Separate the data from the narrative you’ve built around it

List the raw facts, then list the story you’ve layered on top — and check whether the story actually follows.

Why it works

Data and narrative feel inseparable because the narrative is formed automatically and immediately. By the time you consciously access information, the story is already attached. Separating them requires explicitly listing what happened (observable events, measurable facts) versus what you have inferred about it (causality, character, meaning). The gap between these two lists is where the narrative fallacy lives.

How to do it

1. Choose a situation you have a strong view about.
2. Write two columns: "What I observed" (behaviors, outcomes, words said) and "What I inferred" (motives, character, causes).
3. Ask: "Does my inference actually follow from the observation, or am I adding it?"

Evidence

The observation/inference distinction is a classic tool in critical thinking and social cognition. Research on attribution error (Ross, 1977) shows that inferences about character and motive are frequently added to and mistaken for observations. (mechanistic)

Common mistake

Placing inferences in the "observation" column because you believe them firmly — the rule is not what you believe but what you could have recorded on video.