Cultural IQ

Healing the Divide

In 2021, Kirk Waldroff wrote an excellent article for the American Psychological Association that pulls the political divide apart at the seams to better understand what's underneath.

I'll start with the good news: psychological science suggests that it is both possible and imperative for members of society to find common ground.

"To decrease the political divide, we must understand the various factors that work to divide us," Waldroff writes. "One thing we can do right now as individuals is pause and consider our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and identify the psychological factors at play. The ability to place our own behaviors and the behaviors of others into a psychological framework can allow us to reflect on what we are experiencing and help us to understand and shape our actions."

He interviewed Kirk Schneider, PhD, adjunct faculty at Saybrook University in California and Teachers College at Columbia University. “Existential fear appears to be at the heart of what drives polarization," Schneider explains.

“One reason we tend to become fixated and polarized is because of individual and collective trauma that associates with a profound sense of insignificance,” says Schneider. In this state, people may feel that they don’t matter and fear “ultimately being wiped away or extinguished,” he adds. (The polarized mind: Why it’s killing us and what we can do about it, 2013, University Professors Press).

Tania Israel, PhD, professor of counseling psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of Beyond Your Bubble, a book about connecting across the political divide added: “Most people are not on the extremes of any of these issues, but most of what we hear is from people who are more on the extremes.” (More in Common, 2018; More in Common, 2019 )

Read the article: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/01/healing-political-divide

 

US Military Utilizes New Type of Strength

 

What does the US Army expect of its 21st-century  troops? Cultural literacy, a set of new skills and abilities outlined below.

Here's the million-dollar question: If the Army expects enlisting soldiers to be culturally competent, should colleges and universities expect the same from their graduates?

 

 

US Army Definition of Culturally Literate Soldiers :

-Understand that culture affects their behavior and beliefs and the behavior and beliefs of others.

-Are aware of specific cultural beliefs, values, and sensibilities that might affect the way they and others think or behave.

-Appreciate and accept diverse beliefs, appearances, and lifestyles.

-Are aware that historical knowledge is constructed and, therefore, shaped by personal, political, and social forces.

-Know the history of mainstream and nonmainstream American cultures and understand how these histories affect current society.

-Can understand the perspective of nonmainstream groups when learning about historical events.

-Know about major historical events of other nations and understand how such events affect behaviors, beliefs, and relationships with others.

-Are aware of the similarities among groups of different cultural backgrounds and accept differences between them.

-Understand the dangers of stereotyping, ethnocentrisms, and other biases and are aware of and sensitive to issues of racism and prejudice.

-Are bilingual, multilingual, or working toward language proficiency.

-Can communicate, interact, and work positively with individuals from other cultural groups.

-Use technology to communicate with individuals and access resources from other cultures.

-Are familiar with changing cultural norms of technology (such as instant messaging, virtual workspaces, E-mail, and so on), and can interact successfully in such environments.

 

 

The Secret to Difficult Dialogues: Ask Questions, Require Participants to Disclose Their Sources

 Originally  published  on  Nov. 10,2020

Years ago, I was riding in a car with a real estate agent, taking a tour of neighborhoods in Northeast Philly.

As a real estate reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, I tried to visit new neighborhoods and meet people in the communities where they lived.

The real estate agent, who was white, showed me around Northeast Philly, raving about the strong housing demand, cleanliness and great schools.

As we drove along, I noticed that the view from my window changed: more Black and Brown people were walking the streets around us. The housing was a bit modest and there were fewer retail centers.

The agent turned to me and said, “This neighborhood is not safe. I wouldn’t want to live here.”

I asked: “Do you sell homes in this neighborhood as well?”

No, he said.

“Oh, then you know people who live here?”

Again, he answered no.

So – ever so politely – I asked, “Where did you get your information from? Who is your source?”

Shocked, the agent said nothing.

After a few moments of pronounced silence, I spoke: “It does not appear that you are an expert on this neighborhood, so I’ll have to find someone else to quote in my story.”

Years later, as I held cultural competency workshops for journalists, I shared this story as a cautionary tale.

How often do journalists pass along things that they are told without challenging them? We sometimes present racist, biased and/or made-up stuff as fact.

And before you know it, the Year 2020 has arrived with falsehoods spreading out of control like the wildfires out west.

If we want to have meaningful political conversations, then everyone needs to come prepared to back up their opinions with research, reliable data or indisputable proof.

Now that former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris have been declared winners of the 2020 presidential election, we have a lot to discuss. Some topics may be painful.

It is important that we support each other by asking that we all be at our best.

When someone tells us this election was stolen from President Trump, we say: “Where did you get your information from? Who is your source?”

We ask for concrete evidence, examples that we might check out and for the stories of real-life voters. We want to know more. We are not trying to shut down the dialogue.

If someone tells us all Trump supporters are racist and aren’t worth talking with, we respond, “Where did you get your information from? Who is your source?”

Again, ask for concrete evidence, examples that we might check out and stories of real people. (We would need to check out the stories of all 70 million people voting for Trump to prove they are all racist. If we aren't willing to do the legwork, we should reserve judgment.)

The days ahead won’t be easy. We are a nation in celebration and a nation in mourning in the same moment of time.