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.

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)