“Well, that’s their experience.”

What precisely does this mean? What questions does it raise? What are the implications? Let’s explore.

The context in which this phrase is often uttered, and the context in which I am grounding this exploration, is one in which we are trying to bring validity to another person’s interpretation of their experience.

This person might have expressed their interpretation about a particular experience, faced resistance about their interpretation, and this phrase was used to defend their interpretation.

When we say that “this was their experience”, we are holding that because this is how this person experienced something, we should not challenge it. The fact that this person has interpreted something in a particular way and has expressed that interpretation is enough to solidify the validity of their interpretation.

What are the implications? First, what is an interpretation of an experience?

To experience something is to have Been through it. It is to exist through it. When we say, “we have a lot of experience”, we have Been through a lot. When we say “we experienced growth” or “we experienced suffering”, we have been through growth, we have existed through pain. Our being continued through it.

Separate from our experience, is our interpretation of experience. A crucial question here is how do know that these two things are separate? Simply, we know this because two people can experience the exact same circumstances and interpret them very differently. Two 30 year-old pro athletes who are approaching the twilight of their careers can break their ankle; one could see this as a tragedy that is the beginning of the end for their career, another could see this as a sign that they need to re-commit to their body as they enter their twilight and use it as fuel to push on. Both of these athletes could then be the target of sportscasters who dismiss them after their injuries; one can believe the critics and succumb to retirement, the other can use the criticism as fuel and come back better than ever.

Let’s look at another example. Two people can experience someone abusing them – yelling at them from the top of their lungs. One person might feel compassion for the person doing the yelling because they believe that this anger and abuse harms the abuser more than it could ever harm them. They believe that anger and hate are not contagious and the person on the receiving end of the abuse is confident in the sovereignty of their mind and soul. The other person might choose to believe the things that the person is saying about them are true and carry this with them through their life.

In another type of example, we can look at how someone can live through unfathomable miseries like concentration camps and interpret their experiences in a way that strengthens them while another can dwell on a break-up with a college partner for an entire life of misery.

And in one last example, we can all reflect on how we might have interpreted an experience one way, and then completely altered our interpretation of the same experience. This can happen gradually over time, but it can also happen in a revelatory or epiphanous moment .

These examples all show that experiences and their interpretations are separate, but they also begin to show what interpretations of experiences are. So, what are they?

An interpretation of an experience begins in a particular experience as the lens through which we experience and culminates in the story we tell ourselves about it. (Though the word culminates is used here, as in the example above of changed interpretations, this interpretation can change in any moment over time).

What is this lens? This lens is the sum of all of our interpretations of experience. Our lens colours not only the way that we choose to interpret the experience after it occurs and throughout our lives, but it also can colour the way that we interpret something as it is happening. In the example above of the person yelling abuse, one person might have had a violent upbringing and had interpreted this upbringing such that when they faced this type of abuse, they saw it as a threat to attack and became aggressive as the abuse was hurled at them. Another person might have also had a violent upbringing, but had interpreted this upbringing such that when they faced this type of abuse, their response was to be fearful and to run. One sees the aggressor in anger, and the other sees the aggressor in terror.

Let’s continue on with this. How would this lens then also colour the ongoing interpretation of the experience? The first person might have actually fought the aggressor and left him injured. They might interpret this experience as a triumph over a fool who dared to insult them. After running in terror, the second person might have interpreted this experience as just another example of a world trying to devour them. These are the stories that we tell ourselves about our experience and they are separate from the initial reality of an aggressor yelling at them.

Why are these stories – these interpretations – important?

As we can see in these examples, these interpretations firstly colour the lens through which we experience reality. This lens then colours how we respond to experiences as we experience them. Finally, the interpretations colour how we move forward and continue to interpret experiences as we move through our lives.

At Time N, all of our interpretations up until time N colour how we experience what happens at time N. How we experience what happens at time N then colours how we interpret what we experience at time N. We then take this interpretation forward to time N+1. And so on. These interpretations colour the way we interpret the world and thus the way that we act in it.

Again, these interpretations colour the way we interpret the world and thus the way we act in it.

Let’s now bring this back to the phrase that started this exploration, “well that’s their experience,” and its implication that because someone interpreted experience in the way that they did that it is valid and cannot be challenged. A couple more examples.

A young person who experiences extreme anxiety about their physical appearance. They believe that they are ugly and that they are fat, and that everyone thinks so. They refuse to eat and hurt themselves.

Do we give validity to their experience because it is their experience? Do we forbid ourselves from challenging their interpretations because they are their interpretations?

What about someone that has extreme paranoia and doesn’t trust anyone? They cannot have any relationships and become violent to protect themselves from people out to get them.

Again, do we give validity to their experience because it is their experience? Do we forbid ourselves from challenging their interpretations because they are their interpretations?

