How can we differentiate a politician who thinks with a long range view from one who doesn't? Voting records are meaningless because parliamentarians must vote according to the decision of the party room. They cannot vote their conscience, the views of their constituents, the good of Australia or the long term view if it differs from the decision of the party room since they will incur penalties including not being backed for re-election.

The solution is to have all votes conscience votes except for those issues stated in the platform which the pol ran on.

This is too simplistic. The conflict is not a glib "thinking with the heart instead of the head". Rather it is a conflict between a logical solution (let 'em starve) and our entire moral and ethical infrastructure which must reject this solution in order for us to remain what we think of as "human" as opposed to animal. If you and I are alone in the desert the "logical" solution may well be for one of us to hit the other on the head and take the water; I know from much recorded experience of others in history, and for knowledge of my own core weakness, that probably you or I will take this course of action to save ourselves. Our life may be saved by so doing but the trauma to our minds might prove terminal

The author makes some great points, with which I fully agree.

What is evident is that those who run the political circus,
have finetuned their abilities to guage public opinion and then
push emotional buttons, in order to swing elections. Karl Rove
did it twice for George Bush.

Sadly a good share of the public react to all this, by acting
in their short term self interest. So our politics is largely
about spin and pushing emotional buttons, to get the party
over the line at the next elections.

It is all about entertainment.

In my opinion we have become a nation of spectators and spectators with a very short attention span.

A long term health or education initiative in some remote poor country has little entertainment value as compared to patrol boats and sinking or burning refugee boats.

I cannot see any changes in outlook occurring in the immediate future.

It is the way we are, sad but true.

SD

This is all very much jumbled thinking. The Helen Palmer Enneagram Institute has clearly demonstrated that there are three main groups comprising how humans solve problems (defense mechanisms), each having three sub-groups, thus nine profiles (Enneagram).

The three types are “Head”, solving by thinking, “Heart” solving by emotion and “Body” solving by intuition. You can’t get one type to behave the way another personality type does. It’s a contradiction in terms to say “think with your head rather than your heart”. Heart types don’t think, they are driven by emotion.

There may be a case for selecting those best suited to particular tasks, unfortunately that would be undemocratic.

The mix of types within politics is probably little different to any other group so you might need to think about the other factors that influence politicians specifically. Now that will be fun.

One solution along the way would be to get rid of compulsory voting.

This would get rid of the 40% or so that vote only because they have to and tick the box based on the latest sound bite.

Entrenched policies with proven track records and woes can never be as sexy as "new vision" promises that have yet to be tested.

*The three types are “Head”, solving by thinking, “Heart” solving by emotion and “Body” solving by intuition. You can’t get one type to behave the way another personality type does. It’s a contradiction in terms to say “think with your head rather than your heart”. Heart types don’t think, they are driven by emotion.*

Actually Spindoc, that is not quite correct.

For of course in the end, it all comes from the "head" or brain.

Yes indeed, different sections of the brain compete, even if at
the level of the subconcious. Every thought has some emotional
input, for at all times we are feeling something, be it happy,
sad, anxious or whatever. These emotions colour our thoughts.

Yup, some people just kind of follow their feelings, then kind
of rationalise it all way to suit. We call them the emotionally
engulfed. But we can also think about what we feel and why, it
can be learned. Daniel Goleman covered alot of this in his
"Emotional Intelligence", the evidence backed by understanding
from neuroscience.

So heart types do in fact think. However the stronger an emotion,
the less we think. When we are in a rage, we are not thinking
clearly for instance, unlike doing things when we are calm.

Heart types do in fact think all of the time, its just that
commonly the emotional centres of their minds can easily dominate,
even if they are unaware of it.

So the author does not have it as wrong as you claim.

But I grant you, teaching the mass of population to learn to
think about what they feel, would be a huge task and involve
some serious education in our schools. However emotional literacy
is certainly being taught, above all by business. The problem
with that is that its harder to teach a 40 year old or 60 year
old dog new tricks, rather then a 6 year old one.

Yabby
I was stunned 'Good Grief ! I'm two posts in a row And I'm largely agreeing with Yabby!'

But just before I went into total heart defibrillation I read your bit about Business teaching one to think about ones feelings and act logical'
That my sparring partner spared my life. I sighed a breath of relief and muttered "not necessarily so". Most companies I've been in demand that you suspend your personal morality and act in the best interests of the Company. One reliance on the pay packet( and Maslow's heirarchy) means you need to be a skilled politician/manipulator of others if you are to succeed.

And IMHO there's the rub my esteemed combatant. Generally big business acts primarily in it's own interests not people.

Elsewhere Spindoc made a key observation in that we focus on symptoms rather than the causes or consequences. And that, fits into our general make up, plus or minus depending on conditioning and circumstances.

Eric
my perspective in general.

'As with so many decisions we make, the policies we’ve chosen are based on emotions rather than critical thinking.'

Absolutely Eric. This is one of our [humanity's] greatest foibles. It pervades all manner of issues, not least the two that I have recently started general threads on;

The lack of consistency and appropriateness in the policing of the law; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3232

And the paucity of funding for basic scientific / taxonomic / ecological research; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3227

Both of these are strongly connected to the lack of critical thinking within political circles, resulting in poor policy, poor funding and poor consequent outcomes.

