Just jotted down some of my counterpoints to the most recent blog post and had AI tidy it up and reinforce it for brevity:
Empathy + Ruthlessness = Superior Survival
The blog post rightly observes that raw, fact-driven action (“ruthlessness”) can be indispensable in high-stakes arenas like warfare or billion-dollar boardrooms. It also notes that traditional child-rearing pushes mothers to soften harsh truths. Those are real evolutionary pressures I’m happy to concede.
Yet history, data and modern doctrine all show that pairing ruthlessness with deliberate empathy—rather than treating them as masculine vs. feminine binaries—produces the most resilient outcomes as far as survival is concerned.
1 Empathy pays in cold cash
Corporate performance. In Harvard Business Review’s Global Empathy Index, the ten most-empathetic firms grew in market value more than twice as fast as the ten least-empathetic and generated 50 % more earnings. (hbr.org)
Employee retention & innovation. EY’s 2023 survey of 1,000 U.S. workers found that mutual empathy from leaders boosts efficiency (88 %), creativity (87 %) and even revenue (83 %). (ey.com)
Brand-safety reality check. After Elon Musk’s takeover, monthly U.S. ad revenue at X/Twitter slid 55 % year-over-year as advertisers fled an environment perceived as hostile to minorities—an object lesson in how ignoring customer feelings burns shareholder value. (reuters.com)
Bottom line: in competitive markets, emotional intelligence surfaces blind spots and protects revenue streams every bit as much as price discipline or cost-cutting.
2 Battlefield truth now requires empathy
Modern militaries no longer see empathy as a luxury:
The U.S. Army’s Leadership Requirements Model explicitly lists empathy toward “families, local populace, and even enemies” as a core attribute of effective command. (archive.org)
Field Manual 3-24 tells soldiers they must be “nation-builders as well as warriors,” codifying “hearts and minds” alongside kinetic force. (army.mil)
History bears this out: the Mongols’ first major defeat—Ain Jalut (1260)—came when the Mamluks matched Mongol cavalry ferocity and leveraged local alliances and popular support, stopping an empire that had steam-rolled purely terror-based opposition. (en.wikipedia.org)
Reading an adversary’s motives, social networks and morale is intelligence work; empathy is simply a data-collection technique that supplements satellite photos and casualty counts.
3 Gender: overlapping curves, not iron laws
Average sex differences in empathy and aggression are real but modest. Training and context shift them more than chromosomes do. Women who run global M&A desks learn to act decisively without losing rapport; male pediatric ICU nurses cultivate emotional attunement without “turning feminine.” The distribution overlap means any individual—man or woman—can train whichever dial their role demands.
4 A two-dial model for leadership
Product pivot. When a company must change direction, the “ruthlessness dial” involves killing beloved but under-performing features quickly. The matching “empathy dial” means listening deeply to users to understand their unmet needs. Together, this mix usually translates into higher customer retention.
Peacekeeping. In a fragile post-conflict zone, success hinges on firm rules of engagement (ruthlessness) paired with active civil-affairs outreach to local communities (empathy). Balancing the two reduces the number of new insurgents and stabilises the region more sustainably.
M&A negotiation. Effective deal-making couples a non-negotiable walk-away price (ruthlessness) with a careful mapping of the seller’s emotional drivers and personal goals (empathy). This dual approach secures better terms while minimising late-stage surprises.
Smart operators treat the two qualities like twin throttles on an aircraft: push whichever lever the terrain demands, rather than locking one forward and one back because of gendered ideology.
5 Closing thought
Truth shorn of human context turns sterile; empathy unanchored from reality turns naïve. Master both—and toggle as circumstances change—and you out-compete anyone who fetishises only one.
I disagree that men and woman don't have equal access to truth. Just access to different tools of survival. Pragmatism requires both to be most effective at survival, and truth seeking.
Consider:
Who would most effectively lead humans to God
A misanthropic cyberbully, or a leader who embodies the whole gamut of humanity?
When I understand my enemy well enough to defeat him, then in that moment I also love him - Ender Wiggin