No, we do not. We do not because they do not have basis in reality, and because these false interpretations are leading them to hurt themselves and others.

If we were to give validity to their experience and not challenge it – if we were to go along with them – we would be encouraging and a party to a young person hurting themselves, or paranoid acts of violence against innocents.

There are consequences of the way that we interpret experience because people act on these interpretations of experience.

Again, there are consequences of the way that we interpret experience because people act on these interpretations of experience.

Another example. Someone says something to a coworker in the workplace. The coworker interprets what was said to them in a way that was threatening their wellbeing. They report the incident. Here, if we hold valid the experience because that is the way they experienced it, we would have no choice but to terminate the employment of the offending coworker.

There was very little detail given in the example above. Perhaps we are all here wondering, “what actually happened?” What if the person had only said, “Good Morning” and really meant it – should we terminate the person because of how the person on the receiving end of this morning pleasantry experienced it?

We would hope not, because the key thing to determine before making a life-altering decision here is whether the person in reality did indeed threaten the wellbeing of the employee reporting it.

We do not only interpret reality as individuals, as in the above examples. As social beings we share our interpretations, which begets shared interpretations.

We develop shared belief systems, values, politics. These are all shared interpretations and shared lenses through which we experience the world. These can be shared in units as small as families, to groups of friends, to political parties, to entire governments, to sweeping social or ideological movements.

On an individual level, we have seen examples of the impacts of our interpretations, both positive and negative. These impacts are only amplified in magnitude when we look at these different examples of shared interpretations.

Perhaps we have groups of friends who interpret reality such that it’s beauty needs to be captured and uplifted, and they become a group of painters bringing inspiring art to the world. Or perhaps there is a political party built on the interpretation that certain groups of people are a threat, and use this threat to unite people behind their cause in fear and hatred. Or maybe we have a social movement that interprets all the division in the world as a cause to unite under the common banner of humanity and consciousness.

The impacts of these shared interpretations can have enormous consequences relative to the extent to which they are shared and the nature of the interpretation. Is it one that incites fear and hatred and division, or love and understanding and unity? Is it shared by only a few people or by millions?

Regardless of the nature or scale of the shared interpretation, just like in our examples of individuals above, there are consequences to shared interpretations of experience because we act on these shared interpretations of experience. If our shared interpretation of experience is one in which a certain group is the cause of our ills and must be eradicated, then we could move to exterminate said group. If our shared interpretation of experience is one in which we view the world’s division as cause to unite, we could expand the consciousness of humanity.

Let’s ground this again. Interpretations of experience are separate from experience. Let’s take the example in which we interpret our experience such that a certain group is the cause of all of our ills and must be eradicated. Like the example of the terminated coworker, should the first question not be, “are they actually the cause of all of our ills?” Should we not verify whether or not this is indeed true before our crusade of extermination? Should we not confirm whether this accusation has basis in reality?

To do that, do we not have to challenge the interpretation of experience of this group? Just as we challenged the interpretations of experience of our coworker, and our anxious young person, and our person with extreme paranoia?

Next, should we not also challenge the conclusions of the interpretation? The lens that these interpretations create? Here, our lens is destructive and murderous. Regardless if the group is the cause of our ills or not, should we not also challenge the conclusion of this shared interpretation? Perhaps we could instead respond with love and look for ways to build bridges with the group.

There is the reality of our experience – what actually occurred or is occurring. Then there is our interpretation of it – the lens through which we experience it and the story we tell ourselves about it.

If we ignore reality and focus only on our interpretations of it, we operate in delusion, like our anxious young person and our person with extreme paranoia. When we separate ourselves from reality, we can justify anything based on our interpretations, like the extermination of an entire group. Truth is no longer part of the equation.

Regardless of and separate from the basis in reality, is our interpretation (potentially leading to shared interpretations) of our experience. These interpretations have consequences because people act on them. These interpretations can lead one positively or negatively, or somewhere in between, through life. They can lift us up or tear us down. They can lead us to Love or Fear. They are also creative – they allow us to create and craft the story of our lives.

If we do not challenge our interpretations of experience, we indulge delusion and open our arms to psychosis. If we do not challenge the conclusions of these interpretations, we allow them to take hold and consequently for people to act on them. Again, this could be on a personal level, but also at a larger scale or even policy level.

When we challenge our interpretations of experience, we first need to understand reality. Reality is separate from our interpretation. When trying to establish what has occurred or is occurring, we need evidence. If we establish a reality without or contrary to evidence, this is again only delusion and interpretation and we can justify anything based on this psychosis.

Once we establish an evidence-based reality, interpretations that are not grounded in reality crumble away without a premise. Then, we can challenge the remaining interpretations and create.

What type of life are we trying to create for ourselves? What would we hope for or promote in our fellow people? In our world? What are we trying to build?

As we utter or hear the phrase “well that’s their experience”, we should ask ourselves these questions.