an excellent and thought provoking discussion.

leaving aside the question of original sin, which is silliness, imo the problem we encounter in these discussions, often, trying to determine "constitution," is that consistution really needs to be considered from two perspectives: the innately given, and the experientially derived.

the innately given constitution can, i think with fairness, be defined in terms of a fixed range or potentials. this paradoxical definition implies that an individual is in fact possessed of specific characteristics, for example, the capacity for laguage, and a broad range of possible expressions, for example, english, french .... same with height: under varying environmental conditions, including obviously dietary regime of one's culture, a particular individual may grow to be 5' tall or 6' tall, while another may have the potential, in the same cultures, of growing to 5'4" to 6'3". Personality characteristics obviously also fall within this range: simply put, characteristics may be enhanced, exaggerated, or inhibited by experience.

this is essentially the concept of genotype vs the concept of phenotype.

the emphasis on "that which can be cured," is appreciated, and seems to be an important focus. but i'm not sure it is easy to define this. even "neurotic" symptoms may transform over time into useful, adaptive personality features. perhaps it is indeed the process of case taking that differentiates? in this view, something that is a symptom today, may not be a symptom tomorrow, or vice versa, or a prominent symptom today is not problematic tomorrow: that is, the changing profile as treatment progresses, determines "that which can be cured" and how characteristic it is, how it is to be graded in the moment.

now ... about studying the mm by color coding to the rep ...

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.