"Seven out of ten respondents believed that 90-100% of their colleagues would agree with their conclusion that the patient was dangerous. The responses were remarkably consistent across profession and by location with the exception of California psychiatrists who displayed less confidence in the agreement of their colleagues than did those practicing elsewhere. Since this is the very group most sensitized to Tarasoff, the finding hints at the possibility that exposure to the case, or perhaps the criticisms of it, affects attitudes and beliefs regarding evaluation of potential violence. However, even one-quarter of this group believed that everyone would agree with their evaluation of the patient, and another three-eighths (37%) believed that 90% of their colleagues would agree. Thus, therapists appear to believe that there are objective professional standards for evaluating dangerousness or, at a minimum, that dangerousness is a little like hard core obscenity in that they "know it when they see it," even if they can't define it. If therapists believe there are common professional standards or practices, it is difficult to fault a court for believing so also." [Daniel J. Givelbe, William J. Bowers and Carolyn L. Blitch, "Tarasoff, Myth And Reality: an Empirical Study of Private Law in Action," 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 443, 463-464].