The (perhaps overly) charitable take on "It's not a paradox!" responses is that it's something which didn't appear impossible or weird to that responder, and the article failed to make the case for why there's even something that needs an explanation.

I'm curious to know what percentage of commenters who know exactly how mirrors work can perform simple tasks like assembling a puzzle with the same speed only looking through a mirror.

I don't think that would prove anything at all, since knowing how something works doesn't mean you can use it in place of your usual behaviour. You also have to unlearn manipualting things in non-mirror space.

Smarter Every Day actually has a video demonstrating a similar thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0

I know how a blindfold works and I can’t assemble a puzzle with a blindfold on. Is that curious?

> Paradoxes are about appearing, at first thought, to be impossible, not it being literally impossible.

That's not true, or at least it's not the whole truth. Real paradoxes do exist: A barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, who shaves the barber?

So if true paradoxes do exist, it seems fair to call out alleged paradoxes for not truly being paradoxes.

> Real paradoxes do exist: A barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, who shaves the barber?

I'm clearly missing something but how is that a paradox?

If the barber doesn't shave himself, then he must shave himself because he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves. But he only shaves those that don't shave themselves, so he cannot shave himself....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox

From your wikipedia link: 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?

If the answer is "no", then he's shaved from another barber and the problem is solved. Nowhere is stated there's only one barber in the world.

Tattoo artists don't tatoo themselves but they're not living paradoxes. How is this different?

Again, I'm sorry for the obvious elephant in the room I keep missing.

EDIT: I see your answer to sumtechguy, I understand now it's more metaphorical than pratical. In my understanding, the paradox seems to arise when you try to put all your existing elements to fit one of 2 kind of boxes, which are clearly not enough.

Or there is a second barber and they shave each other? If there is only one barber then it is a paradox.

There is only one barber and he's not bald or otherwise excluded from the 'everybody' in "he shaves everybody who doesn't shave themselves." It's not a lateral thinking problem, or a matter of thinking outside the box. The scenario described is simply impossible. Everybody, including the barber, is either shaved by the barber or [XOR] shaves themselves, which is impossible in the case of the barber.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

Parent poster forgot a critical condition for it to be a paradox. As they stated it's not, a second barber could shave both themself and the first barber.

The paradoxical statement would be "A barber shaves all those, and only those, who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?" Without the second condition (only those who don't shave themselves) it's non-paradoxical.

Replace 'A' with 'The' and it works. Tbh I assumed people were already familiar with the Barber Paradox and didn't word it defensively, but if you take 'a barber' as referring to a specific barber then it's a paradox.

Better paradox:

This statement is false.

Show me such a barber and I'll agree that they exist.

The paradox exists and consequently, the barber cannot.