Dilemmas and Paradoxes

[DISCLAIMER]

When providing psychoeducational lessons on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I sometimes discuss dilemmas and paradoxes. Over time, I’ve come to realize that these terms are often confused. Therefore, it may be helpful to discuss the distinction within this blogpost.

Whereas a “dilemma” is usually an undesirable or unpleasant choice, a “paradox” is a statement or occurrence that’s seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. Although it’s possible to have these terms existing simultaneously, they are distinctly different.

A dilemma simply presents a choice between two or more undesirable options, while a paradox is a proposal or condition that seemingly contradicts itself while being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Thus, the former involves difficult decisions, while the latter involves apparent contradictions.

Perhaps examples of dilemmas and paradoxes are in order. One emerging problem regarding artificial intelligence (AI) relates to what is known as the “black box dilemma.” Regarding this matter, one source states:

To understand the black box problem, let’s take an example of a self-driving car. The car’s AI system is designed to make decisions based on various inputs such as road signs, sensors, and cameras. As a result, if the car gets into an accident, it may be challenging to determine what went wrong and why the AI system made a particular decision additionally. The AI algorithm’s decision-making process is often opaque and may involve complex calculations, making it difficult for humans to interpret.

Difficulty in understanding and explaining the decision-making processes of complex AI models, particularly those based on deep learning, creates a dilemma. In the referenced example, suppose that the self-driving car’s AI algorithm was faced with hitting either a brick wall of a cat.

If the algorithm is programed never to directly terminate life, then killing a cat that jumps in front of the vehicle would create undesirable option one. Unpleasant option two relates to steering the vehicle into an adjacent brick wall. Suppose that the AI opted for option two.

The cat would be directly spared its life, though the occupants inside of the self-driving car are indirectly killed as a result of the AI’s calculation. Thus, the black box dilemma relates to difficulty of humans to comprehend why the options of braking or simply killing the cat and saving the people wasn’t chosen.

Often in life, we face difficult or undesirable decisions which have challenging or unpleasant consequences. The same is true of emerging AI technologies. Shifting from AI and a modern dilemma to a paradox regarding a classic example, consider what one source states:

Bertrand’s box paradox is a veridical paradox in elementary probability theory. It was first posed by Joseph Bertrand in his 1889 work Calcul des Probabilités.

There are three boxes:

1. a box containing two gold coins,

2. a box containing two silver coins,

3. a box containing one gold coin and one silver coin.

A coin withdrawn at random from one of the three boxes happens to be a gold. What is the probability the other coin from the same box will also be a gold coin?

A veridical paradox is a paradox whose correct solution seems to be counterintuitive. It may seem intuitive that the probability that the remaining coin is gold should be 1/2, but the probability is actually 2/3. Bertrand showed that if 1/2 were correct, it would result in a contradiction, so 1/2 cannot be correct.

This simple but counterintuitive puzzle is used as a standard example in teaching probability theory.

Bertrand’s box paradox relates to an occurrence that’s seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet the proposed solution is true nonetheless. If your mind works as my mind does, you likely stopped paying attention when math came into the equation (pun intended).

Therefore, it may be useful to provide you with a different type of paradox. Because I often use syllogistic examples when teaching about REBT, it may be helpful to discuss the paradox of entailment about which one source states:

As the best known of the paradoxes, and most formally simple, the paradox of entailment makes the best introduction.

In natural language, an instance of the paradox of entailment arises:

It is raining

And

It is not raining

Therefore

George Washington is made of rakes.

This arises from the principle of explosion, a law of classical logic stating that inconsistent premises always make an argument valid; that is, inconsistent premises imply any conclusion at all. This seems paradoxical because although the above is a logically valid argument, it is not sound (not all of its premises are true).

In order for a proposition to be considered rational, it empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. The paradox of entailment illustrates how a proposition may be logically consistent while remaining reasonably inconsistent.

Nevertheless, when using only logical form in such a manner the proposition will result in a valid conclusion. To provide an oft-used example within my blog, consider the following unreasonable though logically valid argument that one imagines AI would use if left to its own devices:

Form (modus ponens) –

If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Example –

If you want to rid the world of cancer, then kill everyone who has cancer. You want to rid the world of cancer. Therefore, kill everyone who has cancer.

This statement is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true, because the paradoxical outcome is logically consistent. Of course, I argue that the proposition is unreasonable, because ridding the world of cancer is in the interest of saving (not terminating) lives.

It’s worth noting that a proposition can simultaneously serve as both a dilemma and a paradox. For instance, consider what one source suggests:

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations. The term was coined by Joseph Heller, who used it in his 1961 novel Catch-22.

Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to, but has no control over, because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it (e.g. the only way to qualify for a loan is to prove to the bank that you do not need a loan). One connotation of the term is that the creators of the “catch-22” situation have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.

My dad used to refer to catch-22 scenarios as those in which “you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Perhaps you’re familiar with one such scenario regarding your own experience.

You graduate high school, in need of a job. However, you don’t have work experience. You arbitrarily must have experience to get a job, though you can’t obtain work experience until you have a job.

Worse yet, you then gain work experience elsewhere and now you no longer qualify for a specific job, because you’re overqualified due to your work experience. You’re damned if you do have work experience, damned if you don’t.

The reason I maintain that comprehension of dilemmas and paradoxes is important relates to the unhelpful process of self-disturbance. This common phenomenon is illustrated by the ABC model of REBT.

REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate that when an undesirable Action occurs and one Believes an unhelpful narrative about the event, it’s one’s unfavorable assumption and not the occurrence itself that causes an unpleasant Consequence. Dilemmas and paradoxes sometimes play into this self-disturbing process.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit, fair use

References:

BayesianSpectacles. (2021, September 30). Literal and liberal translations of Bertrand’s box paradox. Retrieved from https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/literal-and-liberal-translations-of-bertrands-box-paradox/

Freepik. (n.d.). Greek sculpture of secrets of the past [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/greek-sculpture-secrets-past_412499125.htm#fromView=serie&position=17

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2025, January 28). Consequence-free environment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequence-free-environment

Hollings, D. (2023, April 22). Control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2025, February 4). Money and the power. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/money-and-the-power

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

SCADS.AI. (2023, July 19). Cracking the code: The black box problem of AI. Retrieved from https://scads.ai/cracking-the-code-the-black-box-problem-of-ai/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Bertrand’s box paradox. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Catch-22. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Catch-22 (logic). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Classical logic. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Joseph Bertrand. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bertrand

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Joseph Heller. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Heller

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Logical consequence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Paradox. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox#Quine's_classification

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Paradoxes of material implication. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication#Paradox_of_entailment

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Principle of explosion. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Probability theory. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory