement were examined. ⁷

The American psychological Association has the responsibility to speak out on the important issues of our time from its areas of expertise. No doubt endorsing the SSCV seemed an appropriate action at the time. Hopefully, however, the fact that it took over three years from the time the council of Representatives voted to endorse the Seville statement (August, 1987) to the time it was published in the American psychologist (October, 1990) reflects some misgivings on the part of APA'S Board of scientific Affairs. The Board ".. emphasized that this is not a scientific statement on the issue of specific inherited behavioral traits." (APA, 1990). what then is a document, the main body of which starts off with five pronouncements stating-"It is scientifically incorrect"? The SSOV presents itself as a scientific statement that comes from "...scholars... from relevant sciences..." who "...address from our particular disciplines..." (1st ¶). The Seville statement on Violence is a scientific statement,⁸ colored by ideology and fear, and an inaccurate and misleading one at that. ultimately, endorsing such a statement will diminish APA's reputation as the socio-political attitudes that subserve it are discredited; proximally, it may have the effect of alienating the growing number of evolutionary psychologists who are making an increasingly important contribution to the mainstream of psychology (e.g. Cosmides and Tooby, 1987; Crawford, 1989). The SSOV has already been criticized by social scientists working from an evolutionary perspective (Fox, 1988; Shaw, 1989; Somit, 1990). Endorsing statements that are essentially hostile to the spirit of a free science alienates all real scientists. Endorsing statements that are not based on solid scientific work discredits psychology as a discipline and psychologists as individuals. These are issues of continuing concern in psychology (e.g. Greenspun, 1991; Stevens, 1991; Fish, 1991). Is it any wonder that as Ross Stagner said in his letter on the SSOV "...nobody listens" to psychologists (Stagner, 1991); especially politicians and policy makers, a complaint that has been heard in this journal (e.g. Blight, 1987). Merely disdaining that a scientific statement is "...not a scientific statement..." (APA, 1990) is not enough. An affirmative outreach to psychologists knowledgeable in the areas covered by a proposed endorsement for their comments, and publication of the statement in the American Psychologist before endorsement should be considered.

Notes

1. The Seville Statement on violence does not specify the field(s) it is criticizing but they could be described as the study of human behavior on many levels (the physiological to the political and beyond) from a neo-Darwinian, evolutionary, biological perspective. No one simple term subsumes all of the various legitimate labels (e.g. evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, human behavioral ecology, biopolitics, human evolutionary biology, biosocial anthropology etc.) by which scientists and scholars working from this perspective describe themselves and/or their field, nor is there agreement on any meta-term (e.g. Alexander, 1967, p. 4-6).

2. The literature written after the publication of the SSOV even more invalidates the accusations of the SSOV (e.g. Alexander, 1987).

3. Adams (1989a) accuses the SSOV critics of believing that the SSOV signatories have set up a ".. 'straw man'..." (which this author believes they have) and that: "At times these critics seem to take the statement as a personal affront, as if we had said that they, in particular, believe this myth, or that they, in particular, have failed to educate the public properly." (Adams, 1989a, p. 117). This author also believes that the SSOV is a personal affront to reputable, contemporary evolutionary scientists and that the SSOV signatories do accuse these scientists with believing this myth and failing to educate the public.

4. Even a person with the presumably unchallengably politically correct credentials of a co-chair of the society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists of the American Anthropological Association--Mildred Dickemann (1992) and who characterizes our society as "...moving rapidly toward totalitarianism." (p. 82) also feels the need to make such a disclaimer (p. 86).

5. Fox (1988) Commented on Seville being the home of the Inquisition.

6. Robert Hinde, a SSOV signatory, responded to criticisms of the SSOV by saying that it was not intended as an attack on biological research (Adams, 1989a, p. 117). Intended or not it has that effect.

7. The SSOV commentary, newsletters and articles etc. on the # SSOV make even less supportable assertions than does the SSOV itself. See especially Adams (1989a) for a progress report on the SSOV "...presented in the form of a scientific experiment..." (p. 113).

8. The signatories of the SSOV identify it as a scientific statement. The first sentence of the commentary on the SSOV states: "The Seville statement on violence is a scientific statement..." (Adams, 1991, p. 7) "Like all scientific statements..." (p 19) and it goes on to claim that "The statement was based on the latest scientific evidence... (p. 7).

References

Adams, D. et. al., (1986). Seville Statement on Violence. American psychologist (Publication date--1990) 45(10), 167-8.

Adams, D. (1989a). The Seville statement on Violence: A Progress Report. Journal of Peace Research, 26 (2), 113-121.

Adams, D. (1989b). The Seville statement on Violence and Why it is Important. Journal of Humanistic psychology, 29 (3) , 328-337

Adams, D. (1991). (Editor and commentator). The Seville statement on Violence. Preparing the Ground for the Constructing of Peace. Paris, Unesco.

Adams, D. & Bosch, 5. (1987). The Myth That War is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People. In J.M. Ramirez, RA. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Essays in Violence. Seville, Spain: university of Seville.

