He does mention knowing and getting along with many business types/higher ups - and that he'd even label himself as one. Hence my impression that if you call out psychopaths, he takes it personally at some level.
I suspect, although he is aware of the issue of psychopaths, that his understanding might lack in terms of understanding the extent that pathology plays a role in normal society. I guess he has a bit of a blind spot there, especially in regard to the idea that there are quite a lot of highly successful psychopaths in high positions of power. He might also be unaware of the true extent that a successful psychopath can fake to be a normal human being and that it is only by long term observation via a network type of setting that some of them (not all) can be exposed.
I think he responded that he has a very trust group of friends and colleagues that he talks to and networks with. I'd imagine that they have many discussions about many topics and his thoughts on topics, where he is not an expert, is very much shaped by this group of people and also what these people believe, and it is possible, and even likely, that these people haven't done a deep dive on the topics and/or have biases and sacred cows for various reasons.
I also suspect that some of the company he frequents in that circle might play a significant role on why he can't go in certain directions. I think the Israel topic is a good example of this. He might also be a bit too favorable to successful and/or famous and/or intellectual types, in the sense that he might brush over "red flags" more easily with those people, in the belief that just because they have that standing that they are a bit "more advanced" as the average Joe. Some of the most famous and "brilliant" intellectual types can be the most rotten human beings at the same time.