you're reading...

Saleton is Wrong About Damore

James Damore

William Saleton chimes in on the Google Memo controversy with The Conversation Google Killed.

It is an elegant, eloquent, highly educated, highly sophisticated instance of The Coddling of the American Mind; of “triggers,” and of the primacy of feelings over facts.

It is an obtuse, elitist, instance of killing the messenger.

Saleton is not saying Google was right. Note the title of the essay. He’s saying Google was wrong to fire Damore.

But he also says Damore wrong in at least two ways, and in so doing Saleton makes things worse, not better.

First, he says Damore’s writing and speaking style is unsophisticated, “ham handed.” Essentially, he says Damore should be more like Saleton; more like an erudite professor of literature.  

Sorry Bill, but we can’t all write like Earnest Hemingway and speak extemporaneously with the suave, glib, skill of JFK. 

Second, he says Damore should have been more circumspect; more aware of and sensitive to how people might react. Saleton doesn’t use the phrase “sacred values” but in essence he says Damore should have known that his memo violates some sacred values, and therefore he should have been more sensitive and nice. Damore should have known that people don’t do active listening; they don’t try to hear what one actually says and means. Rather, they listen for “stereotypes” they dislike, e.g. women aren’t as smart as men, and pounce on those rather than on the actual content of the memo.

Saleton in his essay is doing two things.

First, he’s validating the concept of “triggers.” He calls them “sterotypes,” but his meaning is clear. Don’t “trigger” people.

Second, he’s validating infantile emotional reasoning of the type described in Coddling. He’s saying feelings trump facts. He’s saying “don’t speak in terms of facts and logic because people might be upset.”

The whole thing is specious. Thinking like Saleton’s IS THE PROBLEM!


One thought on “Saleton is Wrong About Damore

  1. Saleton’s core point is that :Big Five” personality traits associated with females can be accommodated by reworking tech jobs, e.g. working in teams rather than solo. But Saleton begs the question. People higher in aggreableness conscientiousness and neuroticism (=females) are most likely not valued as high by tech firms because of the traits not because of being female per se.


    Posted by tom merle | August 25, 2017, 4:32 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

I Support Viewpoint Diversity


A politically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars who want to improve our academic disciplines and universities. We share a concern about a growing problem: the loss or lack of “viewpoint diversity.” When nearly everyone in a field shares the same political orientation, certain ideas become orthodoxy, dissent is discouraged, and errors can go unchallenged.

An Interpretation of Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory

This sidebar lists a series of posts which together make up an essay relating Moral Foundations Theory to today's politics, and even a little history, as viewed through The Independent Whig's six-foundation moral lens.


Venn Diagram of Liberal and Conservative Traits and Moral Foundations and

%d bloggers like this: