Understanding how we’re equal even when we’re different

An interesting and odd piece, The Conversation Google Killed by William Saletan.

James Damore is the Google engineer fired for publishing a factual summary of the state of knowledge regarding how biology influences the choices men and women make. Independent reviews of the science supporting Damore's argument are here and here.

The oddity is that Saletan is struggling to respect Damore's critics while at the same time acknowledging that Damore was simply and respectfully, to use an otherwise hackneyed phrase, speaking truth to power. Saletan is struggling to treat Bill and Michael from the old English adage as moral equals.

Meek Michael thought it wrong to fight
Bully Bill, who killed him, thought it right.

Saletan refutes Damore's critics and their straw man criticisms of Damore.

Damore has been widely vilified as a pig. That’s nonsense. In his memo, the 28-year-old engineer acknowledges sexism and praises feminism. He criticizes stereotypes and restrictive gender roles. He notes that it’s irrational, not just wrong, to judge anyone on the basis of sex. He affirms the liberal principle that we should “treat people as individuals.” He also accepts the progressive principle that we should “correct for existing biases.” He writes: “I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.”

Saletan wants to find a means of having a dialogue between those seeking truth through better understanding and those seeking to impose a static and rigid morality divorced from reality. That's what makes the article so peculiar. Saletan makes it clear why Damore should be part of the dialogue but not why the denialist ideologues should be. He tries to put the burden on Damore, claiming that had he spoken more clearly, there could be a more constructive conversation. While it is polite of Saletan to believe that, I don't think the facts support it.

I don't think it was the format of Damore's communication which was the problem. The problem was that Damore was presenting evidence counter to the cherished beliefs of his opponents. It didn't matter that Damore and his opponents were seeking to achieve the same goal (greater female representation). The problem was that Damore was using an evidenced-base approach to achieve that end and the evidence was incompatible with the ideological beliefs of his critics.

I was finding Saletan's squirming effort to avoid putting the onus on Damore's critics rather irritating and was on the verge of abandoning reading the article. And then I got to this paragraph which I think is actually the most interesting in the essay.

Science has tremendous cultural power. Invoking it in this context feels like a declaration of inferiority, even if, on closer inspection, it isn’t.

And that, in part, is why the backlash has been so furious. Damore’s critics, from scholars to executives to feminists, have attacked his arguments as “pseudoscience”—an epithet that has become as reflexive, tactical, and meaningless as “fake news.” They’re quite wrong. There’s no clearer gap between any two demographic groups, in terms of biology and behavior, than between the sexes. The gap is often blurry and full of exceptions, but it’s obvious to anyone with open eyes. People who deny this are getting in the way of a far more interesting project: understanding how we’re equal even when we’re different.

I think this is the crux of the matter and why Saletan is chasing a chimera. The concept of equality with difference highlights two world views in collision. A classical liberal accords all humans equality of human dignity. It is inherent. We are all gifted with natural rights that allow us to manifest our unique selves in a complex and dynamic world. There is no empirical means of measuring this. It is an article of constructive faith. We choose to believe it. By so choosing, and along with the other pillars of classical liberalism (markets, freedom, rule of law, equality before the law, scientific method, progress, etc.), classical liberalism creates the circumstances by which all people are able to progress and develop. Fairness is important but it is fairness in the sense that all are subject to the same law and processes.

What classical liberalism has going for it is that it is so consistently successful wherever that world view is dominant. The more divergent from classical liberalism countries, regions, groups and individuals are, the poorer and more violent they are. Classical liberalism works. While a bee's flight may seem improbable to an engineer, yet it flies.

In contrast is the worldview of Damore's critics, the Platonists, Marxists, Postmodern critical theorists. Utopian totalitarians all. There are no human rights, natural or otherwise. There is simply the perfectibility of man by purges or reeducation at the hands of a guiding centralized authority. There is no science or morality, there is only utility.

Which is why Saletan is on a fool's mission. There are no circumstances under which Damore's classical liberalism can be reconciled with the authoritarian demand of obeisance made by the postmodernists. They have a truth which you comply with or not. Damore sought truth over compliance and therefore had to be silenced and punished.

Saletan is regretful that Google closed down the conversation which Damore began but he puts the onus on Damore for the indefensible actions of others.

I wish Damore had articulated his ideas that way. Perhaps, after further conversation and reflection, he will. But you don’t get there by being silenced. You get there by listening and by being heard.

That formulation misses the point. No matter what in fashion Damore expressed a differing truth, he would have been closed down. The classical liberal humanism Damore displayed is simply unacceptable to those with a deterministic authoritarian world view. Saletan's final sentence is a betrayal.

He claims that Damore's ideas would have been given an audience had they been better framed. It seems to me to be clear that there are no circumstances under which they would have been dealt with fairly and objectively. Damore wanted a discussion by sharing ideas and evidence. But that only works if there is mutual respect; with communicating and listening occurring on both sides. Damore communicated and listened. Google did not. They purified themselves by expelling the apostate.