Home
You're all following the story of Anthony Weiner and his escapades. The common view is that he had extraordinarily bad judgment and low self-control. That makes sense if you believe humans have something called free will. But let's hold the free will argument for later and look at the question of his self-control.

To begin, let's agree that as a general rule, the more you do something, the better you get. Practice makes perfect.  People who do lots of public speaking become smoother and more confident. People who live near train tracks probably sleep better in noisy environments. People who live at high altitudes can exercise longer in that environment than people who don't. Likewise, if self-control exists, it is probably the sort of skill you can improve with practice.

On the other hand, research has shown that self-control is diminished in all areas if you try to resist a temptation in any particular area. For example, if you successfully resist eating chocolate, you might have trouble resisting a glass of wine. But that sort of temptation has more to do with the moment. By analogy, a weight lifter gets stronger in the long run through repetition, but immediately after a strenuous workout he can lift less than before he started. So timing is important with any skill.

If we assume that self-control is something you can strengthen over time, but might be diminished in any specific hour if it gets overtaxed, that's the model we should use to examine Weiner's self-control.

We know a few things about Weiner - too much, actually. Apparently he is like catnip for women. He's powerful. He's smart. He's tall. He's famous. He's ambitious. He has a way with words. He has all of his hair. He's built like Wolverine. He also lives in the DC area, which has (correct me if I'm wrong) the highest concentration of young, single women of anywhere in the country. That's a random factoid I remember from somewhere.

In this environment, Weiner probably had to exercise his self-control more than anyone you have ever met. Before marriage, we can assume he gave in to temptation often. But I'll bet he had to practice his self-control a lot, just so he'd have time to exercise and do his job. In other words, he has far more practice at self-control than 99% of the public. If you look at his physique - and we all have - it's also obvious that he has a tremendous amount of self-control in terms of fitness and diet. There's also no evidence that he smokes, does drugs, or drinks too much. He probably studied hard in school too, or he wouldn't have the job he has. In other words, this man is probably a world-class self-controller.

But self-control is only part of the equation. The human body has a way of making you so horny that you're literally stupid. This phenomenon is unevenly distributed across the general population. Horniness in males is most closely linked to testosterone. And Weiner was a testosterone machine. Here's an abbreviated list of activities that boost testosterone in men:

1.       Eating right

2.       Exercise - especially weight-lifting

3.       Avoiding cigarettes, drugs, alcohol

4.       Being around attractive women

5.       Power, winning, attention

6.       Sleep (Weiner has no kids and sets his own schedule)

Weiner also has the classic sharp facial features associated with high testosterone. He probably started in the upper range naturally and sent his levels into the stratosphere through his healthy lifestyle. And it is worth mentioning that his lifestyle is exactly what any doctor would recommend.

Now we get into the gray area of free will and self-control. The mechanistic description of a "mistake" in this context is when the urge (testosterone in this case) is higher than the counter-urge (fear of consequences). In theory, some amount of urge will trump any amount of fear, including the fear of death itself. This equation would be true for any healthy male, from priests (obviously) to presidents (more obviously). And Weiner probably had testosterone shooting out of his ear holes.

Against this urge was his self-control, which I have argued is probably in the top 1% if you had some way to compare him to the general public. The problem is that his urges were also probably in the top 1%. One particular urge (horniness) lops about 50% off of a man's IQ. You can blame evolution for that. I assume evolution favored men who took stupid risks to get sex because those are the genes that were most often passed down. As a result, modern men are wired so that a boost in horniness shuts off half of the brain.

For the benefit of society, we have a responsibility to condemn Weiner's inappropriate behavior. Doing so will increase the fear level for other married people and make it harder for chemistry-driven urges to win in the future. And so I join you in condemning Weiner for his actions. Shame is useful. But it is also objectively true - or at least highly likely - that Weiner has more self-control than 99% of the people who condemn him. And it is also objectively true that the "devil" that raised his level of temptation to the danger zone was a combination of healthy living and public service. That's not an excuse. It's just context.

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +110
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Jun 21, 2011
I like what you're touching on here... because the question so many of us have is, "Why do so many public figures get caught doing so many risky and stupid things?"
I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--seekcougar.com--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 19, 2011
Hello Scott!

I have to say your thoughts on Mr. Weiner gave me a chuckle. I'm puzzled by the "catnip for women", though. Mr. Weiner seems to have forgotten the words of Napoleon Dynamite. Girls want guys with great skills. Forget flower bouquets, and work on something captivating. As a girl, I find that a guy who is funny, smart, and offers me his protection has the skills I'm seeking. What Mr. Weiner did is, shall we say, lacking in imagination. In short, it was a turnoff.

Examples of guys who may actually be "catnip for women" may include famous cartoonists, such as yourself, visionaries like Steve Jobs, and Clint Eastwood on a good day.

Thankfully, my own husband is funny, smart, and offers me his protection in a great way. I hope that Mr. Weiner can work things out with his wife, and develop great skills.

