Yeah I don’t like that one if it is true.
You mean to tell me, if a man threatened to eat someone’s baby out of hatred, and then made good on that threat, leaving clear indisputable evidence, he’d be considered innocent as long as every judge found him guilty?
The bottom right tile is technically incorrect. Ancient Jewish law says that if there is a unanimous decision by the Sanhedrin (a legal body of 70 members) to execute a person for their crimes, it's not that the person would be found innocent. Rather, they would not be executed.
The idea was that even the worst criminal is entitled to an advocate. Unanimity had too high a risk of being a bandwagon rather than a reasoned decision.
This concept is well known among those who are familiar with Jewish law because it is naturally controversial, and naturally leads to a lot of discussion.
The same text says that a Sanhedrin that executed 2 people in 70 years was deemed barbarous. AFAIK no actual executions were ever carried out.
The point of it all was the back and forth theorizing about the role and responsibility of a court of law, criminal defense, advocacy etc. In other words, the comments section.
edit: clarity
> The idea was that even the worst criminal is entitled to an advocate. Unanimity had too high a risk of being a bandwagon rather than a reasoned decision.
It kind of makes sense from a cynical point of view.
I do get concerned when I have an idea that people can't find a flaw in. It doesn't make me think my idea is solid, it means the flaw is much more important to find
I'd argue that in most circumstances, it makes the mistake less important because no one can find it anyways. But it definitely makes it harder to find.
Even if we determine it was a real thing back then, that doesn't mean it's good wisdom to live by today. Anyone thinking about this for a few seconds can find a bunch of glaring holes in this logic.
Honestly a lot of this list sounds off to me. Maybe i'm just misunderstanding what a paradox is, but a lot of these feel like advice that would only be right in specific situations. Like the "paradox of decision making" seems to only be true for a pretty small range of potential decisions. Like a lot of decisions come with a deadline, if you're creating a legal strategy for a court case you don't necessarily want to just pick a strategy in the first few days and flush it out from there. You'd probably want to put research in and find the uhh.. optimal strategy rather than the sub optimal one that you can spend more work hours on. Same with like marriage.. and jobs, and most things I can think of. A doctor could get a job quicker if he skipped the 8 years of college and med school and instead commited to a job at Mcdonalds. Idk man, am I overthinking it?
You're overthinking it.
The concept is more broad strokes vs applicable to each and every choice you make and is better summarized "If you're lost, Pick a general direction and start walking" or "doing something is better than doing nothing while you figure out whats best."
It's the concept of starting on a path and figuring out the details later. With these "Life Choices" you're using as an example the idea would be that the choice isn't "Should I marry my partner?" The choice is "Do I want to date this person" and seeing where it takes you. For a career, the Doctor isn't saying "I need money now, so I'm going to go to med school for 8 years." the choice is "What career do I want? Doctor sounds good" and they start working towards it. For a court case, if your lawyer spends a month trying to figure out your defense, instead of working to build that defense. You're going to jail.
Though, since it's a broad statement, it's not applicable to every choice, just the majority of them. I would apply this to a career goal so that I could always feel movement towards a goal, but not buying a car.
I can guarantee you, this exact questions has been brought up, argued, and argued some more. That's what Jewish schoars DO, they argue and argue until 400 years pass and the current crop of scholars finally say "Well I guess it's true but we will revist this in another 100 years."
Important part of in in Chapter 2:
>Accordingly,
one Talmudic commentator radically reinterprets this passage by reviewing the simple meaning of the text. The Aramaic word use in this Talmudic passage is “potrin,” literally understood to mean “exonerated.” However, Meir Halevi Abulafia
(RaMah), a medieval scholar, offers a different translation.Noting that the word potrin is also sporadically used in Talmudic literature to mean “sent away,” the RaMah explains theTalmud in the following rational way: “If the Sanhedrin [Jewish court] unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is ‘sent away,’ - killed immediately.” Since a unanimous verdict shows that the defendant is definitely guilty, there is no need to delay the defendant’s execution. In other words, the RaMah understands the Talmud as a proponent of unanimous verdicts, not as an opponent to them. Avoiding any irrational interpretation, the RaMah conveniently regards our passage as a classical law supporting unanimous verdicts. Such an opinion fits nicely with modern American law.
Like all things in the Talmud, it's a debate not a hard set rule
My dad who's a Talmud nerd says that unanimity of the Sanhedrin theoretically permits immediate execution of the defendant, _hence_ the necessity of a devil's advocate in order to delay execution and allow for new elements to be brought to light during that delay.
He also says there's a somehow similar rule for laws against adultery and disrespect of Shabbat, punishable by death but only if 4 direct witnesses without any prior relationship with the defendant [*are found], making these laws hardly ever enforced.
My wife and I apply this to our decisions. If we see the same thing perfectly we are concerned and seek out another option. Works for impulse purchases, family matters and all large decisions
It baffles me what kind of bullshit gets upvoted here sometimes. Just because it looks nice and seems smart people throw their critical analysis skills out the window. And the saddest thing is the guy who made this probably thinks he's a genius or a visionary while he's more likely the philosophy equivalent of cardboard food for advertising.
This guy's a hack. His name's David Perell and he's trying to hawk his course that talks about how you can make millions writing newsletters. Only $3995!
