[Interpersonal Conflict] ┊ Papico Theory. Updated 2026.7.21.🗒

Have you ever had the troublesome experience of listening to both sides of an interpersonal conflict from a neutral position?For some reason, two truths exist.They are multiplying like paramecia.

Suppose A and B have a fight. One claims, "I said such-and-such," and the other retorts, "No, you said such-and-such." Even though both arguments seem logical, the content contradicts itself. The words melt and take on different shapes.


We tend to think simply and conclude, "One of them must be right. Since there is a dispute, each must be 50% correct, and one of them must be lying."

But is that really the case?

People who witness the same event sometimes tell completely different stories. When you describe a single incident from multiple perspectives, each sounds "true," yet they all contradict each other.

Why does this happen?
We tend to select and crop only the information that fits our beliefs and emotions, and distort or interpret inconvenient information to suit ourselves.

Just like when you break a Papico in half,
what was "1" becomes "1" and "1," adding up to "2."

This becomes especially apparent during a fight, when emotions are running high.The "1" becomes a "multi-Papico," doesn't it?


You feel that "the other person attacked me," and the other person feels that "you provoked me first." Both believe in the "truth" as seen from their own perspective.
It is often the case that they are not intentionally lying, but that their memories themselves have been rewritten.

Even though both are Papicos, I say my Papico is real and yours is fake. Therefore, there is a view that "absolute truth" does not exist. All truth depends on individual perception.Even if there is only one fact, there are as many "truths" as there are people.


For example, suppose Person A buys takoyaki. Then, Person B and Person C gather around asking for some, and everyone gets their hands on the takoyaki.
Then, from the perspective of a third party, it becomes unclear who actually bought the takoyaki itself.

To give another analogy, Conan says, "There is always only one truth." Conan is speaking of objective truth as seen by a third party. But suppose there are multiple people, including the parties involved, who think that way. Then,"Truth" exists in the amount of those multiple people.

Such conflicts are very painful. You believe you are right, but the other person won't acknowledge it. Your hurt feelings make the other person look even more like the villain, and you fall into a vicious cycle. The real Papico gets swapped for a fake one.


But there is hope here, too. The reason the arguments in a fight don't match up is not because one of you is a "liar," but because you are both carrying your own pain and anxiety, and looking at the world through different glasses.

There is "each person's truth" in both perspectives.
It's just the difference between a melted Papico and one that hasn't melted yet.


That is why, when a third party gets involved, it is important not to dismiss it by saying "both are wrong," but to "listen carefully to each other's stories." Try eating both Papicos. If you stand in the other person's shoes, you might realize that your own memory was surprisingly vague.

What is important in human relationships is not to seek a perfect "correct answer," but to respect each other's "feelings."


A fight is also a chance to understand the other person more deeply. If you empathize with each other, your bond will deepen.

If you are dealing with such a conflict, please try listening to the other person's side of the story honestly for once. There might be "another truth" hidden there that you didn't know about. That might be the winning stick.


And that should be the first step toward building a warm, human relationship. (Let's eat ice cream chilled.)

​───────​───────​───────

Lastly, something trivial,
......paramecia multiply rapidly.

Thank you for reading again today.

Well then, see you in the next article.
Have a wonderful day.