CharlesFoster Malloy

The people I talk to in Michigan, even those who voted for President Trump, are saying, "I wish the bold action I see on national security stuff was instead focused on domestic issues, on our economy. Rather than somewhere very far away."

Helen Andrews just reminded us how one of the most powerful men in America got destroyed by feelings. Larry Summers — ex-Treasury Secretary, World Bank veteran, elite Democrat, and razor-sharp economist — was Harvard president when he dared speak data at an off-the-record academic conference: men dominate the extreme tails of math aptitude bell curves, and top women often gravitate toward people-focused fields over pure abstraction like theoretical physics. Mainstream science? Yes. Audience reaction? Some women professors said they nearly fainted or threw up. They leaked it anyway, extracted three apologies, and helped force him out. No real rebuttal. Just emotional offense overriding evidence. This wasn’t ancient history — it’s the template for how certain truths became career-ending. We traded open inquiry for protected feelings, and institutions are still paying for it. Personal reflection: Watching competence kneel to curated outrage feels like self-sabotage on a civilizational scale. Have we outgrown this, or does it still quietly control what can be said in elite spaces?

A research revealed that roughly one in five CEOs and senior executives displays clinically significant psychopathic traits. This rate is strikingly similar to the prevalence found among prison populations. According to findings presented at the Australian Psychological Society’s annual congress, approximately 21% of high-level professionals exhibit strong psychopathic characteristics. That’s dramatically higher than the 1% to 4% seen in the general population. These so-called “successful psychopaths” often rise to the top by using charm, confidence, and strong social skills. Yet the same traits, a lack of empathy, superficial relationships, and a tendency toward manipulation, can lead to unethical decision-making and long-term harm to organizations. Forensic psychologist Nathan Brooks, who led the study with researchers from Bond University and the University of San Diego, points to flawed hiring practices as a key factor. Many companies focus heavily on skills and experience while overlooking dangerous personality traits. The researchers recommend implementing more thorough personality assessments during recruitment to screen for toxic characteristics. By prioritizing character alongside competence, organizations can better protect their culture and future from leaders who deliver short-term gains at the expense of long-term integrity. [Brooks, N., Fritzon, K., & Croom, S. Corporate Psychopathy: Highlighting the Importance of Personality Screening in the Recruitment Process. Australian Psychological Society Annual Congress]