Talk:Vicious circle/Archives/2017

Question on Reciprocal Altruism & Virtuous Cycle
How are these 2 different ? --பராசக்தி 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the seven year delay! A Virtuous Circle is a circular sequence of two or more events wherein each event ALWAYS triggers the next one in the circle (usually with some delay). and the last one triggers the first, resulting in an overall improvement that will continue until externally interrupted, or approaching some limiting factor. In contrast, a Reciprocal Altruism consists of two separate sequences of two events each, with the following properties: Using N(A)==>P(B) and N(B)==>P(A) to denote the Reciprocal Altruism, where N(A) is a detrimental (negative) event for A that ALWAYS triggers the improvement (positive) event P(B) for B. There is an increased likelihood (but not a guarantee) that as a result of P(B), the detrimental event N(B) might be triggered later, which in turn ALWAYS triggers the improvement P(A). This likely reciprocation is an altruism if the net result of BOTH sequences is an improvement to both A and B.


 * In its complete analysis, a Reciprocal Altruism consists of four events and the second pair is not guaranteed to follow from the first pair. In contrast, a Virtuous (or Vicious) Circle is a chain of guaranteed events that will continue forever if not interrupted by external or limiting factors. That probably didn't help and wasn't worth waiting for. ChrisJBenson (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Monetarize" is not a word
The word you want is "monetize." Fixing the text isn't enough here; the original poster needs to re-do his graphics as well. DoctorJS3 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Monetarize is indeed a word (but === is not a level 2 heading terminator). There is no reference list section around this neck of the woods, so I am placing one inline thus:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/monetarize

ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the original contexts?
Before the term vicious circle was used in an Economics sense, it was used in the general sense described by the disambiguation page:
 * Vicious circle, a complex of events that reinforces itself through a feedback loop

Early instances are easily found by searching Google Books. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it is often referred to as a sophism - meaning an argument that is fallacious because it is assumed true in order to prove itself. This is a slightly different specialization of the disambiguation definition. Although not restricted to discussions between Catholics and Protestants, those references are clearly unrelated to the field of economics, and clearly a well-established phrase even centuries ago. However, despite the existence of a link in the disambiguation page, there is no non-Economics article, one should be established for the original (and for me still common) non-Economics usage exemplified by those 18th and 19th century cases. If I have the time, I will start such an article, but I am of course interested in any informed consensus.

With thanks in advance, from ChrisJBenson (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Small text

Twitter reference not worthy of Encyclopedia
The section on Twitter is not worthy of the Encyclopedia as it is referenced by a blog post that is part of a marketing effort. I will edit out the section because of this. Hu (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virtuous circle and vicious circle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130401130731/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9310 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9310

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)