There is no doubt that the information was top notch and that the presenter was very knowledgeable about the research he has done and on which he reported. I would share three further observations, though, pertaining to how he worked with his audience. One observation is that the title "workshop" suggests something less unilateral, something that includes participants 'working' on something as part of the experience. This was more of a lecture than a workshop, so I would suggest either relabeling or restructuring. Second, the subject matter is very difficult to discuss because there is such opportunity to 'get it wrong.' The presenter only really asked two overt questions about our experiences with these issues, and it was obvious that the audience felt pretty unprepared to contribute when they really hadn't been asked to do so up to that point, at least not much. We were invited to interrupt and ask questions as we went along, but that is dramatically different from building a workshop that requires interaction and dialogue--the agenda seemed to not be the latter. Thus, I would recommend a more dialogic approach with multiple, deliberate opportunities for participants to write or talk about what they were bringing to the table. Finally, it was clear that there was more material planned than was covered, as indicated by the speedy flipping through slides at the end of the session and then talking quickly afterward about the last couple of ideas in those slides, which tended to reinforce that the plan was not really an interactive experience. I think this is a real problem when getting people to feel comfortable with discussing these topics is such a challenge to begin with. All in all, I felt like I learned a lot about the research and scholarship on bias, but I found the experience disappointing in terms of interaction with the subject matter and finding ways to act on what was learned.