Alexander, R.D. (1979). Darwinism and Human Affairs. Seattle, university of Washington Press.

Alexander, R.D. (1987). The Biology of Moral Systems. New York, Aldine DeGruyter.

American psychological Association, (1990). Editor's Note on the Seville Statement on Violence, American psychologist, 45(10), 167.

Bailey, J. (1988). Pessimism. New York, Routledge. 175, note 1.

Barash, D.P. (1982). Stop Nuclear War: A Handbook. New York, Grove Press.

Barash, D.P. (1984). Some Reflections on Reflections on the origin of Mind. Politics and the Life Sciences, 2(2), p. 215.

Barash, D.P. (1986). The Hare and the Tortoise: culture. Biology. and Human Nature. New York, Viking Penguin.

Blight, J.G. (1987). Toward a policy-Relevant Psychology of Avoiding Nuclear War: Lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis, American Psychologist, 42(1).

Buss, D.M. (1984). Evolutionary Biology and personality psychology: Toward a conception of Human Nature and Individual Differences. American psychologist, 39(10), 1135-1147.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of S.F'. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58

Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1987). From Evolution to Behavior:

Evolutionary Psychology as the Missing Link. In The Latest on the Best, Edited by John Dupre. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Crawford, C.B. (1989). The Theory of Evolution: Of what Value is it to Psychology? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 103(1).

Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

Dickemann, M. (1992). Phylogenetic Fallacies and Sexual Oppression: A Review Article on pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions (J.R. Feierman, Editor). Human Nature, 3(1), 86.

Eckhardt, W. (1972). Crosscultural Theories of War and Aggression. International Journal of Group Tensions. 2(3), 41-

Fish, 3. (1991). To Authoritarian. The APA Monitor, 22(10), 5.

Fox, R. (1988). On the Seville Statement on Violence. Human Ethology Newsletter, 5(5), 4.

Goldstein, D.J. (1974). Neurobiology and the social sciences. International Social Science Journal, 26(4), 637-650.

Granberg, D. (1975). War Expectancy: Some Further Studies. International Journal of Group Tensions, 5, 8-25.

Greenspun, I.F. (1991). Take No Stand. The APA Monitor, 22(10), 3.

Hamilton, W.D. (1991). Thoughts on the purpose and Future of HBES. Human Behavior and Evolution society Newsletter, 1(3) , 5-6.

Koester, A. (1978). Janus: A summing Up. New York. Vintage Books.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Manson, J.H. & Wrangham, W. (1987). Is Human Aggression Non-Biological? problems with the statement on violence. Human Ethology Newsletter, 5(2), 3-4.

Mueller, JE. (1979). Public Expectation of War During the Cold war. American Journal of Political Science, 23(2), 301-329.

Munro, A. (1990). On Ethology's Future. Human Ethology Newsletter, 5(16), 3.

Nesse, R.M. (1984). An Evolutionary perspective on psychiatry. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 25(6), 575-580.

Pacht, A.R. (1991). Personal Communication.

Pierce, C. (1992). Personal Communication.

Platt, JR. (1964). Strong Inference, Science, 146(3642), 347-353.

Richardson, L.F. (1960). Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Pittsburg, Boxwood

Science Citation Index (1986) (source Volumes) 1980-1984. Philadelphia, Institute for scientific Information.

Seville Statement on Violence Newsletter. (1990). 3(2).

Shaw, R. P. (1985). Humanity's propensity for Warfare: A sociobiological Perspective. Canadian Review of sociology and Anthropology , 22, 158-183.

Shaw, R. P. & Wong, Y. (1989). Genetic Seeds of Warfare: Evolution. Nationalism and Patriotism . Boston, Unwin Hyman. 192-194.

Smuts, 3. (1992). Male Aggression Against Women: An Evolutionary Perspective. Human Nature, 3(1), 2-3.

Social Science Citation Index (1987) (source Volumes) 1981-1985. Philadelphia, Institute for scientific Information.

Somit, A. (1990). Humans, Chimps, and Bonobos: Biological Basis of Aggression, War, and peacemaking. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 34(3), 553-582.

Sorokin, PA. (1937). Social and cultural Dynamics. Vol. 3 (Fluctuations of Social Relationships. War and Revolution) . New York, American Book.

Stagner, R. (1991). comment on the Seville statement. American Psychologist, 46(5), 543.

Stevens, D.T. (1991). Passing Off Bias As science, The APA Monitor 22(8), 3.

Trivers, R. (1975). Social Evolution. Menlo Park, CA, Benjamin Cummings.

van den Berg, P. L. (1991). Personal Communication

Wahlstrom, R. (1985). On the psychological premises of Peace Education. 3rd European Conference of the International Society for Research on Aggression . Parma, Italy.

Wilson, E.O. (1978). For sociobiology. In Arthur L. Caplan (ed.), The Sociobiology Debate: Readings on Ethical and Scientific Issues (p. 267). New York, Harper & Row.

Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New synthesis. Cambridge, Harvard University press.

Wright, Q. (1965). A Study of War. University of Chicago Press.