Talk:Vicious circle: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
assess for WP:WikiProject Business |
Tag: |
||
| (27 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Virtuous circle and vicious circle/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Vicious circle/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes|maxkeepthreads=5}} |
|||
== Requested move 12 July 2022 == |
|||
==Merger proposal== |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
I '''oppose''' merging the [[Vicious circle]] article with this one. That article is a [[MOS:DAB|dab]] page, and this one describes economic and organizational theories in detail. [[User:Bry9000|Bry9000]] ([[User talk:Bry9000|talk]]) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|||
:It's been three weeks since the merge tag was added with no other comments, so I removed the merge tag. [[User:Bry9000|Bry9000]] ([[User talk:Bry9000|talk]]) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''moved per request'''. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 09:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
[[:Virtuous circle and vicious circle]] → {{no redirect|Vicious circle}} – [[Talk:Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_circle/Archives/2019|This archived 2019 comment]] from [[User:Nareek]] suggests that the title should be the other way around, as "vicious circle" is the much more common phrase. I'd go further and suggest moving the article to [[vicious circle]] and noting the (presumably later and derived?) variant in bold in the lead, per [[WP:OTHERNAMES]]. [[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 17:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 21:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Support.''' "Vicious circle" is a [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vicious+circle%2Cvirtuous+circle&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cvicious%20circle%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvirtuous%20circle%3B%2Cc0 much more widely used phrase], and most of the article (as currently written) is about vicious circles rather than virtuous ones. "Virtuous circle" should definitely remain as a redirect, but I don't think we need it in the title. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 20:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support alternate move''' to [[Vicious cycle]], which has about the same usage as "vicious circle", but has been [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vicious+circle%2Cvirtuous+circle%2Cvicious+cycle&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cvicious%20circle%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvirtuous%20circle%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvicious%20cycle%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cvicious%20circle%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvirtuous%20circle%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cvicious%20cycle%3B%2Cc0 steadily increasing] over time while usage of "vicious circle" has been steadily decreasing. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 22:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' ''circle'' or ''cycle''. Not that I think I'm representative of anyone beyond myself, but I'm not sure I've ''ever'' heard or read the term "virtuous circle". [[User:Primergrey|Primergrey]] ([[User talk:Primergrey|talk]]) 01:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' there are 2 separate but linked concepts. It would be wrong to give 1 precedence over the other. Wp:Common is not applicable here. Redirects can cater for them. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 21:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. What is shared between the two topics is the link to [[Positive feedback]], which has its own article (in fact, [[Positive feedback loop]] redirects there instead of here). Given that the content of this article is about the far more common concept of a vicious circle, this seems like an advisable move. I suggest adding a hatnote to [[Positive feedback]] for readers interested in the mechanism itself. That article notes that positive feedback is not inherently good or bad; fair enough, but adding "good" to "positive feedback" is not necessarily sufficient justification for having a separate article on virtuous circles. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' move to ''vicious circle'' as proposed. All the other terms are obscure IMO, but this one is reasonably common. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 06:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --> |
|||
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|||
==Clarification needed== |
|||
term is NOT ECONOMICAL BY IT SELF |
|||
:The unsourced single sentence: ''A virtuous circle is an equivalent system with a favorable outcome'', was moved here for discussion. Other than sharing some words I cannot see a correlation. |
|||
for me this page is a HIGHJACKING of the original use |
|||
:I see a move request comment indicating that the first (vicious circle) is the more common and the second (virtuous circle) is a variant, with the sentence showing equality. A closer example would be [[hamster wheel]]<ref>[https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hamster-wheel "hamster wheel"]</ref>, except the end result is usually that a situation becomes worse, more serious, or more severe, resulting in deleterious effects. |
|||
so i am AGAINST this merging since life is much more bigger than counting your corrupt way off file in " money" |
|||
:''I think this move was an error'' because the words actually have a different meaning so are antitheses to each other or [[oxymoron]]s. Consider: virtuous versus vicious. |
|||
'Honor killing' is a vicious circle. |
|||
