Little Info box -



Age : 19

This list includes well known paradoxes, grouped thematically. The grouping is approximate, as paradoxes may fit into more than one category. This list collects only scenarios that have been called a paradox by at least one source and have their own article in this encyclopedia. Although considered paradoxes, some of these are simply based on fallacious reasoning (falsidical), or an unintuitive solution (veridical). Informally, the term paradox is often used to describe a counter-intuitive result. However, some of these paradoxes qualify to fit into the mainstream perception of a paradox, which is a self-contradictory result gained even while properly applying accepted ways of reasoning. These paradoxes, often called antinomy, point out genuine problems in our understanding of the ideas of truth and description.

Abilene paradox: People can make decisions based not on what they actually want to do, but on what they think that other people want to do, with the result that everybody decides to do something that nobody really wants to do, but only what they thought that everybody else wanted to do.
Apportionment paradox: Some systems of apportioning representation can have unintuitive results due to rounding
Alabama paradox: Increasing the total number of seats might shrink one block's seats.
New states paradox: Adding a new state or voting block might increase the number of votes of another.
Population paradox: A fast-growing state can lose votes to a slow-growing state.
Arrow's paradox: Given more than two choices, no system can have all the attributes of an ideal voting system at once.
Buridan's ass: How can a rational choice be made between two outcomes of equal value?
Chainstore paradox: Even those who know better play the so-called chain store game in an irrational manner.
Decision-making paradox: Selecting the best decision-making method is a decision problem in itself.
Ellsberg paradox: People exhibit ambiguity aversion (as distinct from risk aversion), in contradiction with expected utility theory.
Fenno's paradox: The belief that people generally disapprove of the United States Congress as a whole, but support the Congressman from their own Congressional district.
Fredkin's paradox: The more similar two choices are, the more time a decision-making agent spends on deciding.
Green paradox: Policies intending to reduce future CO2 emissions may lead to increased emissions in the present.
Hedgehog's dilemma: Despite goodwill, human intimacy cannot occur without substantial mutual harm.
Inventor's paradox: It is easier to solve a more general problem that covers the specifics of the sought-after solution.
Kavka's toxin puzzle: Can one intend to drink the non-deadly toxin, if the intention is the only thing needed to get the reward?
Motivation crowding theory: Adding incentives for some behavior can sometimes backfire and actually result in less of that behavior.
Morton's fork: a type of false dilemma in which contradictory observations lead to the same conclusion.
Navigation paradox: Increased navigational precision may result in increased collision risk.
Newcomb's paradox: How do you play a game against an omniscient opponent?
Paradox of tolerance: Should one tolerate intolerance if intolerance would destroy the possibility of tolerance?
Paradox of voting: Also known as the Downs paradox. For a rational, self-interested voter the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits, so why do people keep voting?
Parrondo's paradox: It is possible to play two losing games alternately to eventually win.
Preparedness paradox: After preparing to avoid a catastrophe and lessening the damage, the perception regarding the catastrophe would be much less serious due to the limited damage caused after.
Prevention paradox: For one person to benefit, many people have to change their behavior – even though they receive no benefit, or even suffer, from the change.
Prisoner's dilemma: Two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so.
Voting paradox: Also known as Condorcet's paradox and paradox of voting. A group of separately rational individuals may have preferences that are irrational in the aggregate.
Willpower paradox: Those who keep their minds open are more goal-directed and more motivated than those who declare their objectives to themselves