Whenever things go balls-up wrong, someone trots out the above pearl of wisdom. The assertion is that we can all 'learn' something, with the implication that blame is shared. If you weren't at fault then you wouldn't have anything to learn. You have something to learn, therefore you are partly to blame. Fault and loss of face is distributed.

But this quick distribution of blame is not always accurate. Blame is not always able to be shared. It often lies fairly and squarely on a single person's lack of preparation, poor execution, or conflicting goals. Furthermore, it is unfair for everyone else to cop the guilty party's share of self punishment.

For example, send your kids on a camp with inadequate equipment. They catch a cold. The children have learned to be tougher.

You don't want to stop too often on the freeway. As a consequence, you run out of petrol. Everyone else in the car can learn not to distract the driver.

It is often a race to declare tragedies of error to be 'learning experiences' because from that point on any learning that impugns the declarer's competence appears paradoxical. "You learned a lesson," "Yes, I learned you were wrong." Just doesn't work. The person who first calls the bollocking a 'learning experience' thus protects themselves from censure.

To resolve this, recognise the motive for calling something a 'learning experience'. You may then accept that you did learn a lesson, just not the one that they wanted you to learn.