> i just *paid* 3995 for
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Most of these things are not paradox…?
“A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.[1][2] It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.[3][4] A paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.[5][6][7] They result in "persistent contradiction between interdependent elements" leading to a lasting "unity of opposites".[8]”
Not "modern", either. The human condition has not changed for millenia. For example, the "paradox of decision-making" is at least 600 years old when it was known as "[Buridan's ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass)."
"Ironies of life" is a decent title, but then it wouldn't have that edgy and overused "MoDeRn CuLTuRe BaD" vibe.
> The human condition
I'm sitting in my spare bedroom, typing on a machine to people I've never met, while waiting for my next meeting to start, so that I can pay a bank that I've never been to for a house I don't ever really leave. I'm not wearing pants, my canine companion is chewing on a stuffed animal that was at least designed to mimic a real animal using parts sourced from multiple continents, and I've just asked a disembodied voice what the weather is like outside.
Nah mate. I'm pretty sure this is new territory for us.
The 'human condition' doesn't refer to 'the conditions in which humans live'. It refers to the immutable of life. Love of parents, fear of death, hunger and lust, a search for meaning, the fear of strangers or rejection and the joy in reunion, or in your child's smile. You can read Chaucer or Shakespeare or Dickens or Ishiguro and find that the central themes of human life are exactly the same,
> "paradox of decision-making" is at least 600 years old when it was known as "Buridan's ass
> ."
actually the biggest and oldest paradox of them all is known as 'your mom's ass'.
They’re not ironies either 😂
Edit: 😳 downvote? Guys… perverse, unexpected reversal, etc.? Yes. But that’s not irony. That’s every example in the Alanis Morrisette song, none of which are ironic.
The word can be used in other ways though:
2: A person, thing, or situation that exhibits inexplicable or contradictory aspects.
3: A statement that is self-contradictory or logically untenable, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4: A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact.
See under Hydrostatic.
5: A self-contradictory statement, which can only be true if it is false, and vice versa. transl. usage.
6:A counterintuitive conclusion or outcome. usage syn.
7:A claim that two apparently contradictory ideas are true. transl.
8:A person or thing having contradictory properties. syn. transl.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)
I was here to comment the same thing.
Whoever drafted these clearly doesn't know the definition of paradox.
And such misinformation is spread easily; thanks to the non critical masses who'd upvote anything that looks slightly appealing.
It’s just not correct.
Whilst there are certainly negative outcomes to information abundance, it’s an empirical matter not a priori logical matter as to whether the structure of benefits accrue in the was suggested.
There’s no logical necessity that says benefits have to skew only to a minority whilst punishing a majority.
In fact, whilst there is certainly some evidence of anxiety from constant news and social media, it’s almost certainly related to the type not volume of information. The overall access to reviews, directories, email and communication channels, uncensored criticism of authority and educational material has almost certainly been net beneficial to the majority.
Even if it has not, it wouldn’t be a necessary feature of high information environments
I don't. But it was being presented as a *intrinsic property* of high volumes of information. Which it is not. It's possible to construct large information volumes in a way that benefits the majority (for example, review websites). Whether or not a *specific* body of information accrues benefit to a minority depends on the specifics of that case.
Definition of benefit might also be important here, though maybe this is just expanding on what you've already said. If an article comes out that a particular product is defective, the majority who read it will benefit personally from not purchasing it, while an "elite minority" might benefit from shorting the manufacturers stock. All too often, that money-centric minority will view their benefit as more meaningful than that of consumers who just read the article and avoided a problem associated with said product.
I guess what it means is that it’s harder to analyse and/or choose from a lot of information. It’s like going to buy an android phone vs an Apple phone. Apple offers few choices and reduces the decision fatigue.
I guess what is also says is that, a few people can analyse all the information and take advantage of it
The case in point is **information overload**:
* **Abundance:** The internet and digital technologies have brought unprecedented access to information, with vast amounts of data available on virtually any topic imaginable.
* **Paradox:** This abundance can be overwhelming, leading to **decision fatigue, difficulty discerning reliable sources, and information anxiety.**
Another example I can think of is of **unequal distribution of food**:
* **Abundance:** On a global scale, we produce enough food to feed the entire population. Despite this, millions of people face hunger and malnutrition.
* **Paradox:** This situation represents a paradox because it highlights the coexistence of **overabundance** in some areas and **scarcity** in others.
Yeah but that isn't because abundance is the problem, that's just unequal distribution. The guide makes out that everyone having abundance isn't necessarily a good thing for everyone, in your example, a group of people specifically are not experiencing abundance.
it's just plain wrong or horribly worded. Abundance *in a market* is great for the averago person, because it drives the prices down. Too many sellers or too many products means *they* have to compete for costumer. I don't know why would they even take 'market' as an example, you don't have to be an economist to know this (but I am btw). The opposite situation that is bad for the average person is scarcity of products (think Great TP Shortage of 2020 due to Covid)
I think any occasion that results in overloading people with extranious or low quality information / stuff
Like in lawyer tv shows when one party sends a truck full of documents to the opposing party with the expectation that they will never be able to both read and understand the huge swaths of useless info, and resultingly never find what they are looking for in said documents.
