Brian - Okay, there is plenty here to invite discussion and we have quite a large group here and I will invite people to discuss issues that may have occurred to them...

...I have a couple of issues. One I guess is the obvious one, that if inconsistent parenting is so common and psychopathy is so rare, do you suppose it is that the children have somehow been immune to this failure in consistent parenting.

Dr. Barker - well, there are several things that bother me about that train of thought.

I suspect first of all if we could measure the capacity for empathy, these kids that have experienced a lot of pain in their formative years may not look so good. Part of that is that adults with very little capacity for empathy can fit quite comfortably into our consumer society where the basic values are envy, selfishness and greed. So if that "invulnerable child" becomes a successful businessman, we say that he has overcome a difficult childhood. But what is it that the invulnerable child is successfully fitting into?

Another factor is this. If the DSM or whoever says there are probably 4% of psychopaths in the general population, then what percent of the population are partial psychopaths. Even though we can't measure that precisely, it has to be a big enough percentage to be worrisome.

Psychopaths don't stick out like amputees in our culture, they're not immediately visible. So I don't think there is necessarily any discrepancy between the number of kids that are poorly parented and the amount of psychopathy in the population. They can be there and fitting in just fine. They can have 7 marriages and they're not deviant in our culture. They can screw people left, right and centre and be thought wonderful in our culture if they make, inherit or steal enough money. So, it's tricky -- they don't all stand out as bad guys, like the one's that we catch and convict.

Brian - I agree. Part of your response and how we see the outcome may be in your use of the term partial psychopath. I am wondering how you would differentiate between -- let me back up. I would ask you whether you see psychopathy as a continuum...

Dr. Barker - well, I've always thought of it as a deficit disease, that when you look for empathy, trust and affection inside and it's not there, it's because it really isn't there, not because those qualities are buried deep beneath a wall of defences. It didn't get put in at the right time, and you can't put it in later.

I have also always thought of it as a continuum. If you could measure empathy then I think all of us would lie on a continuum from zero to one hundred percent. I see it as a continuum. It moves on up the scale of partial psychopathy, the used car salesman, and the politician -- not everyone there of course -- but more than we think, on up to the four percent of the population that meet the DSM criteria for full blown psychopathy.

To me the core deficit of psychopathy is an incapacity for that two-part type of empathy -- they know how to put themselves in your shoes very very well. But they do not automatically get affected by what they feel and how they know you feel. That link is gone. It may be 50% there, or 30% there, or 0% there, or 100% there as it is in a very loving person who has the capacity to feel the way you feel, and to be hurt by it, or to be moved by it...

...If you're overly trusting in our society you can get played for a sucker. You know the motto of the psychopath: "Do them all once, the easy ones twice." It's dysfunctional to be an open, honest, co-operative, trusting, affectionate person in our society. You can make big bucks more easily if you don't have those capacities. But in the long run, all of us get screwed by that. I think that's the message we need to be saying...

...I think that as clinicians we're chicken. It's much safer to treat the individuals or groups of patients in your office where you think you know what your doing and you're getting paid for it, than to speak out in public or politically about the cultural issues that you think are creating your patients. More of us should do that. Who knows whether we are right or not, but there ought to be a debate amongst us, rather than each of us just quietly in our office trying to cure individual people. I think we should be indicting things that we think are creating our patients, and that's the whole area of prevention. I think we're just chicken about that. I've been nervous to speak out against things that are culturally acceptable, but I believe are damaging to kids -- so-called "normative abuse."

For example the level of violence in society I think is atrocious. It doesn't surprise me at all that we have violent crimes. Just look at a hockey game.

Brian - I can't any more.

Dr. Barker - Did you say you can't?

Brian - I can't watch any more.

Dr. Barker - I'm glad to hear that. Even the ads for hockey on CBC have turned into something you'd hear at WrestleMania. Who is indicting that? It seems horrific to me to be trying to entice people to watch that. It's marketed as entertainment and paid for by advertisers. But those who make money from it don't have to pay there share of the cost of violence in our society. The whole thing is crap. I am delighted to hear someone like you say I can't watch hockey any more. You can hardly watch anything on TV that doesn't upset you.

But social scientists put up valid studies to show you can't prove it makes a difference. That's why we have to question social science, because you can get valid, responsible, legitimate, honest social scientists who are working for the atomic energy commission for example, and others who are working for some nuclear free advocacy outfit and they'll produce equally valid but conflicting studies. And that's in the area of the physical sciences! So at some point we have to call on our common sense...

...I don't worry so much about the psychopaths who are openly antisocial. I like Hare's two factor concept of psychopathy. They are just as dangerous or more so without the antisocial stuff. I testified at two different murder trials where the accused showed only the Factor One stuff: selfish, callous and remorseless use of others. A lack of empathy. No history of chronically unstable and antisocial life-style or social deviance -- Factor Two. It was my opinion that it was purely their lack of empathy that enabled them to shoot their victims repeatedly at very close range...

Brian - Well, it's almost 2:00. o'clock! This has been just terrific and I certainly have enjoyed having you with us, and I appreciate your responding to my initial request.

Dr. Barker - It's all been worth it to hear you say you can't watch hockey any more!

Brian - (laugh) - thank you very much Elliott. It's been terrific and thank you to the various other sites around...