Differentiation between Facts and Representations

Limitations of human sensory processing

To understand the genesis of numerous interpersonal disagreements, it is critical to analyze how the human brain assimilates external reality.

We are constantly immersed in an environment that bombards our five senses with an overwhelming amount of stimuli.

Neuroscientific research suggests that we receive billions of pieces of information daily, but our biological machinery has an extremely limited conscious processing capacity.

Faced with this monumental discrepancy between available information and assimilation capacity, the neurological system is forced to apply a massive discard filter.

This means that, biologically, it is impossible for us to register a scene in its objective totality; our mind cuts out the vast majority of data, capturing only those elements that make it past our narrow attentional barrier to form a manageable image.

Distortions generated by personal history

The criteria our brain uses to decide what information to discard and what information to store is by no means random or unbiased.

This selective filter is deeply conditioned by our value system, our latent vulnerabilities and our accumulated biographical experiences.

Consequently, when we witness an event-such as a traffic incident or an argument in the workplace-the resulting mental recording is not an accurate reflection of the events that occurred.

What we store in our memory is a highly subjective internal representation.

Factors such as the mood of the moment or previous sensitivities cause certain details to be dramatically magnified while others, perhaps crucial to the other party, are completely erased from our consciousness without our being aware of it.

Abandonment of absolute certainty about reality

The impact of this cognitive phenomenon in the realm of relationships is seismic. The vast majority of couple or friendly disputes are sustained on the false premise that our memory is an infallible safety chamber.

People argue heatedly accusing the other with complete certainty based on their filtered memories.

In order to achieve communicative maturity, it is imperative that we put aside this rigidity and accept that there is a huge margin of error in our own interpretations.

Assuming that our mental map does not represent objective territory invites humility.

When a discrepancy arises about how a conversation went, understanding that both versions are partial defuses the violent conflict, allowin