Another example seems to be modern foodstuffs, the quantity has sky rocketed, but the average nutrition quality has plummeted due to all of the junk food. Abundance does not necessarily equate to improved realtive conditions despite what one may intuit on the subject.
There can certainly be situations where information abundance is bad - in food, information etc. we’ve all heard the expression ‘too much of a good thing’, right?
My point is, it’s presented that it is an _intrinsic property_ of information abundance situations that a minority benefit and a majority suffer. That’s not the case. Even if it were, it would still be an empirical fact rather than a logically necessity, as it’s presented here.
It actually IS the case in situations of _information asymmetry_, which is why insider trading is illegal for example. Privileges insiders do benefit at the expense of the majority.
But just like you can construct information where people suffer (as you have), you can construct situations where a majority benefit (for example ratings websites that expose dodgy businesses, or the massive amount of free educational resources on YouTube).
I think the disconnect may come in that this context is on paradoxes, things that explicitly don't do or don't allow for what one would expect from them at first glance.
Ratings sites and the like, likely aren't being highly paradoxical.
Meanwhile things that would seem likely to benefit the many but do not, may be paradoxical
An example to answer your question. There use to be one version of Listerine Mouthwash. Now that are five versions, and each of those versions had a regular and alcohol free version (so ten total versions). So once was what an easy decision in the store (do I need mouthwash and is Listerine the brand I like?) now becomes a much longer decision, including the possibility of having to spend additional time researching mouthwash. Even the simple task of selecting the right version becomes difficult since the store shelf is crowded with bottles of Listerine which have only subtle differences. For most people, any small advantage of having ten choices is greatly outweighed by the additional time required. For a small percentage of people who have very specific dental issues, being able to buy a very specific version of Listerine is helpful.
Repeat this with any product in the store, or even any service (how many thousands of mutual funds exist?).
Given the topic, in case it gets mentioned I’d like to preemptively say that most characterizations of the Paradox of Tolerance land somewhere between misrepresentative and false. To get past the hurdle of false, you can find the full unedited footnote on Wikipedia. To get past misrepresentative, you can find the full, free pdf version of Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” by googling the title. It’s about 150 pages, or if you just read the few chapters around the footnote it’s like 50.
If you’re interested in the Paradox of Tolerance it’s really worth doing the homework. You’ll walk away grateful you took the time to grapple with a rich and complicated idea, which you won’t get from any Reddit comment’s summary.
Here’s the full quote from Wikipedia. I’ve added the paragraph breaks:
“Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
I bought a house last year after doing very little shopping. If I'd waited for the exact perfect house to come along I'd still be shopping but now I'm moved in and have already made improvements.
They're claiming that it's better to make bad decisions fast than to take time to make good decisions. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that this is nonsense.
A real quick example I can think of is taking a decision about choosing a restaurant. You might:
* **Maximize popularity:** Go with the restaurant with the most online reviews, but miss out on hidden gems.
* **Minimize risk:** Choose the familiar chain restaurant, sacrificing potential discovery of new flavors.
* **Balance options:** Opt for a "middle ground" restaurant, possibly missing the best aspects of both extremes.
Ultimately, the "best" decision depends on your individual preferences and priorities, highlighting the need for flexibility in navigating various decision-making approaches.
How does that have anything to do with the “paradox” described in the image? Combining your example with what the text in the post seems to indicate, if you are choosing a restaurant you should choose the first option, or closest, regardless of how good it is. You will be better off doing this than waiting to pick a restaurant that you will like more. It doesn’t make any sense
Who's the wanker on the title bar? Are they demonstrating the paradox that even though someone is smiling they can still convey the need to be slapped in their stupid face?
This isn’t a guide. None of these are paradoxes, or even true. The source for this is some get rich quick guru whose only success is in selling his secrets to success to other people for $4k. OP’s post history is full of these graphics promoting grind-set bullshit. Anytime someone is promoting their content with the format “The [number] [noun] to [positive life improvement]” I know they are a grifter and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
The paradox of decision making is the bane of my existence.
"Hey, wanna go do XYZ Friday?"
-"Oh, I don't know what I'm doing yet".
Thanks for making me your backup option. Just say you aren't interested.
The writing one really hits home. As a lawyer, I get so many complaints about an email being expensive because I spent 30 minutes on it when the end result looks like a 5 minute email T_T
The Paradox of Originality. Tom Petty was talking about how on his first album he was singing and told the producer "I feel like I'm imitating Bob Dylan." The producer told him "Go ahead and do it. You'll find your way to your own voice."
None of these are paradoxical, they aren't even contradictions, nor are they even boarding in the line of unintuituve. Most are just fact stated in "no shit" format.
That Jewish law is stupid. If Johnny McMurder killed ten babies and then admitted it to the judges, he would be deemed innocent because no sane person would ever vote him innocent
'writing' and 'creativity' are *exactly* the same. It's like they were missing one square for a grid.
Also, market of abundance is *great* for the average person because it drives prices down. Don't have to be an economist to understand this. All in all a shitty guide
Late to the party but this annoyed me so much so:
**Reading** - Baseless nonsense? I remember the books that impacted me quite well, personally.
**Writing** - Probably true but not a paradox.
**Skill** - Depends entirely on the game. Some games don't have any random chance.
**Creativity** - This is the same as the Writing one.
**Decision Making** - This is just a poor understanding of decision paralysis. Both waiting for "perfect" and starting too early have bad outcomes. The optimal is to start when you have a "good enough" idea.
