John Edwards has joined the parade. The former North Carolina senator and presidential candidate was indicted last week for using campaign contributions to keep his mistress and their baby in hiding during his 2008 run for the White House.
He follows former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who admitted fathering a child with a member of his household staff, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who had to resign as head of the International Monetary Fund after he allegedly tried to rape a hotel maid in New York City.
A lot of people are asking, why do they do it? Why are these rich, powerful men willing to chance ruining everything they have achieved for momentary pleasure? Psychology researchers have come up with several answers.
Risks vs. rewards
WRAL TV in Raleigh, North Carolina, interviewed Scott Huettel, associate professor of neuroscience at Duke University, about the Edwards case. Huettel studies how the brain weighs risks and rewards. According to WRAL:
The brain, he says, asks this question when making a decision: “Is what I’m going to receive from this better than what I have now?”
Short-term gains often win, while long-term consequences are discounted, Huettel said.
Factors such as wealth and power do not often correlate with a higher cost on risk, Huettel added. In other words, those who have the most are often willing to risk the most.
More power, more adultery
Time Magazine took this argument further. Not only do powerful men tend to assess risk differently than the rest of us, but they are also surrounded by enablers who have an interest in keeping the powerful person in power, and help cover up the indiscretions.
Time also described forthcoming research:
A study set to be published in Psychological Science found that the higher men or women rose in a business hierarchy, the more likely they were to consider or commit adultery. With power comes both opportunity and confidence, the authors argue, and with confidence comes a sense of sexual entitlement.
Type T Personality
Then there’s Frank Farley, a psychologist and professor at Temple University, and former president of the American Psychological Association. He’s come up with what the calls the “Type T Personality.” In response to the Schwarzenegger story, he recently wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled, What makes politicians stray?
In my view the factor most responsible for philandering in public officials is a predisposition for risk-taking, which also happens to be an essential quality for politicians. My label for it is the “Type T personality,” with the “T” standing for thrill.
Farley has been discussing his theory of thrill seeking for quite awhile. He was quoted in a Time Magazine article back in 1985. In 2006, Farley was interviewed about his theory when Ben Roethlisberger, the Super Bowl quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, went riding a motorcycle without a helmet, was hit by a car and suffered serious head injuries.
At that time, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote:
Dr. Farley divides risk takers into Type T positives — inventors, entrepreneurs, explorers — and Type T negatives — compulsive gamblers, criminals, people who engage in unsafe sex.
Incomplete explanations
All of these theories strike me as partially accurate, but incomplete, explanations for the sexual misbehavior of powerful men. Yes, the brain may find rewards now more appealing than consequences later, but certainly more is involved in behavior that has the potential to blow up everything an individual has worked for. A sense of sexual entitlement doesn’t explain this level of arrogant risk, and neither does the thrill factor.
Measuring psychopathy, however, may very well explain what is going on. Components of psychopathy include superficial charm, egocentricity, need for stimulation, deceit, lack of remorse, impulsivity, irresponsibility and promiscuity. Certainly all of these traits are factors in the egregious illicit affairs of powerful men.
But then we’d have to start using the “P” word in reference to politicians and titans of the business world. I’ll bet that a lot of people don’t want to do that.
This probably isn’t the right place to ask this but someone on a thread mentioned yesterday something about Sam Vaknin. I watched several of his videos on YouTube, but there was mention that he himself is an spath/ppath. Did I understand that correctly?
I think when it comes to powerful men (women) the “P” word is a 4-letter word and the only people the media seem even remotely willing to apply it to are serial killers AFTER they have been convicted.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But also I think that most powerful people have become that way either by inheriting position and/or wealth thereby feeling entitled, or they are high risk takers to begin with and have been willing to take the risks that get them INTO positions of power and control.
Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a man I think is a psychopath, he is VERY charming, he didn’t get the nick name “Slick Willie” by not being as smooth as oil! In the few times I met him when he was governor I realized just how SLICK he was.
