I am reading books written by former apprentices of Frank Lloyd Wright while researching for a future article. It is interesting to begin hitting the point where you read about the two different sides of the same events. It makes me wonder how accurate each side is. In most conversations, people tend to remember the gist of what was said, but rarely the exact words. And the gist of what they remember is influenced by the tone and inflection used. You remember what you think they meant, rancher than the exact words. That is what brains do to process information so quickly, recontextualize (is that a word?) it to store it. And that recontextualization (new word?) is informed based on your opinion of the person and thoughts about the various attributes of that person (thoughts on race, class LGBT status etc). So reading the two different sides fo the story, I am making judgements on where the truth lies in between the stories. Which is invariably based on my opinions of the writers and their backgrounds.

So how do we know where things land really?