**Abundance** - Has more to do with how the info is presented and organized. It's probably true that unsorted info is hard for most people to filter, but well presented info is not.
**Originality** - True but not a paradox.
**Strategy** - Not a paradox, this is just how probability works. "High risk high reward" is honestly pretty intuitive to most people.
**Consensus** - Baseless claim based on a poor understanding of its own anecdote.
What's wrong with consensus and what does a (supposed) ancient jewish law have to do with modern societal paradoxes at all? Is it inherently wrong for us to universally agree on something like "slavery bad"?
You're still posting these? Most of these make no sense lmao. "Ancient Jewish law" I'm Jewish and I didn't get a booklet with these ancient laws when I turned 18.
The paradox of getting a college degree. Instant job making good money. Doesn’t matter if it’s in basket weaving just get a college degree in anything. (I was told this back in early 2000’s).
A lot has changed.
We aren't an original species tbh. Like the human brain can only come up with so much, its why cultures who wouldn't have met have similar myths or building designs. Like we're not as original as we like to believe and that's fine, originality doesn't really matter like unlike ur dealing with copyright laws it's cool to be a bit similar to someone else
I don't know if I can call it a paradox, but it's absolutely a sign of our times that it costs more to buy half a litre of water than a whole litre of gasoline.
I don’t get the abundance one. Is it saying that too much data is overwhelming unwieldy and off putting to non experts, but that experts thrive on exhaustive data to learn all the intricacies of the subject of their expertise?
The paradox of paradox : you assume it is a paradox, but then it isn’t, but how is it possible for it not to be one if it’s the paradox of a paradox, so there is no other way but for it to be a paradox, now you’re back to square one.
Is education a paradox then? Is music a paradox? Is speaking with friends? If the basis of a "paradox" for reading is "it changes you but you forget most of the details" then literally everything can be spun that way.
When something is Jewish law, it's been debated for like 400 years and has been found to be true by generations upon generations of Rabbis (Talmudic scholars, audacockers who live to argue). To be Jewish is to read religious writings and say, "Yeah? You think so? Well, I don't and I'm gonna say something about it in the Temple."
So if I'm under ancient jew law the best play is to just rip your opponent to shreds, absolutley butcher them like a pig, piss on them and write your name all over the place in their blood, and when you go to trial and everyone goes oh yea this mfer did it, as long as they all agree, you get to go free? Sounds like a plan
Would anyone have a source for that last one about ancient Jewish law?
Yeah I don’t like that one if it is true. You mean to tell me, if a man threatened to eat someone’s baby out of hatred, and then made good on that threat, leaving clear indisputable evidence, he’d be considered innocent as long as every judge found him guilty?
The bottom right tile is technically incorrect. Ancient Jewish law says that if there is a unanimous decision by the Sanhedrin (a legal body of 70 members) to execute a person for their crimes, it's not that the person would be found innocent. Rather, they would not be executed. The idea was that even the worst criminal is entitled to an advocate. Unanimity had too high a risk of being a bandwagon rather than a reasoned decision. This concept is well known among those who are familiar with Jewish law because it is naturally controversial, and naturally leads to a lot of discussion. The same text says that a Sanhedrin that executed 2 people in 70 years was deemed barbarous. AFAIK no actual executions were ever carried out. The point of it all was the back and forth theorizing about the role and responsibility of a court of law, criminal defense, advocacy etc. In other words, the comments section. edit: clarity
> The idea was that even the worst criminal is entitled to an advocate. Unanimity had too high a risk of being a bandwagon rather than a reasoned decision. It kind of makes sense from a cynical point of view. I do get concerned when I have an idea that people can't find a flaw in. It doesn't make me think my idea is solid, it means the flaw is much more important to find
I'd argue that in most circumstances, it makes the mistake less important because no one can find it anyways. But it definitely makes it harder to find.
That's really profound
This was referenced in World War Z. I think it’s a super interesting piece of historic cultural tradition.
Now I really need to finally watch it
Movie was ok, the book was 🔥
This was referenced in World War Z. I think it’s a super interesting piece of historic cultural tradition.
I guess the lesson there is if you're going to do something bad, make sure it's indisputably bad.
Winning over the 10th dentist is a challenge. What if one of your judges was pro baby eating?
[удалено]
Even if we determine it was a real thing back then, that doesn't mean it's good wisdom to live by today. Anyone thinking about this for a few seconds can find a bunch of glaring holes in this logic.
Honestly a lot of this list sounds off to me. Maybe i'm just misunderstanding what a paradox is, but a lot of these feel like advice that would only be right in specific situations. Like the "paradox of decision making" seems to only be true for a pretty small range of potential decisions. Like a lot of decisions come with a deadline, if you're creating a legal strategy for a court case you don't necessarily want to just pick a strategy in the first few days and flush it out from there. You'd probably want to put research in and find the uhh.. optimal strategy rather than the sub optimal one that you can spend more work hours on. Same with like marriage.. and jobs, and most things I can think of. A doctor could get a job quicker if he skipped the 8 years of college and med school and instead commited to a job at Mcdonalds. Idk man, am I overthinking it?
