People Can Only Give What They Have and Teach What They Know

The beginning impacts the end, or, as I like to say, outcomes are typically determined by the way in which the "game" is designed.

Research confirms the following quote from Sukhsimranjit Singh, the Judge Danny Weinstein Managing Director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, where he also serves as associate professor of Law and Practice and directs the LLM programs:

To be aware of your culture, you have to get out of it.

Singh said that on June 20, 2018, during a program on "Restoring Civility in an Overheated Society" that took place at the Straus Institute.

According to social science researcher Brené Brown, “In the United States, the majority culture is white, Judeo-Christian, middle class, educated, and straight." It bears mentioning that cisgender straight females are members of the dominant culture because there are more of them than there are cisgender straight males. That is why straight people, rather than straight males, fall within the dominant culture in the United States.

I have thought about Singh’s comment more and more since first hearing it because I have noticed that those sought out to give presentations and trainings on bias, emotional intelligence, and related topics and concepts in this country, tend to fall squarely within each and every aspect of the dominant culture in the United States of America.

For example, my local Bar Association put on two programs in January 2022 on bias. Both of those programs were presented by individuals who fell squarely within each and every aspect of the dominant culture and happened to be male. My local collaborative law community put together a program entitled, "Emotional Intelligence and Decision Making," which was given earlier this month and the presenter fell within each and every aspect of the dominant culture, even though she happened to be female.

Brown describes the issue as follows:

We all see the world through a lens… We look through lenses of age, ethnicity, race, ability—and that’s how we see the world. And then we slide in a lot of other lenses, like insight, personal experience, history, family stories—and we all see the world through this unique lens. [In the United States,] the whiter, more Judeo-Christian, straighter, middle class, educated we are, the more likely it is that we were told that how we see the world is actually the world and that how other people see the world is another unreal version of the world—that our view is the world... We can’t put down the lens. The lens is soldered to our face. That’s how we see the world.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible for those who fall squarely within each and every aspect of the dominant culture to be aware of their culture. However, I am saying that they should not be given the benefit of the doubt of possessing knowledge, understanding, skills, abilities, insight, and wisdom that the evidence and research reflect they are less likely to possess. Along those lines, consider the following excerpt from Empathy Conversations—Testing their effectiveness as a policy-making instrument: A Pilot Study by Australia21, a not-for-profit public think tank specializing in promoting new, evidence-based thinking:

It is not surprising that our limited worldviews, based on our particular life experiences, inform our expectations and assumptions. If those in policy positions have not been a member of a discriminated or minority group, and mostly they are not, then what personal relationships have shaped their life processes?

Whether or not people realize it, most of my published work has been very autobiographical, even though it is based upon legal, social, and scientific research. I do not believe that such articles could have been written by someone without similar life experiences. Those experiences involved my falling outside of the dominant culture in the United States of America in one or more aspects, the legal injustices I have experienced through our 'justice' system, and the responses I typically receive for my diversity of thought, which is based upon my personal background and life experiences.

The value of diversity is not in checking the boxes based merely upon what I refer to as "civil rights categories," rather, it involves diversity of thought. Falling outside of the dominant culture in one or more aspects helps to form and shape that diversity of thought.

How valuable are programs and trainings on bias, emotional intelligence, and related topics and concepts, if they are given by individuals who may understand the subject, but who lack well-developed foundational skills upon which those topics and concepts are based? The very foundation of emotional intelligence is emotional self-awareness, which is also needed to be aware of and keep biases in check.

Bias Essential Reads

Implicit Bias Training for Police: Does It Work?

The Impact of Puberty on Racial Bias Against Black Children

People can only give that which they possess and teach that which they know. It is unreasonable, unrealistic, and contrary to social science evidence and scientific research to expect people to give that which they do not possess and to teach that which they do not know.

Assuming those responsible for putting together programs and trainings on bias, emotional intelligence, and related topics and concepts, are sincere in their efforts, it would make sense that they would make a much more concerted effort to seek out presenters and trainers more likely to possess the requisite knowledge, understanding, skills, abilities, insight, and wisdom. The same is true of those who self-select to attend such programs.

When people are educating others about matters that are skill-based, more thought needs to be given to the nature and extent to which they actually possess those skills, regardless of their perceived understanding of the subject itself.