What Was Eliot Spitzer Thinking?
Dr. Mark Goulston has a neuroscientific explanation for why so many male politicians say goodbye to conscience and common sense.
The question isn’t “What were you thinking?” but “Why weren’t you thinking (i.e. considering the consequences of such actions)?” Assuming that people like Eliot Spitzer are not outright psychopaths, but just significantly flawed, what is their flaw?
How and why do people like Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh and multiple others engage in such stupid, career threatening (if not ending) actions? Bill Clinton during his testimony re: Monica Lewinsky said it was because he could. If such people feel they can “bend the rules” of the world that everyone else has to live by, what are the forces inside their brains and minds that might cause them to do so?
Neuroscience may have an explanation for this. From a neurochemical point of view, power begets an adrenaline rush and an adrenaline rush can be addicting on two accounts. First, when adrenaline is pumping through your veins and brains, you feel purposeful, powerful and almost invincible. That is highly addictive.
Even more addictive, however, is the desire to avoid the adrenaline crash which follows. One former champion athlete I know shared with me: “When you go from somebody, back to anybody, it’s the same as being nobody.” In essence, what he was describing was the fact that the thrill of an adrenaline rush is exceeded by the torment of an adrenaline crash, and people will do daring, desperate AND stupid things to keep their adrenaline level at a peak.
From a neuroanatomical point of view, men have a thinner corpus callosum than women. The corpus callosum is a fiber network that connects the left and right hemispheres. The thicker the connection, the more in contact is the purely logical and purely emotional parts of our brains and minds. The thinner the connection, the more our logic and emotion are left to their own recognizance.
Although men will say that women are more emotional than they are, the fact is that men start wars, engage in road rage, domestic violence, child molestation and other sorted and sordid behaviors much more often than women. One explanation for that may be that a women’s left (rational) and right (emotional) brains are more in contact and each will mitigate the effects of the other when things get stressful. Sure, women will scream, but it is the man who more often pulls out a gun.
Now here’s the rap on men in power. Their left and right brains are functionally hypertrophied, meaning both sides of their brains are frequently pumping on all cylinders more of the time than less driven men. In fact the highly charged emotionality of their right brains can add fuel and fierceness to their goal oriented left brains. However, rather than both brains offering a “checks and balance” to each other, they can cause a synergistic and sinergistic relationship between the two and when that happens, say goodbye to conscience and common sense.
Mark Goulston, M.D. is principal at markgoulston.com and advises, coaches, trains and intervenes with executives and senior management regarding their internal and external relationship issues. He is a best selling author and writes the Tribune syndicated column “Solve Anything with Dr. Mark.”
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
40 Comments
1. Alexander Kaspar:With Neuroscience explanations like this, who needs concepts like fault, responsibility, or purposive action anymore? Because of neuroanatomy, people in power will always do sordid deeds. So power really does corrupt, and only those whose brains are malfunctioning can be trusted with power. There is a growing disconnect, watch it grow, there it goes.
Mar 10, 2008 - 4:42 pm 2. Larry:This is a parody, right?
Mar 10, 2008 - 5:07 pm 3. John More:The problem with this explanation is that the adrenaline junky doesn’t stay high all the time. It’s an occasional rush. Thus avoiding the come-down is not a likely explanation.
More likely is that the guy (and certainly Clinton) are narcissistic for various reasons including neurological, and along with narcissism comes impulsive pleasure seeking.
Psych + neuroanatomy.
Mar 10, 2008 - 5:52 pm 4. sunshine:sssssssooooooo…..hillary for president??
Mar 10, 2008 - 6:18 pm 5. S Rahm:I understand the why weren’t you thinking comment, however, does Rush Limbaugh really belong here. Is an addiction really the same as ultimate arrogance. Yes he should have sought help. But, to lump him in with Clinton and Spitzer I find insulting.
Mar 10, 2008 - 6:31 pm 6. Larry Sheldon:Thinking? He was thinking like a Democrat.
Mar 10, 2008 - 7:11 pm 7. Ellen:Like a previous poster I am a bit surprised that Limbaugh is lumped in with Spitzer and Clinton (and I think it is a cheap shot).
There is a vast different between indulging with a prostitute while claiming the moral high ground and Limbaugh’s addiction to prescribed medication.
Mar 10, 2008 - 7:48 pm 8. A. N. Pierson:Regarding Limbaugh, while it’s true his problems don’t equal Spitzer and Clinton, his severe substance abuse problem and longtime denial probably do fit the psychological profile in the doctor’s article. I don’t think it’s a cheap shot. Merely honest. Those who think Rush is a stable human being should ask themselves whether they are biased by liking his political views.
