The cyclic logic of paradox

Some family therapists have focused on paradox. I present some of these paradoxes as logical cycles, including some raised in “Change Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution” by Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch.

The therapeutic focus on paradox is clearly apparent in “Paradox and Counterparadox” by Mara Selvini Palazzoli.

I am reworking this page: 27 Dec 2025

On this page:

Paradox definition

A paradox is a statement or situation that may be true but seems impossible or difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics. For example, it’s a strange paradox that people who say you shouldn’t criticise the government criticise it as soon as they disagree with it.

( Cambridge online dictionary: dictionary.cambridge.org)

The paradox of a real man

A woman says to a man, “I was a fool to marry you. I thought I could train you to become a real man.” (Watzlawick et al., p 65)

(1) Man acts like a real man.		(2) Man is following his training.

(4) Man is NOT following his training.		(3) Man is not acting like a real man.

Say the man acts like a real man (node 1), then
he is following his training (node 2), so
he is not acting like a real man (node 3), but as
he is not following his training and is acting independently (node 4),
he is acting like a real man (node 1).

The classic liar paradox

Let’s consider a classic example of a logical paradox and how that works.

Epimenides the Cretan says that all the Cretans are liars.

Another form of this paradox is when Larry says, “I always lie”. (Let’s label the liar Larry.)

Here is a formulation of this paradox shown as a cycle.

(1) Assume that Larry is truthful.		(2) He says he always lies.

(4) He says he always lies.		(3) Assume that he is lying.

Assume that Larry is not lying, i.e., truthful (node 1). However, he says he is lying (node 2), so you must assume what he says is correct and then assume he is lying (node 3).
Then, assume that he is lying (node 3), i.e., that what he says is wrong. Well, he has asserted that he is lying (node 4), so now you must assume what he says is wrong and conclude that he is not lying (node 1). This closes the logical loop and leaves you in an infinite spin of uncertainty.

The logic forms a cycle, an unchanging system in which the listener’s conclusion endlessly oscillates. This paradox can be a mind teaser, but becomes clearer when viewed as a cycle, as in the diagram.

A similar paradoxical statement is “This statement is false”

Paradox: Do not follow my instructions.

The instruction, “Do not follow my instructions”, is also a paradox.


Follow the instructions.		Do NOT follow the instructions.

In this paradoxical cycle:

When you “follow the instructions”, you “do not follow the instructions”, and
When you “do not follow the instructions”, you “follow the instructions”.

Several other demands are similar to this:

Be spontaneous, i.e., follow your inner drive, not an external command.
Be a man, i.e., be a leader and do not follow any order or training to lead.)
Study because you want to, not because I tell you to.

Paradox: Be spontaneous

When a teacher tells an improvisation student, Sam, to be spontaneous, this creates a paradox. (Watzlawick et al, p 64-68)

(1) Sam is acting as instructed, being spontaneous.		(2) Judgement: Sam is not being spontaneous because he is acting under instruction

(4) Judgement: Sam is being spontaneous, his own man.		(3) Sam is not acting as instructed

When a person is spontaneous, they act guided by their own impulses rather than controlled by external influences. If you say to me, “Be spontaneous”, then you trap me in a paradox.

When Sam is acting as instructed and trying to be spontaneous (node 1), he is following the instruction to be spontaneous but is being controlled by external influences (node 2), and so (3) Sam is not improvising and is not acting as instructed (node 3).
When Sam is not acting as instructed (node 3), he is being his own man (node 4), and so is acting as instructed and being spontaneous (node 1).

It also looks like this:


Sam is being spontaneous.		Sam is being spontaneous.

Here:

When Sam follows the instruction, he is not following the instruction, and
When he is not following the instruction, he is following the instruction.

This situation is a no-win situation. The instruction traps Sam in a paradox: he can neither follow it nor not follow it.

If this were true, the situation would be unsatisfactory for Sam and the instructor.

Paradox: I want you to want to study & not follow orders

Set the scene with two paragraphs from Watzlawick.

“A mother and son become caught in a paradox when the mother says: I want my son to learn to do things and I want him to do things – but I want him to really want to do them. I mean, he could follow orders blindly and not want to. … I cannot agree with ordering him to do it – even though if he were left entirely alone, he would never do his homework. Without telling them, any kid’s room would end up knee-deep in clothes and toys.” (Watzlawick et al., p 62)

“She wants her son to comply with what she demands of him, not because she demands it, but spontaneously, of his own will. She insists, “I want you to want to study” (ibid, p 64)

The mother wants her son to study, and wants him to want to study. This is a no-win situation for both the mother and son:

If he does not do his homework, she disapproves.
If he does his homework, she thinks he really does not want to study, and is only doing it for her, and so she disapproves.


Son follows his mother’s wishes.		Son does NOT follow his mother’s wishes.

In this cycle:

When he follows his mother’s wishes and studies, he is not following her wishes about following his own desires.
When he does not follow her wishes about study, he is following her wishes because he is following his own desires, not hers.

The mother has set up a situation in which the son cannot meet both of her demands, because she is sure he does not want to do his homework. He has shown this.

The son cannot follow his mother’s two conflicting demands:

Instruction: study because you want to, not because I tell you to.
.
Son follows his mother’s instructions and studies
Mother disapproves because she thinks he is studying unwillingly
Son is not following her instruction,
So the son is following her instruction by disobeying.
.
Instruction: study because you want to, not because I tell you to.
Son follows his mother’s instruction and does not study.
Mother disapproves because he is not studying
Son is not following her instruction.

Instruction: Study because you want to, not because I tell you to.

Obedience Option 1: Study	Obedience Option 2: Not Study
Son follows his mother’s instruction and studies	Son follows his mother’s instruction and does not study
Mother disapproves because she thinks he is studying unwillingly	Mother disapproves because he is not studying

Success as a paradox

“One of the most dangerous experiences human beings can have is success … because you tend to become quite superstitious and repetitious. … and decide that [everyone] ought to do that, when in fact that’s only one of a myriad of ways of getting the same result.”
(Frogs into Princes: Bandler & Grinder, p 23)

When you view success this way, it becomes paradoxical: success tends to lead to the failure of becoming narrow-minded.

A paradox in gambling

Problem gambling client Zed put himself in a paradoxical situation. His “success” led to “failure”. His success at feeling respected while gambling led him to return to the race track, which repeatedly lost him respect at home and at work. When you focus narrowly on Zed’s winning streaks, his gambling boosted his feeling of respect. However, when you focus on the whole picture, his gambling stripped him of respect.

(1) Gambling to feel respected		(2) Gambling losses

(4) Feeling distained		(3) Big problems

The barber’s paradox

The barber is the “one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves”. The question is, does the barber shave himself?

The barber shaves men who do not shave themselves

(1) The barber shaves himself		(2) The barber shaves men who do not shave themselves

(4) The barber shaves men who do not shave themselves		(3) The barber does not shave himself

Assume that the barber shaves himself.
Applying the paradox, “the barber shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves.”
So, the barber does not shave himself.
Applying the paradox again, “the barber shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves”, so now, it seems that the barber does shave himself, and we are back at the first assumption of step 1.

First loaded 2020: Updated 27 Dec 2025