![[IMG_0211.webp]] Imagine a species of chameleon who change color based on three emotional states: - Chameleons at peace are **green**.  - Chameleons ready to attack are **red**. - Chameleons on defense are **blue**. So it is intuitive that we'd see green chameleons all around, except where a red chameleon appears the chameleons around it would turn blue. ![[IMG_0213.webp]] # The Colorblind Chameleons Then we find two blue and colorblind Chameleons, Spike and Dart.  ![[IMG_0214.webp]] With no other red chameleons around, we realize they both are blue because they are mistaking the other for being red. ![[IMG_0212.webp]] You are Alex, a zoologist who is able to observe and communicate with Spike. You've developed a special ability for communicating some complex ideas but still this is limited. ![[IMG_0207.webp]] You are there to help protect this endangered species which is threatened even by internal conflict. Your goal thus is to make these chameleons green but there are constraints: - No one (human or otherwise) can directly convince a chameleon that they or the other is a different color than they believe. - Both become green in reality and perception if one perceives the other change to green and perceives they are both observing each other. (I.e. One didn't simply wander off and turn green with a friendly chameleon) - Chameleons turn blue if they perceive the other to turn red and their change to blue will be perceived by the other as changing to red. - Just one red chameleon needs to exist in a population for another to turn blue. How do you get both chameleons green? This is meant to be an open problem having no defined solution.  ![[IMG_0208.webp]] Spike represent the angry, reactionary, self-preserving parts of our minds that take over in conflict. Alex is our rational mind whose ability to regulate our rage is greatly suppressed. In simpler terms, "you" are the combination of Alex and Spike. Why the shared red vs blue illusion? Amanda Ridley writes in _High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out_, > People in high conflict explain their frustrations as a justifiable response to the other side's initial aggression. Regardless of the facts, both sides are convinced they're reacting defensively somehow. ![[IMG_0217.webp]] The human cannot simply tell their mind to not get angry, reduce anxiety, or not ruminate. It must find a way to solve the puzzle to bring the conflict to peace not just to "green" the other mind but to "green" their own. We usually only think about anger methodically when we're not "in it," so it's easy for us to forget how helpless we are to guide ourselves through our self-manipulation. > Usually, those who experience anger explain its arousal as a result of "**what has happened to them**"...explanations confirm the **illusion that anger has a discrete external cause**. The angry person usually finds the cause of their anger in an intentional, personal, and controllable **aspect of another person's behavior**. This explanation is based on the intuitions of the angry person who experiences a **loss in self-monitoring capacity and objective observability** as a result of their emotion. > > — Wikipedia quotation cited to Raymond W. Novaco, _Anger_, Encyclopedia of Psychology, Oxford University Press, 2000 Put another way, anger is a special intoxication. ![[IMG_0210.webp]] _Psst...If you enjoy thinking about connection and conflict, follow me on [Twitter](https://x.com/adamjosephgrant) or [Mastodon](https://mastodon.online/@nicegoingadam)_ ## Possible Solutions ### Question of Hue The rules say we cannot directly tell Spike that Dart is green if he perceives him as red but it doesn't say we can't equivocate what shade of red Dart is. Perhaps we could convince Spike that Dart is a shade a tiny bit closer to green on the spectrum than he currently perceives. There is no definitive point where we fully cross over from one color to green so maybe repeated attempts will both satisfy the rules yet trick Spike into eventually seeing a green Dart. This parallels with walking back the intensity of our anger only slightly and one session at a time. Rather than trying to keep the lid on the pressure cooker, we allow the steam to come out in small increments thus letting the boiling contents eventually evacuate entirely. - "What they did was wrong and they are worse than Hitler!" - "Fine, they are not worse than Hitler but what they did was still wrong." - "Okay, Hitler is not a fair comparison here but the point is what they did was bad" - "What they did was bad. It was well-intended but still bad" - "I think what they did came from a good place overall. They could have considered the negative effects though." The point is not to end here: - "They are great and what they did was wonderful!" Because anger may have a basis in the facts. Instead the "greening" happens when our emotional state allows us to see them as green. It may be possible to do this while still having an objection to how reality played out. ### Projector Swap ![[IMG_0205.webp]] We can't convince Spike that Dart is green by any direct means, but we know that if Dart were to truly turn green, that Spike would become green too. We can intuit that this causal link is due to Dart exhibiting some behavior that it is not a threat as a result of going from true blue to true green. ![[IMG_0215.webp]] This would mean Spike's perception is still the operating variable here. **Could we trick Spike** into thinking it is observing Dart turning green without the real Dart being aware of this diversion? Could we project a video of Dart exhibiting green-like behavior such that Spike would perceive them as green and truly turn green themselves allowing the all-green effect to occur with a careful switch back to the real Dart? Or would the switch back be perceived by Spike as Dart changing back to red? This is analogous to a real life strategy of reminding our minds of the good things someone has done for us and projecting that image of them long enough for us to ease our mind. Maybe we use this to rationalize with our perceptions. With an eased mind, we no longer come across defensively to that person and perhaps they relax their feeling of us being on the attack as a result of our kindness. But maybe this effect is flimsy and short lived when we are faced with them again and they are exhibiting defensive behavior. ## Non solutions It is easy to forget we are not Spike. We are the partnership of Spike and the Zoologist. Should it have any effect for a Chameleon to let themselves or the other cool off by taking a break? Maybe it would, but there's a reason why the chameleons only represent our minds. How in a moment of conflict do we rationalize with our minds to take that break? This is the zoologist's predicament. How can we be the adult in the room, as an airline employee letting the sleep-deprived traveler scream at us even though we are trying to help them? Can we give compassionate statements we don't mean? Can we pause ourselves before we say the next thing or does it need to come out right away? ## Rules visualized - If either green chameleon changes to red _in the eyes of the other chameleon_, that chameleon's perception makes them turn blue. |Steps|Spike (Real/Perceived)|Dart (Real/Perceived)| |---|---|---| |1|🟩/🟥|🟩/🟩| |2|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟩| - If either chameleon becomes blue, the other chameleon will perceive them as red. |Steps|Spike (Real/Perceived)|Dart (Real/Perceived)| |---|---|---| |1|🟩/🟥|🟩/🟩| |2|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟩| |3|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟥| ...and due to the previous rule, they would mutually return to the same blue-red state in which this puzzle begins. |Steps|Spike (Real/Perceived)|Dart (Real/Perceived)| |---|---|---| |1|🟩/🟥|🟩/🟩| |2|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟩| |3|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟥| |4|🟦/🟥|🟦/🟥| - If either chameleon becomes green in reality, their behavior change will cause the other chameleon to accurately change their belief and will become green themselves, solving the problem. |Steps|Spike (Real/Perceived)|Dart (Real/Perceived)| |---|---|---| |1|🟩/🟥|🟩/🟩| |2|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟩| |3|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟥| |4|🟦/🟥|🟦/🟥| |5|🟩/🟥|🟦/🟥| |...eventually|🟩/🟩|🟩/🟩|