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.