[anbende]

Yes, I agree that “interpretation is all we have” is the point they are trying to make. I also agree that there is an important point there. Memories are often not what we think they are.

However, in the story, the author did NOT have a memory of breaking a woman’s back. He had a memory of getting in an accident. He interpreted it as his fault. He was told that he broke her back. Not his interpretation. It was a belief about events that he wasn’t present to (what happened in the woman’s car and inside the woman’s body) not really any different than anything else we’re told but don’t witness firsthand. It sounds like it may even have been a lie the police told him to scare him.

Your story is different because you did have an actual experience and misinterpreted it’s meaning (man in red suit = real Santa Claus).

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I am not sure that differentiating between "that which I physically sensed with my own body" and "information I received from others" leads to particularly good place. Yes, we should probably put a little more weight on things we experienced, but even they are subject to massive differences of interpretation based on prior experience and knowledge. Humanity has made enormous strides by being able to believe in information we obtained from others, and discarding that is something I am convinced does not lead to positive outcomes.

I acknowledge that not discarding it can also lead to negative outcomes, as in TFA.

[anbende]

I agree with this point. I hadn't meant to suggest that we should discard information received from others.

But I think it would be crazy to not to differentiate between immediate experience and what we've been told. Not even because immediate experience is always more accurate. Sometimes it is NOT, but it's a different source of information subject to different problems. Often more trustworthy but not always, though the "not always" can be ameliorated a bit by understanding some of the limits of personal experience.

I was really only taking issue with "interpretation is all we have" applying in the original story - that there is a difference between "my interpretation about something I experienced" and "my beliefs about a thing I did not experience".

Yes the author's story changed, but it changed because he found out that he was lied to by the police (or perhaps, if we want to be generous, "unintentionally misled") not because his memory was fallible.

To get back to the point I took issue with, in the story "the facts" mattered an awful lot. It was a lack of access to the facts that caused the problem not "an incorrect interpretation" of what the author experienced. The latter happens all the time, but interpreting our experience differently (e.g., reprocessing a traumatic memory with self-compassion and seeing it as unfortunate and something to learn from) is a different thing than finding out what we were told was a lie. Both change our story, but one is indeed a reinterpretation and the other is a change in belief or knowledge.

I think it's important to separate those two things. I think some want to treat them as the same. I think that can cause problems.