From Distorted
When a Story Becomes Evidence
Stories help us understand an experience. But the meaning we give it should not change the facts.
Imagine a team reviewing a missed target. These examples are invented.
One version of the review says:
We learned a great deal. We enrolled 62 participants against a target of 100. People abandoned the application at the identity check. We have simplified that step and will measure completion again next month.
Another says:
We learned a great deal. This project proved that we are a team willing to take risks. Anyone focused on the enrollment number has missed the real achievement.
The first review gives the result and a plan. Its explanation needs checking. The second suggests that asking about the result means you missed the point.
What the story can give us
Calling a hard year a turning point says what it meant to you. A family story can express love. Neither requires pretending things went well.
Chapter 3 of Distorted makes room for meaning. Its glossary defines poetic truth as “The story that feels right but falsifies reality. The lyric that replaces the ledger.” This warns against a pleasing story replacing facts.
A team can learn from missing a goal. But “we learned” does not answer “did we meet the goal?” A lesson cannot change the count.
Ask the question from Distorted: Does this story add meaning—or replace evidence?
Read the paragraph twice
Read this longer version of the invented review:
We enrolled 62 participants against a target of 100. The application was too complicated, which explains the shortfall. This difficult launch taught us to listen more carefully. I left the review feeling proud of how the team responded.
Each sentence does a different job. Find the fact claim, the explanation, the meaning, and the feeling.
Open each sentence to read its explanation.
“We enrolled 62 participants against a target of 100.”
Factual claim.
This is a statement we can check, not a guarantee of truth. Compare sign-up records with the plan. Check when the count was taken and what “enrolled” means.
“The application was too complicated, which explains the shortfall.”
Interpretation.
This offers a reason for the result. Unfinished forms and interviews could help check it. Perhaps too few people heard about the project or wanted to join. A hard form might explain only part of the gap.
“This difficult launch taught us to listen more carefully.”
Narrative meaning.
This says what the event means to the team. It also claims the team learned. What changed in how it listens? Ignoring the same concerns later would weaken the claim.
“I left the review feeling proud of how the team responded.”
Emotional resonance.
This is the feeling the story carries. It shows why the event matters to the speaker. Pride does not prove the response worked.
These jobs can overlap. “We learned” can express meaning and describe a change we can check. Ask what each sentence supports.
When agreement becomes the test
A warning sign is a change in which questions are welcome. Ask “What did the interviews show?” and you hear about loyalty. Ask “Did the change help?” and you hear about courage. Questions about evidence are being pushed aside.
In experiments reported in 2000, Melanie Green and Timothy Brock linked feeling drawn into a story with beliefs that agreed with it. In one experiment, instructions that reduced that feeling also reduced those beliefs and positive views of the characters. These tests studied particular stories. They do not show that an engaging story is false. Read the original study's abstract.
For our team, a clear lesson, changed practice, and better results under similar conditions would strengthen the story. Continued problems might weaken it. Without a follow-up check, we do not know.
Begin with the account you welcome
Chapter 29 asks us to examine stories that flatter us. Begin there.
Suppose you belong to this team. You want to defend work that matters to you. Would you accept the same explanation from a team you distrust?
Your answer shows where to look more closely. A pleasing story can be true. An upsetting one can be wrong.
Check, Compare, Calibrate
Distorted proposes three questions for examining a story.
Check: What evidence would disconfirm this story? That means evidence showing the story might be wrong. Suppose few people reached the form, but most who did finished it. That would challenge the claim that the form caused the problem.
Compare: What competing story also explains these facts? Perhaps the team expected too much interest or reached too few people. Both could be true. Check each idea against the records.
Calibrate: What's the smallest claim we can make that still holds? This means matching your conclusion to your evidence. If we have checked only the totals, we can say: “We enrolled 62 of the planned 100 participants. We have several possible explanations for the shortfall and need to distinguish them.” Add a lesson when the evidence supports it.
The team can still value its work. An honest review allows those feelings while keeping the missed goal in view.
Use Compare the Stories to try these three questions. This guide draws on Chapters 3 and 29 of Distorted. In the Clarity Framework, it connects Analyze Narratives, Engage Disagreement, and Verify Facts.
Save this page
You can copy this link to your notes or bookmarks.