Talk:Paradox psychology

suspect material

The original article looks like one-man's effort full of own observations boosted by a long list of publications that bear little relevance to original claims. Where is the scientific value in the observation that humans are upright animals, and why is this a "paradox"? Equally well bird flight might be labelled a paradox without adding any value semantics. Quote from the original:

Paradox psychology focuses on the obvious fact that man exists as a 'living paradox'. This paradox is indicated in many ways; he lives in an animal body but walks upright; his DNA is programmed to function instinctually, yet he asserts free-will; he is smart enough to 'know better', but tends to repeat past mistakes. As such, it could be argued that the study of 'man as a paradox' is most closely aligned with man's human essence.

no use

This article is linked solely by bots that suggest improved wikification. No psychology article at Wikipedia refers to paradox psychology (Dec 3, 2019). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilanCela (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

deletion

The article should be subject to deletion. All uses on the web seem to point to Eliot P Kaplan and his book of the same title.

good article?

Very well-written and encouraging article! Unfortunately when I checked the reference for Eliot (E P) Kaplan, it was very difficult to find the reference. Googling the publisher cited in this article, what I first found published in Kingston, NJ by Civic (not Civil) Research Institute http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/ was The Sex Offender LAW REPORT (emphasis mine). On the publisher's website I searched "Sex Offender" and "Kaplan" - no results. Fortunately when I reviewed the publisher's list of publications I saw "The Sex Offender" edited by BARBARA K. SCHWARTZ (that citation would have helped!). There I found Vol. 6, Chapter 4 and E P Kaplan's article in the Table of Contents. I hope this will be helpful. KPadreSoy (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)