> The article's main point is that you can change the story, but the actual example he gives is a change in the facts Not really. The facts didn't change. The

> The article's main point is that you can change the story, but the actual example he gives is a change in the facts Not really. The facts didn't change. The fact still remains that both these individuals collided their cars together all those years ago. That is just as true before they met as it was after they met. What you call facts are perspectives or interpretations of the facts. They both considered themself at fault. This means they both interpreted the fact of the crash in opposite ways. Now they have had a chance to reconcile their opinions or interpretations, but the fact that they collided in their cars never changed. They just feel better because they realized the other person felt like they caused the accident. I think the point is that our memories are based on our personal interpretations, not based on fact. Psychologically this is extremely true, your brain throws facts away very quickly but it holds onto emotions for a very long time. Imagine you go and pick up a cup of coffee from the coffee shop. You probably struggle to actually remember picking up your coffee at all. It happened, but you will have little to no memory of it. Your brain tosses out facts. But now imagine you go to a coffee shop and a cute barista smiles or winks at you while they give you the coffee. You will probably remember that for years, very vividly because of your brain remembers the emotion of that transaction over the myriad of identical transactions you experienced. Now using the same previous example, lets say you go home and convince yourself that the barista wasn't actually winking at you, they just had something in their eye. So you never act on the flirtatious act. But then a year later you bump into the same barista at a party and they ask why you never asked them out when they tried to flirt with you. Now when you think back on the event, you probably remember it as obvious that it was clearly a deliberate wink and exasperated smile that they gave you, despite the fact that previous to that reconciliation you were convinced it was an innocent act. Your memories have now changed. Its all based on emotion and interpretation of facts. But the actual facts never changed. The amount of winking, smiling, etc was always the same, your interpretation and memory of it is what changed.