Mar 10, 2008 - 9:11 pm 9. I. Vos:This one goes both ways. The domestic violence idea however is non-science, in other words it serves propaganda. Never mind, if the main argument would be true, the question is who or what triggered the emotional reaction which than induces ‘emotional’ detached reactions. And who would have a vested interest in triggering these reactions. Speaking about conscience. If emotional detached reactions would mean anything more than a logical, abstract construct. My guess is that Antonio Damasio c.s. have better explanations than this kind of pop-science.
Mar 11, 2008 - 12:01 am 10. Peg C.:The gratuitous inclusion of Rush’s name nullifies all that followed, for me. Not a serious piece.
Mar 11, 2008 - 3:37 am 11. RE:The tragedy here the utter humiliation that his arrogance and narcissism has brought down upon his daughters. I don’t buy the premise that there is a medical alibi for Sptizer’s character, ego, and utter selfishness. People are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them.
The inappropriate and malicious swipe at Limbaugh suggests that the author has some character issues of his own that his own thinner corpus callosum cannot excuse.
Mar 11, 2008 - 4:54 am 12. Patsy:Rush was addicted to pain meds from
Mar 11, 2008 - 6:08 am 13. Larry J:a back problem. Now Spitzer and
Clinton have something else going on.
It’s important to note that every man has two heads. Any man who goes through life thinking with the small one is bound to get in trouble (e.g. Bill Clinton). Spitzer was just thinking with his small head. A lot of politicians seem to do that, which might explain why so much legislation is so stupid.
Mar 11, 2008 - 6:09 am 14. Assistant Village Idiot:Working in acute psych for 30 years, I didn’t see this as offering excuse for Spitzer. We all have diminished responsibility for one reason or another, but are ultimately responsible for our actions. If your morality is important to you, then you take added precautions when you enter situations of greater temptation, such as positions of power.
I see the doctor’s explanation as a description of how things happen, rather than why. That power and prestige increase people’s risk of narcissism seems fairly obvious, and offering an environment based rather than brain-chemistry based explanation is merely the same thing from a different perspective.
I have half-seriously called this type of behavior “thinking from the waist down” (I have four grown sons). That there are some neck-up drivers to the behavior doesn’t change things.
Mar 11, 2008 - 6:15 am 15. doright:Forget all the scientific mumbo jumbo. Did you see his wife?
Mar 11, 2008 - 7:51 am 16. Bahamamamasmama:Arrogance and a sense of omnipotence seem to consume some high profile men. It isn’t exclusive to elected officials, but we do hold them to a higher standard, as we should. Bottom line: He wasn’t thinking with the brain he has above his belt.
Mar 11, 2008 - 7:53 am 17. Whaaaat?:Anyone read Charlotte Allen’s March 2nd WaPo piece about how women are stupider than men because some of them swoon over Obama? Now I read this piece about brain damaged men. I have to ask- who’s the stupid sex again?
But seriously, if Ms. Allen feels justified in relegating ALL women to the small school bus over the actions of a few swooners, why am I not justified in making the same conclusion about ALL men based on the actions of nitwits like Mr. Spitzer? The answer: Because to do so is STUPID Charlotte! We should judge people based on their OWN actions, not the actions of others allegedly “like” them.
Men or women who cannot, or will not control their biological urges, be they for sex, food, sleep, adrenaline or whatever, are doomed to be slaves to them, and will ultimately fail in their endeavors. The same goes for addictions to drugs or alcohol.
In my opinion, self-control is the most important thing to teach children. Too bad it seems to be going out of fashion these days.
Mar 11, 2008 - 7:58 am 18. Jacob:“See, It’s not MY fault, it’s the sensors in my brain!”…..lol, what a joke! Democrats and the pointing fingers again! lol, I can just see this guy telling his wife, “no honey, I swear, sensors…”, lol. Good thing they threw in Rush though, people may have thought this was a Democrat problem! (frickin’ turds!)
http://www.buycommonsense.com
Mar 11, 2008 - 8:12 am 19. RJ:Yea sure…take your science and shove it just where Gov. Spitzer did! All you are doing is racing about that diamond you want us to stare upon. What’s the next facet you intend to present?
Try wifey is southern belle (see Gone With The Wind) and she just doesn’t do certain things in the bedroom that her wondrous husband would like to try. After all is said and done she did in fact give him three kids, why should she act like a “wild animal” in the bedroom?
Ask their shrinks in about a year to 18 months for the truths they uncovered!