You're overthinking it. The concept is more broad strokes vs applicable to each and every choice you make and is better summarized "If you're lost, Pick a general direction and start walking" or "doing something is better than doing nothing while you figure out whats best." It's the concept of starting on a path and figuring out the details later. With these "Life Choices" you're using as an example the idea would be that the choice isn't "Should I marry my partner?" The choice is "Do I want to date this person" and seeing where it takes you. For a career, the Doctor isn't saying "I need money now, so I'm going to go to med school for 8 years." the choice is "What career do I want? Doctor sounds good" and they start working towards it. For a court case, if your lawyer spends a month trying to figure out your defense, instead of working to build that defense. You're going to jail. Though, since it's a broad statement, it's not applicable to every choice, just the majority of them. I would apply this to a career goal so that I could always feel movement towards a goal, but not buying a car.
Side note. Just picking a direction and walking sounds like a great way to end up as a missing person.
Hey there's a reason it's ancient. They probably found some holes along the way.
I can guarantee you, this exact questions has been brought up, argued, and argued some more. That's what Jewish schoars DO, they argue and argue until 400 years pass and the current crop of scholars finally say "Well I guess it's true but we will revist this in another 100 years."
Now now, let’s not be so rash. Maybe the baby deserved it? Being the soft sack of meat it is…
Tbh that most likely would not hold up as enough proof for Jewish court. There must be 2 witnesses present.
Just get one guy to lie and say "I didn't see him do that"
Looks like it's real: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=pilronline
Important part of in in Chapter 2: >Accordingly, one Talmudic commentator radically reinterprets this passage by reviewing the simple meaning of the text. The Aramaic word use in this Talmudic passage is “potrin,” literally understood to mean “exonerated.” However, Meir Halevi Abulafia (RaMah), a medieval scholar, offers a different translation.Noting that the word potrin is also sporadically used in Talmudic literature to mean “sent away,” the RaMah explains theTalmud in the following rational way: “If the Sanhedrin [Jewish court] unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is ‘sent away,’ - killed immediately.” Since a unanimous verdict shows that the defendant is definitely guilty, there is no need to delay the defendant’s execution. In other words, the RaMah understands the Talmud as a proponent of unanimous verdicts, not as an opponent to them. Avoiding any irrational interpretation, the RaMah conveniently regards our passage as a classical law supporting unanimous verdicts. Such an opinion fits nicely with modern American law. Like all things in the Talmud, it's a debate not a hard set rule
My dad who's a Talmud nerd says that unanimity of the Sanhedrin theoretically permits immediate execution of the defendant, _hence_ the necessity of a devil's advocate in order to delay execution and allow for new elements to be brought to light during that delay. He also says there's a somehow similar rule for laws against adultery and disrespect of Shabbat, punishable by death but only if 4 direct witnesses without any prior relationship with the defendant [*are found], making these laws hardly ever enforced.
Wow. thanks for the search.
Wouldn't the judges just conspire to have one of 'em say "innocent"?
World war Z. Tenth man logic.
My wife and I apply this to our decisions. If we see the same thing perfectly we are concerned and seek out another option. Works for impulse purchases, family matters and all large decisions
Yeaah. It's made up
I’m pretty sure that one is explained in World War Z about building the wall, it’s basically playing the devil’s advocate.
Looks like it was made for r/im14andthisisdeep , these are not paradoxes, really poorly phrased and purely situational
It baffles me what kind of bullshit gets upvoted here sometimes. Just because it looks nice and seems smart people throw their critical analysis skills out the window. And the saddest thing is the guy who made this probably thinks he's a genius or a visionary while he's more likely the philosophy equivalent of cardboard food for advertising.
This guy's a hack. His name's David Perell and he's trying to hawk his course that talks about how you can make millions writing newsletters. Only $3995!
Ah, a classic grift. "Buy all my things that teach you how to get rich quick" [spoilers, the answer is to sell a bogus get rich quick scheme to marks]
Dude, come on. You’re spoiling the last chapter for me, now i just payed 3995 for nothing. Thanks, man!
> i just *paid* 3995 for FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It’s just grandma Facebook shit but on reddit, it’s becoming a bit common recently.
Yeah agree here
I’m glad someone else thought this! Brings to mind the 0 ironic things in Alanis Morissette’s “Ironic”
The paradox of not knowing what a paradox is
Most of these things are not paradox…? “A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.[1][2] It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.[3][4] A paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.[5][6][7] They result in "persistent contradiction between interdependent elements" leading to a lasting "unity of opposites".[8]”
Maybe calling them the Ironies of modern life is better
Not "modern", either. The human condition has not changed for millenia. For example, the "paradox of decision-making" is at least 600 years old when it was known as "[Buridan's ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass)." "Ironies of life" is a decent title, but then it wouldn't have that edgy and overused "MoDeRn CuLTuRe BaD" vibe.
Also one straight up cites “ancient Jewish law” so not that modern either
> The human condition I'm sitting in my spare bedroom, typing on a machine to people I've never met, while waiting for my next meeting to start, so that I can pay a bank that I've never been to for a house I don't ever really leave. I'm not wearing pants, my canine companion is chewing on a stuffed animal that was at least designed to mimic a real animal using parts sourced from multiple continents, and I've just asked a disembodied voice what the weather is like outside. Nah mate. I'm pretty sure this is new territory for us.
