I had written that > > The obvious (albeit older) book is Mark & Ervin's Violence and the Brain > but > > I'm sure it's very dated. > To which Stephen Black responded: > I'd be cautious in recommending this book, especially if it's the only > source consulted. Mark and Ervin are enthusiasts of psychosurgery for > violence and I recall that their evidence in favour is rather slim. > These are controversial views. > > Elliot Valenstein might provide a more balanced approach. > Stephen is quite correct that Mark and ervin is both dated and controversial. I would might also agree that Valenstein's approach is "more balanced." I would not, however, want to argue that Valenstein's approach is "balanced"............... More balanced than Mark and Ervin? Probably. But is Valenstein's approach unbiased? I think not. He's got his own strong biases. By all means, have your student read both.