Mar 11, 2008 - 8:13 am 20. D:“Peg C. :
The gratuitous inclusion of Rush’s name nullifies all that followed, for me. Not a serious piece.”
Absolutely right.
The Pajamas Media founders don’t like Rush, they don’t like Republicans, and they don’t like conservatives. They are, in large part, liberal libertarians. And even the libertarian part is questionable sometimes.
Mar 11, 2008 - 8:13 am 21. stormy7:THE REASON MEN CHEAT IS BECAUSE THEY CAN. WOMEN PUT UP WITH THIS BULLSHIT TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER. MEN DON’T TREAT THEIR SPOUSES AS EQUALS, MAKING CHEATING JUSTIFIED IN THEIR MINDS. THIS HOLDS TRUE ESPECIALLY WITH MEN IN POWER.
ANOTHER SIMPLER REASON IS THEIR BRAINS OR IN THEIR DICKS.
IN HILLARY’S CASE SHE WAS IN DENIAL WHEN BILL LIED TO HER ABOUT CHEATING. ALSO SHE HAD PLANS TO BE THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT. I HOPE SHE IS.
Mar 11, 2008 - 8:23 am 22. Trey:Like everyone else, he thought he could get away with it, so he did it.
I’m sure the good doctor’s patients (the “powerful men” and “professional athletes”) will pay top dollar to hear that the problem is that their brains are just soooooo much more powerful than “ordinary people.”
Mar 11, 2008 - 8:27 am 23. rjp3:Monogamy – never having sexual experiences with another human being – never connecting with anyone else but your aging cranky spouse …. sounds like hell.
Monogamy makes no sense for men and the “old boy’s club” that protected men has been dismantled.
Most guys with a sex drive cheat – at some point -political and high profile people just have more people watching them.
Mar 11, 2008 - 9:21 am 24. tanstaafl:It is a cheap shot to lump Limbaugh with Bill Clinton’s and (apparently) Eliot Spitzer’s proclivities to
malignant narcissism
Limbaugh, whether you agree with him or not, has integrity.
Also, I’m not familiar with this theory of a thinner corpus callosum (hemispheric crossover) in men than in women.
And rather than the “seat of emotions”, the right hemisphere is most often described as the focal point of holistic and/or intuitive or less “analytical” thought than the left hemisphere.
Mar 11, 2008 - 10:24 am 25. John Hotchkiss:Why is Rush Limbaugh on the list?
Mar 11, 2008 - 11:20 am 26. Mylai:Mark Goulson,
You’re kidding right? Rush Limbaugh?
This article would have had more credibility had you substituted Barney Frank and Larry Craig for R. L.
This fails. Get with it.
Mar 11, 2008 - 11:48 am 27. Larry:Everybody who noted that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t belong in the group is missing the point: if you’re going to try to argue that men have no self control, you have to argue that the problem includes conservatives along with liberals. Otherwise the argument doesn’t hold any water. You need a pretty convoluted psychoneurological theory to explain only liberal men having no self control. Since he couldn’t find any examples of prominent conservative figures (let alone politicians) who were busted cheating on their wives (Craig would have been a better choice, even though the goods on him aren’t as solid as Spitzer or Clinton), so he had to throw Rush in, just to show that it wasn’t an exclusively liberal problem.
I’m sure the author doesn’t like Rush, either, and I’m also sure he has no idea what Rush’s actual views are.
Mar 11, 2008 - 12:29 pm 28. Glenn Beck:Rush’s hypocrisy is what links him to Clinton, not the deed per se. Rush makes his money by blaming other people for doing what he did. Not that hard to figure out. You could easily use Ted Haggard or Larry Craig or Mark Foley etc etc. Conservative men prefer illicit sex with other men. At least Dems have a real pair between their legs.
Mar 11, 2008 - 12:55 pm 29. Larry:One thing’s for sure. There’s definitely some serious psychoneuralogical pathology going on here…
Mar 11, 2008 - 2:07 pm 30. Mark Goulston:Don’t you just love freedom of speech?
BTW I agree, Rush Limbaugh didn’t belong in the piece.
What I like about all the responses is how “unforgiving” a group of people, my piece has smoked out. I’m not advocating people suffer fools glad or lightly and to those who saw my piece as foolish and me as a fool for writing, I invite you to not go along with it.
However to those who revealed a bit too much of your “unforgiving” streaks, I suggest you look in the mirror and do some work on yourself, because if you don’t you are heading down the road to a bitter old age.
And when you get there, nobody will want to be around you…including you.