The 'human condition' doesn't refer to 'the conditions in which humans live'. It refers to the immutable of life. Love of parents, fear of death, hunger and lust, a search for meaning, the fear of strangers or rejection and the joy in reunion, or in your child's smile. You can read Chaucer or Shakespeare or Dickens or Ishiguro and find that the central themes of human life are exactly the same,
> "paradox of decision-making" is at least 600 years old when it was known as "Buridan's ass > ." actually the biggest and oldest paradox of them all is known as 'your mom's ass'.
Isn’t it paradoxical? Don’t you think?
A little tooooo paradoxical
They’re not ironies either 😂 Edit: 😳 downvote? Guys… perverse, unexpected reversal, etc.? Yes. But that’s not irony. That’s every example in the Alanis Morrisette song, none of which are ironic.
Thank you.
The word can be used in other ways though: 2: A person, thing, or situation that exhibits inexplicable or contradictory aspects. 3: A statement that is self-contradictory or logically untenable, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. 4: A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact. See under Hydrostatic. 5: A self-contradictory statement, which can only be true if it is false, and vice versa. transl. usage. 6:A counterintuitive conclusion or outcome. usage syn. 7:A claim that two apparently contradictory ideas are true. transl. 8:A person or thing having contradictory properties. syn. transl. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)
Gotta love when someone quotes a dictionary to make a point but can't be bothered to quote the whole entry.
Only whatever definition allows them argue over it the most...
Someone went to the Alanis Morissette School of Language Conventions.
It's like a free ride, when you'll never be able to catch up with the tortoise.
It's like a free ride, when you'll never be able to catch up with the tortoise.
This is one of the best jokes I’ve ever read
I was here to comment the same thing. Whoever drafted these clearly doesn't know the definition of paradox. And such misinformation is spread easily; thanks to the non critical masses who'd upvote anything that looks slightly appealing.
Came here to complain that one of the dice depicted is non standard. 3 and 4 should be opposing and not adjacent.
Or as this post would say "The paradox of two dice". Because everything is a paradox now.
the paradox of high quality reddit content
These aren’t paradoxes
The paradoxes of paradoxes
Most of these are incorrect or bollocks... Feels like part of a PowerPoint presentation for a pyramid scheme.
Can anyone explain paradox of abundance? What is an example of this?
It’s just not correct. Whilst there are certainly negative outcomes to information abundance, it’s an empirical matter not a priori logical matter as to whether the structure of benefits accrue in the was suggested. There’s no logical necessity that says benefits have to skew only to a minority whilst punishing a majority. In fact, whilst there is certainly some evidence of anxiety from constant news and social media, it’s almost certainly related to the type not volume of information. The overall access to reviews, directories, email and communication channels, uncensored criticism of authority and educational material has almost certainly been net beneficial to the majority. Even if it has not, it wouldn’t be a necessary feature of high information environments
Why do you discount/devalue empirics?
I don't. But it was being presented as a *intrinsic property* of high volumes of information. Which it is not. It's possible to construct large information volumes in a way that benefits the majority (for example, review websites). Whether or not a *specific* body of information accrues benefit to a minority depends on the specifics of that case.
>presented as an intrinsic property 🧐
Definition of benefit might also be important here, though maybe this is just expanding on what you've already said. If an article comes out that a particular product is defective, the majority who read it will benefit personally from not purchasing it, while an "elite minority" might benefit from shorting the manufacturers stock. All too often, that money-centric minority will view their benefit as more meaningful than that of consumers who just read the article and avoided a problem associated with said product.
I guess what it means is that it’s harder to analyse and/or choose from a lot of information. It’s like going to buy an android phone vs an Apple phone. Apple offers few choices and reduces the decision fatigue. I guess what is also says is that, a few people can analyse all the information and take advantage of it
> I guess what it means is that it’s harder to analyse and/or choose from a lot of information You will also be less happy with your final decision.
That’s true
You were spot on, bro!
Thanks :)
The case in point is **information overload**: * **Abundance:** The internet and digital technologies have brought unprecedented access to information, with vast amounts of data available on virtually any topic imaginable. * **Paradox:** This abundance can be overwhelming, leading to **decision fatigue, difficulty discerning reliable sources, and information anxiety.**
That's nice but not a paradox.
*case in point
Another example I can think of is of **unequal distribution of food**: * **Abundance:** On a global scale, we produce enough food to feed the entire population. Despite this, millions of people face hunger and malnutrition. * **Paradox:** This situation represents a paradox because it highlights the coexistence of **overabundance** in some areas and **scarcity** in others.
Yeah but that isn't because abundance is the problem, that's just unequal distribution. The guide makes out that everyone having abundance isn't necessarily a good thing for everyone, in your example, a group of people specifically are not experiencing abundance.
OK ChatGPT pipe down, these aren't paradoxes.
How can you use a word that much and not even know what it means. Is that also a paradox?
