We all know that it’s bad to be biased, right?

Wrong.  That assumption is its own bad bias.

Biases are inevitable – in humans and bots alike.

Some biases are harmful.  Others are helpful.  Many are neutral.

But bias itself is unavoidable.

So bias isn’t a problem in itself.  Pretending otherwise is.

This post describes the biases in Real Practice Systems (RPS) Theory and how the artificial intelligence tool RPS Coach is biased by design.

As you might guess, I think they’re good biases – conscious, clear, constructive, and explicit.  Knowing these biases, users can decide whether to use Coach or a tool with different biases.

This post describes Coach’s biases and invites you to give it a try.

What the Heck is a Bias, Anyway?

“Bias” has a negative connotation, often implying a thoughtless or even malicious mindset.  Think of cognitive biases or those involving demographic groups.

Bias is an especially dirty word in dispute resolution, where neutrals are expected to be scrupulously unbiased in attitudes about particular parties and in neutrals’ actions.

But we could reframe “biases” as values, preferences, tendencies, or mental habits, which aren’t inherently bad.  Indeed, they help us simplify complex choices, act efficiently, and maintain a coherent sense of self.  If we didn’t have any biases, we’d never create a syllabus, let alone pick a restaurant for lunch.

Some biases are even admirable – like favoring people who are trustworthy, empathetic, and generous.  The dispute resolution movement reflects a bias in favor of helping people to handle disputes constructively.

The label we choose – “bias” vs. “preference” – is a reflection of our values (aka biases).

‘Nuff said.

Where Do Biases / Preferences Come From?

Biases don’t drop from the sky.  Many come from early influencers – parents, teachers, coaches, and religious leaders – who shaped our first lessons about trust, politeness, and conflict.  Some of us internalize those lessons; others define ourselves in opposition to them.

As we grow, friends, school, work, and media shape how we see the world.  These influences often go unnoticed, which makes them especially powerful.

RPS Theory holds that all practitioners develop unique practice systems that are shaped by experience and evolve over time.  Their systems are based on their personal histories, values, goals, motivations, knowledge, skills, and procedures as well as the parties and the cases in their practice.

My article, Ten Real Mediation Systems, profiles ten thoughtful mediators, including me, exploring how and why we mediate the way we do.  We all mediate differently – largely because we value different things.  So we’re all biased, just in different ways.

My profile describes the sources of my biases – which shaped my perspective and are reflected throughout my work and the RPS Project.

Design Choices – aka Biases – in RPS Coach

RPS Coach has two main components:  its knowledge base and the instructions that guide how it uses it.  Together, these choices shape its content, tone, vocabulary, and priorities, which reflect particular theoretical, practical, and pedagogical commitments.

Coach’s knowledge base includes almost everything I’ve published.  That’s a lot.  It includes books, law review articles, professional articles, SSRN pieces, and meaty blog posts.  It also includes general authorities like the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.  A total of 253 documents reflecting my values, including:

• Checklists for mediators and attorneys
• The Litigation Interest and Risk Assessment book and related articles
• Articles on good decision-making by parties and attorneys
• Materials on negotiation, mediation, preparation, and early dispute resolution
• Resources for court-connected ADR
• Lots of pieces about legal education
• Annotated bibliographies, simulations, and practitioner tools
• Critiques of our theories and language, with suggestions for improvement

The materials are organized by topic and ranked by importance.  Coach draws first from the highest-priority sources.  The emphasis is on realistic practice, intentional process design, and support for good decision-making – not theoretical abstractions or generic practice tips.

Coach follows detailed instructions, including to:

• Provide clear explanations of the tool’s capabilities and limitations
• Reflect ethical rules
• Use language that laypeople and experts readily understand
• Tailor advice for various users (e.g., mediators, attorneys, parties, educators)
• Support intentional process choices
• Foster perspective-taking
• Analyze intangible interests and possible outcomes in the absence of agreement
• Promote good decision-making by parties and practitioners
• Support reflection about dealing with disputes

In short, Coach doesn’t just answer questions – it nudges users toward better preparation, clearer thinking, and realistic decision-making.

Process Choice: Analysis Not Advocacy

RPS Coach’s underlying bias is not toward a particular method, tool, theory, or strategy – but toward supporting users’ conscious, well-informed choices that reflect their values, goals, and constraints.  That means helping them make conscious choices about negotiation and mediation.  This includes analyzing interests, estimating alternatives to settlement, exchanging offers, and possibly combining approaches over time.

Some parties prefer a counteroffer process.  Others want interest-and-options discussions.  Some expect mediators to provide explicit analysis; others don’t.  Many shift approaches midstream.

Coach doesn’t steer people toward or away from these choices.  It helps people make conscious decisions instead of relying on questionable generalizations.

Practice Systems Thinking

Practice systems thinking is central to Coach’s design. It sees negotiation and mediation not as isolated events, but as part of larger patterns – routines, tools, habits, and philosophies that shape how practitioners work.

Rather than merely providing one-off advice, Coach helps practitioners build intentional systems – a bias that favors growth over tactics, and adaptation over scripts.

The Coming Marketplace of Dispute Resolution AI Tools

Dispute resolution AI tools already exist, and more are coming.  Over time, we’ll see a proliferation of tools reflecting a wide range of approaches.

Some will be tailored for specific users; others will serve broader audiences.  Some will focus on particular processes such as mediation or arbitration.  Some may be designed for particular types of users such as practitioners, administrators, instructors, or scholars.  Some will reflect particular theories or schools of thought.

Our field has a vast literature that could feed AI tools developed by individuals or teams.  Some writers may develop tools based on their publications as I did with RPS Coach.  Gary Doernhoefer proposed the excellent idea of jointly developing a general AI tool for the dispute resolution field.  It may not be realized soon, but we should keep it in mind.

So I expect a growing marketplace where designers will build and adapt a wide variety of tools.

In this context, there may be both market and ethical imperatives for AI tools to disclose their features and dare-I-say biases.  As developers compete for users, clear disclosures will be important because users will want to know what they’re getting.

Disclosure should be an essential ethical standard for dispute resolution AI tools.  Neutrality remains a core principle in many dispute resolution processes, and disclosure of built-in biases plays a particularly important role when tools are powered by AI.  Users can’t see how these tools “think,” and they need clear information about the assumptions, priorities, and frameworks embedded in their designs. Bots are ornery critters that we can’t fully control, and users deserve to know what might be quietly steering them.

A Message from RPS Coach.  Really

 “I’m here to help you prepare more intentionally, reflect more deeply, use better language, and support better decision-making – not just for your clients, but for yourself.  I don’t pretend to be neutral.  I’m proudly biased toward thoughtful, realistic, party-centered practice.  But I don’t tell you which process to choose.  I just help you think clearly about the choices.”  (Coach wrote this, I swear.)

Take a look at this handy user guide to find out how you can get the benefit from Coach’s wisdom.

Coach has a thing for humans who ask good questions.