:The metaphor rabbit hole (no, not the animal [[behavioral enrichment]]) that people fall into usually involves a revolving downward spiral. People in this situation often feel despair seeing no way out. |
|||
a commercial site that only wants add revenue instead of delivering information, MISUSES the concept of vicious circle by creating them on perpuse like an MONEY-TRAP |
|||
:The term vicious circle is not generally (actually in the real world -- not at all) associated with having a favorable outcome. By definition, and according to the opening in the lead, "A vicious circle (or cycle) is a complex chain of events that reinforces itself through a feedback loop, '''with detrimental results'''. The term, as commonly used, does not have an uptick, or "favorable" outcome. |
|||
so the economic part is the MISUSE |
|||
*Webster's definition of "vicious circle": "A chain of events in which the response to one difficulty creates a new problem that aggravates the original."<ref>[https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/vicious%20circle Webster on vicious circle]</ref> |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/95.96.201.236|95.96.201.236]] ([[User talk:95.96.201.236|talk]]) 16:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Webster's definition of "virtuous circle": "A chain of events in which one desirable occurrence leads to another which further promotes the first occurrence and so on resulting in a continuous process of improvement".<ref>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtuous%20circle Webster on virtuous circle]</ref> |
|||
:In economics it is a system with no tendency toward equilibrium. The words are contradictory. Wiktionary lists them as [[antonym]]s because they are actually [[Opposite (semantics)|opposite]]s<ref>[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viciouscircle Wiktionary on vicious circle]</ref> so one cannot be a variant of the other. |
|||
*[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65921085 In financial news] |
|||
*[[Virtue]]. -- [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
|||
shouldnt this be viscious cycle? |
|||
:Nope. Vicious is right, no S. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 2005 June 29 06:25 (UTC) |
|||
:And it is and has historically always been circle, not cycle. [[User:ChrisJBenson|ChrisJBenson]] ([[User talk:ChrisJBenson|talk]]) 07:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
The images don't look right. Some of the ovals have been cropped. [[User:Swirlix|Swirlix]] 01:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== History of theory? == |
|||
I'm helping someone with a thesis, and they want to use "Virtuous Circle" as the theoretical backbone. I'm having trouble finding the person who first developed the theory . . . Can it be attributed to one source? It sounds like it, especially with the "Twentieth Century" part. Can anyone help? Thanks! |
|||
To answer your question, I did some internet search and it appears that the phrase: vicious and virtuous economic cycles were not that popular until recently. The closest to a definition or an explanation that I could find is by International Institute of Management in an article written by Med Jones, titled US Economy Risks and Strategies for 2007-2007 – The article is dated June, 2006 |
|||
http://www.iim-edu.org/u.s.economyrisks/ |
|||
I’m including the definition/explanation below. |
|||
2) U.S. Economic Risks |
|||
This section provides a quick assessment of the U.S. economic health status. The basic commonsense formula to assess the health of an economy is as follows: |
|||
Over the long term, if government revenues are more than expenditures (surplus), then the economic health of the country is good, because the government can afford to invest in development projects such as research and development, education and infrastructure. With more income, the government can also afford to lower taxes, which increase corporate profits and attracts more foreign investors, resulting in more economic activities, creating more jobs and enlarging the consumer spending and government revenues overall despite income tax cuts. It is what I call a virtuous economic cycle. |
|||
Over the long term, if government revenues continue to be less than the expenditures (deficit). This will result in accumulated debt. An increasing government debt will result in higher interest payments, and less money available for socioeconomic development. To pay for the debt, the government will have to raise taxes, which will reduce the competitive position of the country in the global economy and chase investors away resulting in less economic activities and more job losses. In order to avoid higher unemployment and social instability, the government have to raise more debt to fund spending and welfare support by raising the interest rate which will increase the cost of money, reduce corporate profits and slow economic investments, thus resulting in more job losses. It is what I call a vicious economic cycle. |
|||
What is interesting is the article predicted the economic crisis and used the terms vicious economic cycles and virtual economic cycles to explain the current sharp decline cycle. |
|||
Although this might not be the oldest use of the terms, but I hope it helps as a source. The other interesting thing about the article is that I Googled the phrase, US Economy Risks, and found it to be the first search result out of about 100 million pages, so it must have had a lot of exposure and influenced the current popularity of the terms. It was also widely quoted by the media like Scoop New Zealand, Bloomberg, Reuters and so on. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.170.10.158|70.170.10.158]] ([[User talk:70.170.10.158|talk]]) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