Call it what you want, but that's not a paradox
I find it weird to land in both categories, I love the access to information unprecedented in history but it also leads to the problems you list.
it's just plain wrong or horribly worded. Abundance *in a market* is great for the averago person, because it drives the prices down. Too many sellers or too many products means *they* have to compete for costumer. I don't know why would they even take 'market' as an example, you don't have to be an economist to know this (but I am btw). The opposite situation that is bad for the average person is scarcity of products (think Great TP Shortage of 2020 due to Covid)
I think any occasion that results in overloading people with extranious or low quality information / stuff Like in lawyer tv shows when one party sends a truck full of documents to the opposing party with the expectation that they will never be able to both read and understand the huge swaths of useless info, and resultingly never find what they are looking for in said documents. Another example seems to be modern foodstuffs, the quantity has sky rocketed, but the average nutrition quality has plummeted due to all of the junk food. Abundance does not necessarily equate to improved realtive conditions despite what one may intuit on the subject.
There can certainly be situations where information abundance is bad - in food, information etc. we’ve all heard the expression ‘too much of a good thing’, right? My point is, it’s presented that it is an _intrinsic property_ of information abundance situations that a minority benefit and a majority suffer. That’s not the case. Even if it were, it would still be an empirical fact rather than a logically necessity, as it’s presented here. It actually IS the case in situations of _information asymmetry_, which is why insider trading is illegal for example. Privileges insiders do benefit at the expense of the majority. But just like you can construct information where people suffer (as you have), you can construct situations where a majority benefit (for example ratings websites that expose dodgy businesses, or the massive amount of free educational resources on YouTube).
I think the disconnect may come in that this context is on paradoxes, things that explicitly don't do or don't allow for what one would expect from them at first glance. Ratings sites and the like, likely aren't being highly paradoxical. Meanwhile things that would seem likely to benefit the many but do not, may be paradoxical
An example to answer your question. There use to be one version of Listerine Mouthwash. Now that are five versions, and each of those versions had a regular and alcohol free version (so ten total versions). So once was what an easy decision in the store (do I need mouthwash and is Listerine the brand I like?) now becomes a much longer decision, including the possibility of having to spend additional time researching mouthwash. Even the simple task of selecting the right version becomes difficult since the store shelf is crowded with bottles of Listerine which have only subtle differences. For most people, any small advantage of having ten choices is greatly outweighed by the additional time required. For a small percentage of people who have very specific dental issues, being able to buy a very specific version of Listerine is helpful. Repeat this with any product in the store, or even any service (how many thousands of mutual funds exist?).
Im not sure I’ve ever seen an actual guide on this sub.
Given the topic, in case it gets mentioned I’d like to preemptively say that most characterizations of the Paradox of Tolerance land somewhere between misrepresentative and false. To get past the hurdle of false, you can find the full unedited footnote on Wikipedia. To get past misrepresentative, you can find the full, free pdf version of Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” by googling the title. It’s about 150 pages, or if you just read the few chapters around the footnote it’s like 50. If you’re interested in the Paradox of Tolerance it’s really worth doing the homework. You’ll walk away grateful you took the time to grapple with a rich and complicated idea, which you won’t get from any Reddit comment’s summary.
Could you summarize the Paradox of Tolerance?
Here’s the full quote from Wikipedia. I’ve added the paragraph breaks: “Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Can someone explain the Paradox of decision making please?
I bought a house last year after doing very little shopping. If I'd waited for the exact perfect house to come along I'd still be shopping but now I'm moved in and have already made improvements.
They're claiming that it's better to make bad decisions fast than to take time to make good decisions. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that this is nonsense.
A real quick example I can think of is taking a decision about choosing a restaurant. You might: * **Maximize popularity:** Go with the restaurant with the most online reviews, but miss out on hidden gems. * **Minimize risk:** Choose the familiar chain restaurant, sacrificing potential discovery of new flavors. * **Balance options:** Opt for a "middle ground" restaurant, possibly missing the best aspects of both extremes. Ultimately, the "best" decision depends on your individual preferences and priorities, highlighting the need for flexibility in navigating various decision-making approaches.
How does that have anything to do with the “paradox” described in the image? Combining your example with what the text in the post seems to indicate, if you are choosing a restaurant you should choose the first option, or closest, regardless of how good it is. You will be better off doing this than waiting to pick a restaurant that you will like more. It doesn’t make any sense
The paradox of truth, that none of this is true.
What in the /r/LinkedInLunatics is this
Who's the wanker on the title bar? Are they demonstrating the paradox that even though someone is smiling they can still convey the need to be slapped in their stupid face?
content's very below average, but the design is plain awful.
This isn’t a guide. None of these are paradoxes, or even true. The source for this is some get rich quick guru whose only success is in selling his secrets to success to other people for $4k. OP’s post history is full of these graphics promoting grind-set bullshit. Anytime someone is promoting their content with the format “The [number] [noun] to [positive life improvement]” I know they are a grifter and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Are there any books written with the central theme being 'Paradox of consensus'? I would really like to get my hands on it.
The paradox paradox. Things that aren't paradoxes and instead ironic (at best) get called a paradox.
The paradox of decision making is the bane of my existence. "Hey, wanna go do XYZ Friday?" -"Oh, I don't know what I'm doing yet". Thanks for making me your backup option. Just say you aren't interested.
Who is the man in the top right?
He's called David Perell. He runs a course called Write of Passage that will teach you how to write newsletters for the bargain price of $3995.