Keep those ideas coming, Scott! Thanks!
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
Stephanie Coontz wrote Marriage, a history
Google describes it:
In this surprising landmark book, family historian Stephanie Coontz explodes every cherished assumption about marriage, starting with the notion of the traditional marriage. Forget Ozzie and Harriet. Coontz reveals that through most of history, marriage was not a relationship based on mutual love between a breadwinner husband and an at-home wife but an institution devoted to acquiring in-laws and improving the family labor force. How did marriage evolve from the loveless, arranged unions that have endured from the dawn of civilization into the sexualized, volatile relationships of today? Coontz argues that the Victorians, with their radical emphasis on marital intimacy and celebration of the individual, simultaneously made marriage more satisfying and paved the way for alternative lifestyles to thrive: divorce, gay marriage, living together, single parenting. The diminished role of heterosexual marriage in our society is not an aberration, insists Coontz, but the consequence of centuries of irrevocable social change. "Marriage, A History is an engaging narrative of astonishing scope and depth that will stand as a !$%*!$%*! of social history and provoke debate for years to come.
 
 
Jun 10, 2011
"...Apparently he is like catnip for women."



Maybe. But I don't care about that. I just wanted to stop by and congratulate you for having the funniest comic strip out of today's paper. LMAO. You beat Shoe by a hair's bredth, and Garfield was a close runner-up as well.

Sometimes I wonder how well you know all those other guys. My instinct tells me you probably know most of them fairly well, but I could be wrong. Anyway, keep up the good work, Scotty-o. You 'da man! LOL.
 
 
Jun 9, 2011
@GovBert
waterboarding candidates. classic. could we televise it? or possibly post the video online?

"Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics." - southpark, ep 808
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 9, 2011
@fljared

True, if we could measure and quantify intangibles and if people voted more rationally than ass or elephant. I've always liked the idea of waterboarding presidential candidates to find out their real position on each main point, and then posting that in a comparative format. Also, we could see how they handle pressure and adverse situations outside of their control. It's a win for everyone!
 
 
Jun 9, 2011
"Do or do not. There is no try" Weiner failed to control his sexual urges. To some people (like me) that just makes him human, but to others that makes him a deviant.

What's most interesting to me is that the same people that saw George W's stupidity as a humanizing factor tend to see sexual misconduct as a serious deficiency (and vice-versa).
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 8, 2011
@GovBert:
You statement assumes that
a. We can measues persons willpower
b. that, if we had that information, people would vote for them on this information, and not just because he's "Like me" or "Religious"
 
 
Jun 8, 2011
I think some people are just very aptly named.
 
 
Jun 8, 2011
It started bad and Weiner made it even worse by how he handled it.

If he is in the top 1% of people for all of his marvelous attributes, why can't we elect someone from the top .5% to take his place. All the good features and none of the bad.
 
 
+9 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 8, 2011
To all the people who think that that the private lives of politicians are none of our business.
"He wants the voters to know that when it comes to this public sphere over here, he is a man of integrity, who would never knowingly violate a House rule, or an oath of office, whatever, but who, when it comes to the private sphere over there, and the private parts contained therein, he is a liar, skunk, and inept Twitterer. But who would buy an arbitrary division like that? Well, a lot of people. This technique doesn't work all the time, but it works way more than it ought to." - dougwils.com

When my father was in the marines he would not recommend a man for promotion who he knew had committed adultery. His reasoning was that if he would betray the woman he slept with at night, how could he trust him not to betray the guy walking next to him during the day.

This guy Weiner want's us to put his trust in him to run the country (and by extension, our lives). Yet I wouldn't trust him within a ten foot radius of my daughter. He wants us to trust him to set economic policy... but I would never go into a business partnership with him. We elect people to offices, and I don't want any scumbags there. We know he's a liar in one area, how can we trust him in any other?
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 8, 2011
We were assuming for the sake of argument that Mr Weiner did something wrong. Otherwise there is no reason for the whole blogpost.
 
 
Jun 8, 2011
I like what you're touching on here... because the question so many of us have is, "Why do so many public figures get caught doing so many risky and stupid things?" One thought would simply dismiss these men as classic stupid men, who are just too caveman-like to help themselves. I don't think that's true. I've always thought it was directly related to power and the God complex. Your question gets me thinking that there may be more to it. Perhaps the exercising of self-control in the public eye is so straining that it falters more often?
 
 
Jun 8, 2011
Guilty of what Bob? Giving away !$%*! That's not illegal to the best of my knowledge. Sending unsolicited messages? Not illegal either. Why would sending unsolicited !$%* messages be illegal?
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 8, 2011
!$%*!$%*!$%* = c i r c u m s t a n c e s
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 8, 2011
What you call "excuse" and "context" can also be described as "motive". And that normally supports the case of the prosecution. So if this where a trial, you are actually not doing Mr Weiner a favor.

There are always reasons, !$%*!$%*!$%*! and excuses for crimes/ fellonies. But that doesn't count. What counts is if you're guilty or not.
 
 
Jun 8, 2011
Phantom II, it is far more likely that your own biases lead you to the conclusion that Mr. Adams has become more or less himself over the last few days. He has remained consistant while your core ideology is based on points you have emoted yourself, instead of thought yourself, into. As such occasionally your points will randomly wander into logic and run along side his consistantly logical points.
 
 
Jun 7, 2011
So did the wife buy the "context" logic? :)
 
 
-5 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 7, 2011
Scott..I love this line..
This equation would be true for any healthy male, from priests (obviously) to presidents (more obviously).
Ha ha ...presidents are after all press-e-dents (too many dents in their character by simply pressing)
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 7, 2011
Scott..I love this line..
This equation would be true for any healthy male, from priests (obviously) to presidents (more obviously).
Ha ha ...presidents are after all press-e-dents (too many dents in their character by simply pressing)
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog