W H Y
just see the
WE in US
when it’s way past time for us to start consistently
B E I N G
The WE in US

Just Thinking About Cooperation Can Make You Less Prejudiced

A new study suggests that imagining we’ll be cooperating with people outside our social groups reduces bias.  .  .

 JILL SUTTIE a freelance journalist for Greater Good Science Center pulls back the curtain to help us take a look at the good WE can do by being more about an US than a YOU or a mere ME. . .

As human beings, we tend to favor people we think are like us or have something in common with us—and we’re often wary of people who are different. 

Evolution made us this way so that we could find allies against outside threats. The problem comes when this old instinct to prefer our “in-group” leads us to discriminate, dehumanize, or act violently toward others we perceive as “the other” or members of the “out-group.”

Surprisingly, it doesn’t take much for us to create or expand in-groups. Studies have shown that even minimal similarities—like wearing the same-colored shirt—can prime us to prefer members of our in-group in relation to out-group members.

What allows us to get past that tendency to be so easily biased for and against people? A new study suggests one step: focus on the need to cooperate. 

Measuring the impact of anticipation

In this study, researchers Antonia Misch of Ludwig Maximilian University and Yarrow Dunham of Yale University formed artificial in-groups and out-groups in American and German children by randomly assigning them to wear an orange- or green-colored scarf. Then, they asked the children to look at sets of photos featuring two children (each with a different scarf color) and to rate their likability and niceness. The difference in likability scores between members of the child’s in-group and out-group provided a measure of favoritism.

The children were then told they’d be playing a cooperative game with their group members via computer. But, while half of the children (in the control group) connected to their own group without problems, the other half experienced a bad connection—and were told they’d instead be playing with the group wearing the other color scarf.

Before any actual play took place, however, the researchers measured in-group favoritism again, using the same method. When they compared the results, they found that children who’d been told they’d be playing with the out-group showed reduced favoritism toward their own group and less bias against the other group than children in the control group. 

“Just looking at the anticipation of cooperation triggers more positivity towards an out-group,” says Misch. “This could be a first, important step in helping people engage in more positive interactions.”

In another part of the study, Misch and Dunham repeated their experiment, but with a difference: They had the kids actually play the cooperative game together (or think they were playing together; in reality, they were playing alone). The researchers found that playing the game with others didn’t further reduce in-group favoritism, suggesting that anticipating cooperation may be as effective as actual cooperation in reducing bias.

This is important, says Misch, because while past research has found that cooperation between groups reduces prejudice and bias, her study is the first to show that simply anticipating cooperation can make a difference. 

Some biases are stronger than others

It’s striking to see this bias reduction happening in children rather than in adults, she adds. Perhaps if more teachers and parents kept this in mind, she says, they could help prevent prejudice from developing, by fostering more cooperation between diverse groups of children.

“Human group-mindedness is a characteristic that emerges early in life,” she says. “If we want to change intergroup relations and prejudice, we should start early.”

However, telling children that they should anticipate cooperating with others may not be enough to reduce deep-seated bias in all cases.

In one part of Misch’s study, children were separated into groups based on gender instead of using randomly colored scarves. Those who were told they’d be playing with kids in the opposite gender group didn’t show the same reductions in bias as children in prior experiments: They still preferred members of their own gender group.

To Misch, this is not too surprising, as gender bias is more firmly established than the kind of bias you see in groups like those created by scarf color. Stereotyped messages about boys and girls are passed down from parents, reinforced through culture, and perpetuated in media. Plus, gender is an important part of a child’s self-concept, which may cement it more firmly in their minds, she says.

Still, it’s possible that if differently-gendered children were encouraged to cooperate more from an early age, it could make a difference in reducing gender bias over time.

“Anticipating cooperation between some groups may help a little bit, even if it’s not going to be the only thing that’s needed,” she says.

Currently, Misch and her team are expanding their research to see if they can decrease bias based on race and ethnicity through anticipatory cooperation. She’s hopeful that having children—and adults—think about the necessity of working together across difference may lessen prejudice, not only helping us all get along better, but helping us to solve world problems that require a sense of commonality and shared purpose. 

“If we can replicate the effect with this study, it would be great,” she says. “Maybe it will just take a change of attitude around cooperation to reduce prejudice some and help society.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
SO What, huh?
Maybe if these past couple of years has taught us nothing else
isn’t it that
THE WE IN US
brings out the
Best in us
or
does it. . .

Psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst:
No answer necessary
.    .    .the way you live
TELLS  ALL

(we just don’t always act like it)

I know. . .I KNOW
this 18 minute + movie is much longer than
most Monday Morning
THE CARING CATALYST
BLog Posts
B U T
Writer-director Doug Roland’s Oscar-nominated short drama — executive produced by Marlee Matlin and in partnership with Helen Keller Services — is a deceptively simple narrative that takes place over one evening between two characters. But this chance encounter — captured with visual storytelling that’s both natural, unforced and still deftly crafted — uncovers riches of empathy, along with a profound revelation about how people can offer fellowship, help and care to one another, even in the simplest of ways. . .
Openhearted and authentic, “Feeling Through” was inspired by the director’s encounter with a deaf-blind man, which likely inspires the deep sense of tribute and affection that imbues the storytelling with its warmth and sympathy. In a world and time in history more isolated than ever, this heartfelt short has an unexpected resonance, reminding us of a simple yet profound truth that we sometimes are in danger of forgetting. We are here to help and hear one another, to feel more and see beyond ourselves. In doing so, we enlarge the scope of our lives, widen our horizons and expand our hearts. . .
IT
rips down the not-so-tattered veil
of an old definition
and gives us a different meaning:

Psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst:
It really doesn’t matter
any more
WHO WE ARE
. . .It’s ALL about
making a Connection
that You
and any
A N Y
O T H E R
can make. . .
IF THESE PAST THIRTEEN MONTHS
haven’t taught us nothing else
isn’ it that
WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS WORLD
and
EVERYBODY NEEDS EACH OTHER
because there’s something raw in each of us
that needs
FEELING THROUGH

Sometimes when you Listen with more than you Ears you’ll hear the most amazing things. . .

Can Deep Listening Heal Our Divisions?

For bridge-builders in the U.S., the way forward is to engage deeply across lines of difference.

 SIMON GREER a freelance journalist recently wrote in The Greater Good a timely article that takes a look at the importance of LISTENING more DEEPLY and Speaking/Shouting (JUST) less. . .

At the start of 2021, five very different college campuses kicked off a program called Bridging the Gap. The program is focused on deep listening as the basis for effective communication across lines of difference. The promise of the course is that if we engage the “other,” listen to all stakeholders, and lead with humility and curiosity, then we can better solve the pressing issues facing our nation.

This has been a truly unique time to try to teach bridge-building and promote the notion that the heroes are the bridge-builders. It is a tribute to the students on these very different campuses—schools as liberal as Oberlin College and as conservative as Spring Arbor University—that they have leaned into this approach and these practices at a moment when our democracy seems to be tearing itself apart.

As recently observed the inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th president of the United States, our country is on edge. So far, the new year has seen violence in our nation’s capital, a second impeachment, and political fractures at the highest levels, further rattling a nation already pummeled by a pandemic, economic collapse, and political polarization not seen since the Civil War. There is a feeling of fear, and maybe even panic, as we hold our breath and pray for a peaceful transfer of power today.

So, in that context, it might be hard to imagine engaging in deep listening across lines of difference. It might even seem counterintuitive. There is a legitimate fear that this “other” might not just disagree with you, or even fundamentally challenge your core values—they might actually be dangerous.

So now the question remains, now what? If you aren’t going engage deeply with those we might call the “other,” then what is your plan? Unfriend everyone on social media who doesn’t belong to your political party? Support your state in seceding from the union? Turn your home into a fortified bunker? Immigrate to Canada?
LEARN A NEW WAY TO LISTEN/COMMUNICATE?

The most concerning part for many is that underneath the multiple political crises in our country today, there is an even more foundational crisis: our lack of 100% commitment to each other’s humanity and the lack of faith in people that results from that.

As Bryan Stevenson, author of Just Mercy, believes about people on death row: “They are more than the worst thing they have ever done.” And so I would ask us for a moment to consider the application of that principle to these 75 million Americans who voted for President Trump and the 81 million who voted for Joe Biden. While many of us have been convinced by the wisdom that people on death row are better than their worst deed, we are still quick to condemn “those voters” as worse than their worst vote. Why have we, so far, been unwilling and unable to apply Stevenson’s teaching here in the political context?

In the face of the political, economic, and cultural trends that have been heaving us in this direction for some years now, I have been inspired to return to my roots—to my deep faith in people, to a humble curiosity about why people think the way they think, to a sense of wonder as to how we construct our realities, to the brutal truth of what so many face as they try to get through each day, to the courage to meet and accept people where they are, and to the practice of deep listening.Bridging the Gap students.

Bridging the Gap (BTG) was piloted at the beginning of 2020 with 17 students from Spring Arbor University and Oberlin College. According to the prevailing societal perceptions and stereotypes, Oberlin students are condescending, liberal snowflakes; conversely, Spring Arbor students carry the label of hate-filled, conservative evangelicals—and, according to this narrative, both should see the other as their enemy. But BTG’s premise is that the heroes can be the bridge-builders. So we brought together these two groups of people, who were expected to deeply disagree with each other, to build relationships, listen deeply, and explore the very issues that might drive them apart. 

Here are some of those recent findings and hope as this project goes forward:

Learning to listen with our whole bodies

The initial invitation purposefully set the tone for the entire experience. The genuine INTENTIONS:

• take seriously what others hold dear; 
• be curious about why people think the way they do; 
• believe we are enhanced by proximity to points of view we disagree with; and, 
• stay open to finding common ground or, at the very least, disagreeing not with mere tolerance but with true respect and even love.

 Building on this invitation, and before students from each college met, there was a mutual investment in intensive skills-building, so that their eventual meeting would be profoundly different from what they’ve grown used to in discourse and politics. 

One of the first skills that was taught was “listening.” While listening may seem like an obvious and easy task, the truth is very few of us have formal training in listening. And while we think it’s as simple and automatic as breathing, the truth is that true listening takes training, practice, and a deep commitment. 

When someone else is speaking, it’s easy to daydream, plan replies, get distracted by judgment, and interrupt with self-centered questions or quick-fix solutions. Listening deeply means silencing that noise, listening not just with your ears but with every sense you’ve got, every cell in your body. It means listening to all that is said and unsaid, to the body language, the tone, the eye movement. It’s full-body listening. 

This type of listening builds trust, opens doors, and offers a path to deep discovery and a sacred connection that forms the basis for new understandings and otherwise unimaginable possibilities. Study after study shows in sector after sector—in medicine, marriage, real estate sales, and more—that true listening generates better results. And yet most of us go through our entire education without having learned how to do it.

With this foundation of intention and training, the group moved into the realm of feedback. Often in efforts to bridge across deep divides, there is either a desire to avoid the “tense stuff” for fear of damaging the relationship, or to go hard at the most fraught areas to prove our own commitments and defend deeply held values. 

The BTG project model resisted both urges. Their approach was to invest in the relationships, knowing that the capacity to disagree constructively is directly tied to the strength of the relationship. So, we didn’t tackle the hardest things first—but we were also totally up front that we aren’t afraid of those things and don’t mean to sweep them under the rug. We promised that the group would come to them, in time. We also taught an approach to giving feedback that distinguished between experience and interpretation. This approach emphasizes disclosure rather than accusation, and it offers a common framework that supports participants having hard conversations in a structured manner where everyone knows how to engage.

This group also stayed away from the most common tools used in debates or disagreements, which is to throw out statistics and facts to prove a point. Instead, BTG used storytelling as a way of going deeper and diffusing tensions that might cause someone to get locked into their position. Our goal was to open up space for the type of dynamic tension that can create motion and unleash new and positive energy. 

Storytelling is a way to express beliefs and where they come from, humanizing a potential “opponent” in our eyes and vice versa. The group kept it simple but taught that good storytelling includes telling your story like a good play, in three acts: 

• meet the characters; 
• understand the challenge or conflict; 
• seek the resolution. 

Additionally, it encouraged students to show and not just tell. For instance, not just saying “the movie was funny,” but sharing a line that actually made you laugh. 

Meeting with the “other”

The encounter is where the rubber hit the road! This is when the students met and applied all the skills they’d learned about how to build bridges, communicate constructively, and cultivate relationships with the “other.”

What underpinned this phase were a handful of crucial and, perhaps, unorthodox principles. To begin, it was decided to start with values and stories, rather than immediately taking on a hot-button issue, to get to know the person across the table. We encouraged students to learn about each other’s background and to try and understand what makes them tick, whose shoulders they stand on, and why they see the world the way they do. 

In fact, in the first group activity, they used 21/64’s deck of 50 Picture Your Legacy^TM cards with images on them and asked the students to sort through them to find the three images that most reflect the values they try to live by and the way they try to lead their lives. Then we asked them to find the three cards that resonated least with their values and how they try to lead their lives. The students shared their top and bottom cards with the group, and they worked together to look for areas of alignment or disagreement, seek out patterns, and try to get to know each other at the level of values.

It was made sure participants were staying in motion. These issues are big, they’re complex, and they’re stuck. It is strongly believed that physically keeping things moving could help make students feel more open and receptive to different beliefs and opinions. It also was made sure to mix up the groups and their sizes, composition, and dynamics. This helped keep the positive energy alive without leaving anyone trapped in a dead-end conversation.

Many experts agree that upwards of 80% of all communication is nonverbal. So, we wanted to include exercises that allowed students to express themselves without speaking, especially when they were beginning to tackle more divisive topics. 

For instance, they wanted to explore where there were strong, divergent opinions and even sharp disagreements. To do this, they used an activity called “Lay It on the Line,” where they would start with a statement, such as “I believe in each American citizen’s unrestricted right to bear arms.” Students would then physically, and silently, position themselves along a spectrum with “strongly agree” on one end and “strongly disagree” on the other. This nonverbal, but revealing, exercise gave insight into where there may be great (and surprising) splits. They could start to explore those gaps without locking into a debate-style format. Students observed their peers moving in unexpected ways, patterns were upended just as they were revealed, and gradations were stark just as we moved quickly through the questions before labels could take hold. 

As mentioned, they were not trying to approach this project using the standard format and techniques—they know that hasn’t worked so far. They wanted to set up conversations with unusual and unexpected content. The approach was to selectively tackle controversial issues head-on. 

For example, they viewed a film called Belief, where people as diverse as New York Times columnist David Brooks, Megan Phelps-Roper (granddaughter of the founder of Westboro Baptist Church), and Illyasa Shabazz (daughter of Malcolm X) shared their relationship to belief, love, God, and the soul. The speakers had competing perspectives, and afterward we asked students to break into small groups to “share a time when your beliefs informed a private decision in your life.” After some discussion of the private realm, then they turned to the public square and asked, “How does your belief system influence your positions on important public policy issues?”  

In a group of Christians and non-Christians, this was potentially quite divisive territory. But these discussions were set up as an invitation to reflect on beliefs, and the role of beliefs in constructing worldview and the “why?” underneath stances on issues. Perhaps as a result, they did not become arguments. Instead, the conversations were places for students to disclose how they think and convey their truths. Those truths then interacted with other different truths and the complexity of who we are was revealed.

From listening to policy

The last phase of the program was to bring the skills and the encounter to bear on a pressing and contentious policy issue to see what might be possible when we apply this approach. 

We selected criminal justice and utilized the BTG multi-stakeholder approach. Just as we had skillfully encountered “the other” in the second phase of the program, now they encountered all sorts of “others” as they met with stakeholders from across the criminal justice system. Corrections officers to people who are incarcerated, the formerly incarcerated and the corrections officer’s union, the reform advocates to the head of the Department of Corrections, the legislators who approve the budget for corrections—we met them all.

It was not lost on students that these stakeholders don’t ever sit down all together and that their caricatures of each other can often be quite limiting, especially as they seek political and policy solutions to complex problems.

Students quickly understood that you are only enhanced, not diminished, by hearing from the full range of stakeholders, even if you deeply disagree with their perspective. It became clear that when you miss an important stakeholder’s voice, it not only generates resistance from those who feel left out, and may be crucial to successful implementation, but results in blind spots as you miss key factors and interests in the system as it is. 

And, most importantly, you might well miss deeply buried opportunities for common ground where the most unlikely of allies might discover that, even if they don’t like each other, they have common interests. 

Through the policy-application phase and up until their final presentations, the students kept encountering these opportunities. If our criminal justice system is failing with both painfully high recidivism rates among those who are incarcerated and the highest suicide rates of any profession among those who work in prisons, then shouldn’t the fact that the system is killing the two largest stakeholder groups be a first step toward common ground?

Listening over the long run

If I’m completely honest, I stand stunned from time to time while listening to “the other side.” Often, they seem to live in a completely different country from the one I live in. But I severely make every attempt to LISTEN

To get beyond this crippling divisiveness, we must seek out a deeper understanding of the call for unity, the spirit of unity, the intention of unity. It isn’t that the intention is wrong, far from it. The problem is that unity fails when it is understood solely as an intention. Unity must not be just a principle. Unity must be a practice. 

Bridging the Gap is about practice, more than it’s about language or beliefs. If we are going to find unity again in our country, we need to practice it. Those who practice it we call bridge-builders. When they are viewed as our heroes, not the sell-outs or villains, then our culture will be well on its way to repair and healing. The good news is that more and more college students are hungry for it.

Maybe the best way to end this particular blog post is to quote, the late, great Larry King who once said,
“I NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING WHILE I WAS TALKING”

I’ve known Stephanie Jessup most of her life
and she never ceases to amaze me. . .
Among her many talents,
The Tsunami she is has washed up on the many different shores
of her students at Medina High School
where she is a ASL Teacher. . .

Every year Stephanie’s class presents a song
she and the students have worked endless hours
so that others can not just see
so that others can not just hear
so that others can ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE. . .

This year they chose the song,
“WAVING THROUGH A WINDOW”
from the 2017 Tony Award Winning Show:
DEAR EVAN HANSEN

SOMETIMES
THE GREATEST SOUND
YOU CAN EVER MAKE
IS NEVER HEARD
. . .BUT FELT

KUDOS
To Mrs. Stephanie Jessup
and the students of Medina High School
ASL I, II, and III. . .
You’ve done far more than
C O M M U N I C A T E D
(loud and clear)

NO WORDS:
s o m e t i m e s
the best words
are those
never spoken
b u t
intimately
H E A R D

THEY

say that it’s the most important thing in life.         .         .

T H E Y

say everyone needs to do it better.         .         .

T H E Y

say that men don’t do it as well as women.         .         .

T H E Y

say that kids nowadays never do it.         .         .

T H E Y

say that older adults have forgotten it’s lost art.         .         .

T H E Y

say that students have never really mastered it.         .         .

T H E Y

say that Spiritual people do it without making a sound.         .         .

T H E Y

say that Churches have stopped doing it.         .         .

T H E Y

say that NONES have begun doing it.         .         .

T H E Y

say true Artists do it on a whole different level.         .         .

T H E Y

say that Mathematicians and Scientists do it with symbols.         .         .

T H E Y

say that lovers do it in a Look.         .         .

T H E Y

say that musicians do it with notes.         .         .

T H E Y

SAY.         .         .

D  O      T   H   E   Y

L          I          S          T          E          N  ?

C   o   m   m   u   n   i   c   a   t   i   o   n

is   B O T H.           .           .

(o r       n e i t h e r)

Frontwards.          .          .

Backwards.          .          .

Sideways.            .           .

U p

D o w n.          .          .

and as much as you

S     P     E     A     K

or   merely

S          H          O          W

it.          .          .

you need to

H          E          A          R

and

S            E            E

i  t.          .          .

A lot of people Hear. . .

A lot of people Listen. . .

A lot of people don’t do either!

There’s a major difference between

COMPASSIONATE LISTENING

which we all have the capability of doing, of providing and

COMPASSIONATE HEARING.

Compassionate Listening takes place when you are with another person and you are in a sacred place of actually hearing The Story they not only have to tell, but also need to share.

Compassionate Hearing takes place when you are actually present at an event, a Spot in which it would be impossible for you NOT to hear something you could have ever had the opportunity to  hear anywhere else:

A Song

A Word

A Phrase

A Sentence

A Message

It’s a B E I N G

Not so much to an IF

Not so much to a HOW

But actually to a Where and a When

When you are at that WHERE and that WHEN

you no longer Hear or Listen. . .

You Experience the real message. . .

and then you share it to be experienced by others:

THAT’S  the Where and the When of it all. . .

Singing in the Bathtub isn’t like singing on stage in front of 10,000 people. . .

IT matters Where

IT matters When

That’s Hearing

That’s Listening

That’s Experiencing

That’s Living

That’s Being

That’s  “IT”

This clip of Seinfeld is one of my Favorites. It’s appropriately called, “THE LIP READER.”

It’s Classic Seinfeld.

It’s Classic Jerry.

It’s Classic George.

It’s Classic US!

Did you hear what I didn’t say?

Did you SEE what You Thought my Lips Said?

Communication comes in so many forms and is misinterpreted in just as many.

T H E Y

Tell us: We retain 10% of what we Read
20% of what we Hear
30% of what we See
50% of what we Hear and See
70% of what we Say
90% of what we Say and DO.

You may bet a Country of Farms on this one and WIN:

B E T

. . .that when you THINK you Know what’s being Communicated, you are at the highest RISK level for absolutely knowing NOTHING!

GET THAT!

…No matter who great of a Communicator and Listener, A See’er a Hear’er you think you may be–

YOU ARE NOT!

If we hired are own personal Lip Reader what would you want that Lip Reader to peruse?

What would you want your own personal Lip Reader to ascertain information-wise for you?

What would you want your Lip Reader to part on your behalf?

We just aren’t all that good with the Speaking,
with the Hearing,
with the Signing,
with the Interpreting.

Mostly. . .we aren’t good at admitting it. . .

Mostly. . .we ARE fantastic at Faking it.

No More!

We may fail horribly of Communicating–all aspects–the saying, the hearing, the understanding, the interpreting.

Let us FAIL NOT evermore now…

of at least Attempting!