I think that it is impossible for an honest person to rise very high in politics in today’s world. To even desire the job of president or governor a person would have to be narcissistic and a risk taker, two of the characteristics of a psychopath…and in order to achieve the position I think would have to be willing to sell their soul to the devil for the charm necessary to achieve it..
I Survived:
Yes, Vaknin is a psychopath. Here’s info:
http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2009/11/30/i-psychopath-watch-the-documentary-online/
I Survived
I do think his book is amazing, however. The insights in his book are beyond anything I’ve read elsewhere.
It’s gross, illuminating, sad, evil.
🙁
Superkid
HAHAHA! Slick Willie…. I love that. I am laughing so hard, I cannot get a grip. My gosh. Oh jeeez, am I the only one that hasn’t heard him referred to as that? Well very funny, anyway.
Donna, yes seems that is the missing component in Farley’s positives and negatives. What about politicians (with a big P or little p?) ?.. ha ha
Had I not met Addiction, I would not be in such dubious company ie: gamblers and criminals. Oye!!! Need to go get those tests Ox..what can I say?.. have to laugh at my stupidity or I will go crazy…BOINK, DOUBLE BOINK with a titanium skillet…
Oxy amen sistah, I think in order to be a politician one has to have the seed of corruption in his/her moral makeup. It has nothing to do with what side of the political fence we are on. I believe with all of my being that it is nigh impossible to reach the pinnacles of power as a political force and not be corrupt SOMEWHERE. That is not saying that all politicians are spaths but so many are. What better breeding ground for their antics? Power, sex, money, supply, enablers, entitlement ??..sheesh.
Let me put this out there not to start a drama (I haven’t been on here long enuf to know who likes who and who dislikes who politically, just that Ox you don’t like Billy boy-understood he is a louse, so no agenda) but just to make a point: I think Sarah Palin is a female Slick Wille. IMO she is a media/attention whore and I believe she is a narcissist. My opinion of her has zilch to do with her political team but because she displays many of the traits. Can’t say if she is a full blown spath…time will tell on that one.
Looking into history, this “problem” we are discussing on this thread has always been and always will be. Can anyone say Caligula? Trouble is today, because of technical advances, we live in a voyeuristic society. It’s no longer just Gladys Kravitz watching what’s going on next door, the entire world knows within seconds of the breaking news and it goes viral.
John Edwards is the lowest of the low. My God his wife was dying. He get’s the Hiesman for TURDS.
Remember Tricky Dicky, President Richard Nixon? He was born and raised a QUAKER ( not quacker, Hens)…:) of all things… Just goes to show. The bad seed just waiting for fertile soil..
re: Sarah Palin: bi polar? meglomania? something is going on with that one.
p.s.
so I don’t get Shanghai’ed for kidnapping this thread:
John Edwards is a TURD with a capital T!!…
(ha ha.. she says in good fun).. 🙂
I read on another site this morning that Obama is. Not being in the US I can’t comment but what do you guys think?
I like Obama, as far as having to choose someone to vote for.. I voted for him. Being that I am a person of color and from a marginalized group, I am happy to see a black family in the white house for a change, and not in the servants quarters.
With that said I believe that if he made it to where he is he has to have some corruption in him. He’s from CHICAGO for gawds sake. Sorry Illinois LFer’s-my state is right up there for corrupt politics, Billy the Kid, Lincoln County War, Santa Fe ring still around, our very own Slick Willie Bill Richardson..Obama hasn’t just yet shown uber spath tendencies but we don’t yet know everything about him. I am not one for conspiracy theories (tho I live not too far from the Roswell area)-not my bag. Hard core proof as with Edwards and Arnie are needed before I can make an assessment.
I think his arrogance rubs certain people (not meaning anyone here, just in general) the wrong way because he is a black dude. Just my opinion I Survived… 🙂
oh boy think I am in trouble now… LOL 🙂