what paradox?

I keep using this phrase many times to explain how simple thinking can make a big impact. Many times my colleagues ask me for gyan or some books. And in the event that I need to recommend a simple book, I explain ‘this is really quite straight or simple or logical. My wife understands this.’
It sounds derogatory but it isn’t meant to be. Its equivalent of my grandmother can run faster than that. It is the equivalent of - my wife is a house wife and you guys are supposedly smarter and more exposed while working but you are unable to think clearly. My wife is able to think better and clear.
Jasmine is a clear thinker with an unmuddled mind. It’s surprising how she refuses to see the possibilities in the choice offered. Sometimes it can drive me up the wall as I tend to create tree structures in my mind while she simply sees it as one road. But I learn from her to keep things simple and straight.
One interesting piece was when I was explaining the book Logicomix (link) to someone. It’s a graphic novel that tackles a seemingly infinite and complex subject. My colleague asked me if it was really that simple. The inference being, that me a different being, can common people understand it. I said ‘my wife understood the Russell paradox thanks to the book.’ In such situations since my wife would share most of my life experiences she tends to be the comparison point if I am removed from the equation.
But the book is that lovely. It helped me understand to whatever level possible, some depths of math. And I loved the Russell Paradox. To prove the books superiority I sent the wiki paragraph about it to the colleague and said, my wife now understands this thanks to Logiocomix. Here is the para reproduced for your interest. If you believe (or don’t believe) that something as complex as this can (or cant) be explained in a simple manner - then please buy the book. I loved the book. And yes, Jasmine loved it as well.

“It might be assumed that, for any formal criterion, a set exists whose members are those objects (and only those objects) that satisfy the criterion; but this assumption is disproved by a set containing exactly the sets that are not members of themselves. If such a set qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition. This contradiction is Russell's paradox.”

the gist is simple explained as - if it does... it doesnt and if it doesnt then it does.