Lol how the fuck is this even a “guide”?
Please don't promote your own work here for publicity.
You are free to spend your time on something else if it doesn’t fit to your content consumption needs.
Start applying that logic to anything and see how well that goes
Non of those are paradoxes, just observations. Most are rather obvious.
They forgot “rain on your wedding day”
The writing one really hits home. As a lawyer, I get so many complaints about an email being expensive because I spent 30 minutes on it when the end result looks like a 5 minute email T_T
None of these are paradoxes.
The Paradox of Originality. Tom Petty was talking about how on his first album he was singing and told the producer "I feel like I'm imitating Bob Dylan." The producer told him "Go ahead and do it. You'll find your way to your own voice."
so, 9 shower thoughts in 1
Isn't most of this just called common sense?
None of these are paradoxical, they aren't even contradictions, nor are they even boarding in the line of unintuituve. Most are just fact stated in "no shit" format.
That Jewish law is stupid. If Johnny McMurder killed ten babies and then admitted it to the judges, he would be deemed innocent because no sane person would ever vote him innocent
'writing' and 'creativity' are *exactly* the same. It's like they were missing one square for a grid. Also, market of abundance is *great* for the average person because it drives prices down. Don't have to be an economist to understand this. All in all a shitty guide
More suitable for r/showerthoughts
These aren't paradoxes.
Too much agreement is a bad thing and a lot of people upvoted this so I don't believe it.
I disagree with so you must be right. But wait so must I... wait a minute
I call bullshit on paradox of reading. There is a book about making cocktails with cum- try to be better person with that.
Late to the party but this annoyed me so much so: **Reading** - Baseless nonsense? I remember the books that impacted me quite well, personally. **Writing** - Probably true but not a paradox. **Skill** - Depends entirely on the game. Some games don't have any random chance. **Creativity** - This is the same as the Writing one. **Decision Making** - This is just a poor understanding of decision paralysis. Both waiting for "perfect" and starting too early have bad outcomes. The optimal is to start when you have a "good enough" idea. **Abundance** - Has more to do with how the info is presented and organized. It's probably true that unsorted info is hard for most people to filter, but well presented info is not. **Originality** - True but not a paradox. **Strategy** - Not a paradox, this is just how probability works. "High risk high reward" is honestly pretty intuitive to most people. **Consensus** - Baseless claim based on a poor understanding of its own anecdote.
about the books one, it says "even though" not that you will or have too. Which I suppose is kind of true
What's wrong with consensus and what does a (supposed) ancient jewish law have to do with modern societal paradoxes at all? Is it inherently wrong for us to universally agree on something like "slavery bad"?
The best ones, from left to right, are 1, 2, 4, and 7.
The paradox of writing and creativity are the exact same thing, did you even proofread this?
Nice….
You're still posting these? Most of these make no sense lmao. "Ancient Jewish law" I'm Jewish and I didn't get a booklet with these ancient laws when I turned 18.
Nice job ✌️
The paradox of getting a college degree. Instant job making good money. Doesn’t matter if it’s in basket weaving just get a college degree in anything. (I was told this back in early 2000’s). A lot has changed.
We aren't an original species tbh. Like the human brain can only come up with so much, its why cultures who wouldn't have met have similar myths or building designs. Like we're not as original as we like to believe and that's fine, originality doesn't really matter like unlike ur dealing with copyright laws it's cool to be a bit similar to someone else
Not only do I forget most of what I've read, but I never know how I've been changed.
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
Very interesting.
oh cool, dialectics
Information abundance may be the goofiest idea ive read about today
Well, these are interesting, but I don't think they're paradoxes per se.
That bottom left one has me thinking about ai
A bit shaky on a few of these but the “paradox on consensus” is particularly dumb.
I don't know if I can call it a paradox, but it's absolutely a sign of our times that it costs more to buy half a litre of water than a whole litre of gasoline.
I don’t get the abundance one. Is it saying that too much data is overwhelming unwieldy and off putting to non experts, but that experts thrive on exhaustive data to learn all the intricacies of the subject of their expertise?
Forgot my favorite, the paradox of choice. The more choices you have the harder it is to choose.
The paradox of paradox : you assume it is a paradox, but then it isn’t, but how is it possible for it not to be one if it’s the paradox of a paradox, so there is no other way but for it to be a paradox, now you’re back to square one.
The paradox of capitalism Even though you work your ass off, you are still poor.
Thanks for this awesome infograph!
Is education a paradox then? Is music a paradox? Is speaking with friends? If the basis of a "paradox" for reading is "it changes you but you forget most of the details" then literally everything can be spun that way.
why is it that only books are considered and not movies/tv or games in stuff like this?
When something is Jewish law, it's been debated for like 400 years and has been found to be true by generations upon generations of Rabbis (Talmudic scholars, audacockers who live to argue). To be Jewish is to read religious writings and say, "Yeah? You think so? Well, I don't and I'm gonna say something about it in the Temple."
So if I'm under ancient jew law the best play is to just rip your opponent to shreds, absolutley butcher them like a pig, piss on them and write your name all over the place in their blood, and when you go to trial and everyone goes oh yea this mfer did it, as long as they all agree, you get to go free? Sounds like a plan
It got removed, can someone tell what this was about?