Mar 11, 2008 - 2:30 pm 31. 411 New York:A very interesting perspective. Barbara Kellerman from Harvard’s Kennedy School has a slightly different perspective, though still based on brain function. She attributes the kind of behavior that gets powerful people into trouble time and time again to “a kind of craziness that sets in when leaders on one or another level of consciousness begin to imagine themselves impervious to risk.”
Mar 11, 2008 - 7:12 pm 32. susanlee:Stormy7
Wow do you have issues. Portraying women as the self-sacrificing saints staying at home keeping the home fires burning while men cheat is ridiculous. Women have been known to cheat as well. Perhaps women are a little less obvious about it.
And to rJp3 the thought of never connecting again with an aging cranky spouse doesn’t appeal to women either. While there may not have been the equivalent of “old boys clubs” for the gals. Perhaps the gals are have been just a bit less conspicuous. All and all I found this article to be facile. There is something more important than the fibrous connection in the brain. There is moral fiber. And some lack it (men and women). These kind of articles masquerading as news do nothing but incite silly arguments between the sexes. Yawn.
Mar 12, 2008 - 8:02 am 33. baldilocks:Get a grip, folks. Just because the author addresses the neuro-chemical aspects of this matter doesn’t mean that he’s saying that the moral aspect don’t matter or are less important. The author is an MD and is discussing his area of expertise. Sheesh!
Mar 12, 2008 - 9:32 am 34. Harry Schell:Mr. Spitzer thought, or acted, many times as if he was above the rules of ordinary people.
The words egomaniac, narcissistic sociopath and egregious hypocrite come to mind as labels. The mechanics of his behavior may well be described by the article, but the fact remains the man is a thug who sees other people as tools to promote or pleasure himself, nothing more. Changing stripes will be very difficult, but his decision to resign is by far the best for NY state and politics in general. He lowers the bar, whatever he says about it.
Let us pray that his atonement is sincere, accomplished and that it include public apologies to those bulldozed unfairly in his search for adreneline highs and political power. The truth of this conversion will play out over time.
I am so sad for his family.
Mar 12, 2008 - 9:43 am 35. CARLOS:ELIOT SPITZER SHOULD NOT RESIGN, HE HAS BEEN A FAIR PERSON AND HAS HELP SO MANY. THE ONLY ONES THAT WANT HIM TO RESIGN ARE THE THE BAD ONE THAT HAVE A LOT TO LOOSE IF HE REMAINS IN POWER. PRESIDENTS FROM THE PAST HAVE DONE WORSE AND HA REMAINED IN POWER.
Mar 12, 2008 - 11:45 am 36. WR Jonas:I laughed at the sanctimonious “resignation news conference”.What a self inflated spotlight hogging gasbag. He should have issued a brief press relief and stepped back into the
Mar 12, 2008 - 4:31 pm 37. Brian H:real world.
A neuro-version of, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Those promoting rationality should acknowledge that they are pushing for the joys of internal mastery and self-congratulation; ALL behavior and thought is emotion-driven and emotion-rewarded.
What offends about Spitzer(s) is the direct hypocritical contrast between condemnation and punishment of others for what one then indulges in oneself. (A parallel is the vicious licentiousness of the AQ bosses and enforcers in areas of Iraq where they were enforcing super-Sharia, cutting off fingers of smokers, etc. Apparently, e.g., they all had world-class porn collections that they used as instruction manuals.)
You might be interested in the studies of Haidt, which suggest that liberals base all morality on not hurting anyone, while conservatives balance a range of “goods”, including stability and tradition. And ex-BBC editor and writer, Antony Jay (”Yes, Minister”), observes that the bottom-up values of the reformer/liberal are self-defeating in power, while the pure conservative undermines popular support with “insensitivity”. Neither is immune to corruption.
Mar 12, 2008 - 4:43 pm 38. Mark Goulston:I made a — hopefully forgivable — error in adding Rush Limbaugh to this blog. I meant to use Newt Gingrich, but when you’re moderately liberal, all conservatives look alike.
Mar 12, 2008 - 10:25 pm 39. Iversion:http://www.iversion.net/pics/spitzer.png
Mar 16, 2008 - 7:18 pm 40. Jason:Men cheat because they are filthy perverts with corrupted minds. Most men went sex with hot women whenever possible, but being in a position of power makes it a lot easier.
It also doesn’t help that our media and education system tell eveyone there’s no absolute right and wrong and that it’s great if you want to sleep with anyone you choose.
So why wouldn’t a man in power cheat?
Apr 20, 2008 - 9:15 pm