Cheers.

Some excellent points Yabby, thanks for that. Current research shows that there are a number of factors that are conditioning human reactions to anything and everything.

1. I.Q. this is our genetically inherited raw intelligence capacity
2. Personality type (the nine personality types as defined in Enneagram – Helen Palmer – self knowledge or spiritual I.Q)
3. Our Desires for Fame, Love, Affluence and Power (Goethe)
4. Emotional I.Q. (Goleman, the four stages of emotional development)
5. Attitudes, Values and Beliefs (AVB’s) (Social I.Q, adopted or mandated by societies/politics/religions).

The type of intelligence to which I referred was No.2, the personality type. Whatever you are as a “type”, you’re stuck with it.

Goleman’s EQ however, refers to the acquisition of the skills to understand and manage our emotions, the two are quite different.

Hope this clears any misunderstanding.

* I.Q. this is our genetically inherited raw intelligence capacity*

Spindoc, with respect, I see things a little differantly then you
do. Genetics gives us potential, but IQ would be a combination
of genes and environment, certainly the way we tend to measure it.

We see this even in rats. If you put a rat in a cage from birth,
with no outside mental stimulation, it turns out differently to
a rat which has had various experiences and learned along the way.

I haven't studied your "9 personality types" in depth, I will concede
that. But I regard it as a little simplistic. For instance, where
do the psychopaths fit in? Rather I try to undertstand things in
terms of 6.6 billion personalities, each made up of a combination
of genetic, as well as environmental influences.

Identical twin studies make for fascinating study, but even then,
we find some differences, due to environmental influence.

What I also find interesting, is some of the neuroscience analysis
done on war veterans and others, who have had part of their brains
destroyed, but lived to tell the tale. They will change personality
overnight, depending on which parts of the brain were destroyed.

Examinator, you missed my point. It is business which has taken
up the teaching of EQ, because of the benefits, rather then
schools, where it really belongs. For good reasons too. Understanding
peoples emotions, is in fact highly profitable. Shopping is often
described as an emotional experience and businesses such as the
Body Shop and many others, have thrived by recognising this fact.

David F. Oxymoron mate. There are only the first kind of politician. You're thinking of an extinct species I'm afraid.

I think it's clear that you, like most voters, don't understand the role of an MP. They do what their Party says for sure but their role is to vote the wayu their electorate wants, not their own conscience or views and certainly not that of their Party.

The only ones who get close to that are the Independents.

They are not conscience votes at all. They are votes of people voicing their own opinions, not those of the people who elected them.

The thing we should all remember, every time you hear a politician speak, is they have no real interest in anything but being elected and not caught in the feed box. Hands in the till etc.

Otherwise they have no beliefs, no morals and no trouble sleeping.

RobbyH wrote: "They are not conscience votes at all. They are votes of people voicing their own opinions, not those of the people who elected them. Otherwise they have no beliefs, no morals and no trouble sleeping."

Dear RobbyH,

I see nothing wrong with a politician voicing his own opinion in a conscience vote. All a conscience vote means is that a politician is not bound by the party position. I disagree that a politician's role is to vote the way their electorate wants. The politician should consider the wishes of the electorate but should also be influenced by the information he has at hand, the good of the wider society and the promptings of his own conscience. I think a politician is obligated to vote the party position when it is the position on which he has run for election.

I consulted to a politician, former Senator John Woodley. We disagreed on some occasions but worked together. I consider John Woodley an honest and conscientious person. He is not unique in the world of politics.

Even politicians who have been corrupt can change. An example is President Chester Arthur. He was a product of the Conklin machine in Buffalo and was nominated as vice-president in a political deal. In order to get nominated for president Garfield had to agree to accept Arthur as the nominee for vice-president. Garfield was assassinated, and Arthur became president. Roscoe Conklin expected that Arthur would see that the 'boys' got jobs. Arthur refused, contrary to expectations, and instituted the Civil Service Act which provided that most government jobs be awarded on the basis of the explicit qualifications of the applicants for such jobs.

Politics is an area where a person in high office can easily enrich him or herself. Not all do. Former President Truman left office without much money after serving as president and senator for many years.

Yabby, * I.Q. this is our genetically inherited raw intelligence capacity*, you’re right; it is a combination of the inherited capacity and the stimulation it receives. That’s why the statement says “capacity”.( See Professor Isenk).

<<Where do psychopaths fit in?>>. There are currently 14 clinically defined personality disorders and yet, as reported in the case of Kathleen Folbigg, found guilty of murdering all four of her children, she did not fit into any of the known categories and was diagnosed as having an “unclassified personality disorder”. So one or more of these 14 (plus) personality disorders is where psychopaths fit. I don’t know if any particular disorders are prevalent within any particular personality types.

<<Rather I try to understand things in terms of 6.6 billion personalities, each made up of a combination of genetic, as well as environmental influences.>> I’m impressed, not many people even attempt to think along these lines.

It’s actually not 6.6bn personalities, only nine personality types are defined however, if you take a range of IQ measurements of say 90 to 160, that gives you 70, times 9 (personality types) times 4 (Goleman’s four stages of emotional development) times
4 (Goethe’s emotional drivers) times X (the almost infinite permutations of AVB’s, Social IQ). This gives enough permutations to describe many more that 6.6bn human individuals.