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.
,
I have been reading and learning on this site for the last two years-I am a Brit who married an American spath 14 years ago. He turned out to be a complete and utter bastard! Stole, lied, cheated-ran up debts-and continued to refuse to leave when I asked him to. I gained strength and knowledge from all of you. I pay all the bills and rent, so I could not afford to move out with our two kids…so last week, I asked him to go…he refused and once again became aggressive saying I can’t kick him out, we are married, bla bla bla, so I called the police. Turned out that as his name is not on the lease, he had no right to be here. I’d already packed his bags.
It took me years to finally call the cops, and because I got to where I hated him-the final break was just a formality. I am free! I know it’s not over, he’s told my son that he will be back and will stay in my sons room-no way! I slept on the damned couch for 2 long years. I have filed for divorce, but he thinks this is a momentary lapse as he thinks he’s done nothing to deserve being kicked out.
Mefree would like to thank you all for saving my life and my sanity through all of this…I learned what to watch out for and how to ‘read’ what he wasn’t saying (cos let’s be honest, what he WAS saying was a load of crap!)
I love having my bed back-and my future.
Katy, you COMPLETELY MISREAD my post and are in error in your analysis of what I am trying to say.
I really like you KD and we are at a good place. We have had disagreement before. We are kindred spirits so I will answer you with as much respect as I can muster.
This is how I would have asked what you ‘ve just asked me: “Adamsrib, could you explain to me why exactly you voted for Obama? I don’t want to assume anything but this is how I am reading it. It sounds TO ME like you are saying you voted for him because of his skin color. Am I wrong here?” That is how I would have approached your question to me.
No my friend I would never vote for someone based on skin color. That is ignorance don’t you think? I voted the way I did based on his platform.
Am I happy that we are now in a place in this country where we can have people of color in the white house (and not merely in the servants quarters)? A resounding yes!! That’s a good thing. It is called evolution, growth, progress, etc.
Did I say anything about “dismissing those who disagree with his policies as doing so b/c he’s black” ? No. Don’t know where you got that KD. What I said is some find him arrogant because he is black. Please, please go back and re-reread my post. This is the direct quote:
“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” :)”
This quote says NOTHING about his policies just that there are SOME ELEMENTS of the human race that cannot tolerate an arrogant “uppity” (not my choice of label) black man. I find him somewhat arrogant because he is POTUS NOT because he is black!
Hope that clarifys my statements KD.
AdamsRib, who has a degree in sociology, Celtic Studies, and Women Studies and is working on a graduate degree in Theology/Religious Studies does not EVER base her vote on race, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc.
Love ya KatyDid 🙂
Constantine, thank you for validating my take on Sarah Palin (and Glenn Beck) 🙂 and coming from a conservative, very refreshing indeed sir!
oh my ~!
Hens ha…ha…know what that means..DRAMA ALERT…haha..LOL 🙂
AR,
I’m just gonna throw in my two cents here, because it’s what I do. I feel being straightforward is the key to RESOLUTION about anything. HOpefully, things are resolved without a lot of drama or gray rocking (which goes on often around here, even if someone isn’t spath), BUT, my son works in an airport as a chef at a restaurant there. In September, I believe it was, he cooked a dinner for President Obama. It was unexpected and there was lots of security around. I don’t see him as “uppity” nor have I. I don’t base my opinions on ANYTHING but a person’s policies or what can be perceived as their character (what we know of them, and most of the time it’s safe to say we don’t), and not according to race, religion, age, or upptiness. 🙂 Having said that and continuing, my son made this dinner for Mr. Obama and he LOVED it. So he asked who the chef was and they brought out my son to introduce to Obama. My son was FLOORED. So Obama sat with my son for about fifteen minutes shooting the breeze about his job, music, what have you. then he stood up, shook my son’s hand and gave him a hundred dollar tip. For a twenty year old kid, it is something he will NEVER forget. I don’t consider that uppity. And how do you know he’s arrogant? I’ve never met him. Must be the vibe he gives off? So that would be an assumption not an actual fact.
Aside from all of the labeling here, I think when it gets into politics, whether it’s policies or the politicians race, gender, religion what have you, we’re on a slippery slope and veering away from real issue at hand, which is PATHOLOGY. Narcissists, sociopaths, pychopaths OCCUPY certain positions of POWER to manifest their PATHOLOGY. The medical field, psychology, human services occupations are FULL of psychopaths! This is what they DO, it’s not what they ARE.
This is where people get mixed up when they hear specific views from politicians, doctors, therapists, you name it. Because they are in positions of POWER, people make assumptions about who they are according to their POWER IN POSITION AND AUTHORITY, without once acknowledging a few red flags here and there with regards to the person’s CHARACTER. And that is this person’s CHARACTER and PERSONALITY, goes directly to their PATHOLOGY.
So all this other stuff is just wasting time AR. Really. That’s what spaths do. They waste time. OUrs and others with side arguments that really deflect from the real issue. Spaths.
LL
MeFree,
so glad you are on the path to healing!! Having your bed back is a very good sign. It means, like the Phoenix, you are rising from the ashes. Good on ya!!!
politics and religion are gray subjects …. I am out of here …cya laters taters…
Thanks Adamsrib,
As I have said before, I watched what bigotry did to my grandfather, what bigotry did to me in my family, and bigotry was a huge factor in the abuse from my husbands family. So when I read your political views, I was dismayed that the word black was included. I like that a person of ordinary circumstances, not from wealth and/or priviledge, was able to work hard, get an good education, and establish their own career path where they were elected President. BUT where we disagree is Arrogance = narcissism ESPECIALLY in a politician… and my opinion about arrogance has NOTHING to do with his skin color.
Opinions about political figures based on their stupidity, narcissisim, THEIR bigotry, hyprocrisy, etc… well that’s just totally appropriate. 🙂
ps glad to see we agree about factors not used in voting. I listed a wee bit of resume only to emphasize that I don’t just cast a willy nilly vote but that I cast an informed vote which is the Only criteria I use.