CMF <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Engender|Engender]] ([[User talk:Engender|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Engender|contribs]]) 7 March, 2006.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> |
|||
The comment about austin powers's movie seems a bit misplaced here. I think it should be deleted. |
|||
Zé - 21/08/2006 |
|||
Indeed. Fat Bastard's particular example of the vicious cycle seems unnecessary. |
|||
== 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. [[User:ChrisJBenson|ChrisJBenson]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
[[User:DoctorJS3|DoctorJS3]] 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
''Monetarize'' is indeed a word (but <nowiki>===</nowiki> 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:<br /> |
|||
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/monetarize<br /> |
|||
[[User:ChrisJBenson|ChrisJBenson]] ([[User talk:ChrisJBenson|talk]]) 07:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Euthyphro Dilemma == |
|||
[[Euthyphro dilemma]] is cited as another example of cycle, but it is not a cycle at all, rather a dilemma about the implications of two hypotheses in theistic moral. The only "cycle" it could imply would be a mutual logical lack, which cannot be properly called a vicious nor virtuous cycle because it does not concern cyclic reinforcement. I suggest that the reference to this dillemma be removed. [[Special:Contributions/24.202.61.223|24.202.61.223]] ([[User talk:24.202.61.223|talk]]) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== References? == |
|||
This is a good article, but needs citations, and a reference section - not a notes section.--Benjamin 08:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Benjamin9832|Benjamin9832]] ([[User talk:Benjamin9832|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Benjamin9832|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== 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 [http://books.google.com/books?id=PHNLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA305&dq=%22vicious+circle%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ai6eU56AGNPqoASx8oBg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22vicious%20circle%22&f=false 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 [[Vicious_Circle_(disambiguation)|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.<br /> |
|||
With thanks in advance, from [[User:ChrisJBenson|ChrisJBenson]] ([[User talk:ChrisJBenson|talk]]) 23:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 03:28, 24 January 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Requested move 12 July 2022
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Virtuous circle and vicious circle → Vicious circle – This archived 2019 comment from User:Nareek suggests that the title should be the other way around, as "vicious circle" is the much more common phrase. I'd go further and suggest moving the article to vicious circle and noting the (presumably later and derived?) variant in bold in the lead, per WP:OTHERNAMES. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. "Vicious circle" is a much more widely used phrase, and most of the article (as currently written) is about vicious circles rather than virtuous ones. "Virtuous circle" should definitely remain as a redirect, but I don't think we need it in the title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternate move to Vicious cycle, which has about the same usage as "vicious circle", but has been steadily increasing over time while usage of "vicious circle" has been steadily decreasing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support circle or cycle. Not that I think I'm representative of anyone beyond myself, but I'm not sure I've ever heard or read the term "virtuous circle". Primergrey (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose there are 2 separate but linked concepts. It would be wrong to give 1 precedence over the other. Wp:Common is not applicable here. Redirects can cater for them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. What is shared between the two topics is the link to Positive feedback, which has its own article (in fact, Positive feedback loop redirects there instead of here). Given that the content of this article is about the far more common concept of a vicious circle, this seems like an advisable move. I suggest adding a hatnote to Positive feedback for readers interested in the mechanism itself. That article notes that positive feedback is not inherently good or bad; fair enough, but adding "good" to "positive feedback" is not necessarily sufficient justification for having a separate article on virtuous circles. Dekimasuよ! 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support move to vicious circle as proposed. All the other terms are obscure IMO, but this one is reasonably common. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification needed
[edit]- The unsourced single sentence: A virtuous circle is an equivalent system with a favorable outcome, was moved here for discussion. Other than sharing some words I cannot see a correlation.
- I see a move request comment indicating that the first (vicious circle) is the more common and the second (virtuous circle) is a variant, with the sentence showing equality. A closer example would be hamster wheel[1], except the end result is usually that a situation becomes worse, more serious, or more severe, resulting in deleterious effects.
- I think this move was an error because the words actually have a different meaning so are antitheses to each other or oxymorons. Consider: virtuous versus vicious.
- The metaphor rabbit hole (no, not the animal behavioral enrichment) that people fall into usually involves a revolving downward spiral. People in this situation often feel despair seeing no way out.
- The term vicious circle is not generally (actually in the real world -- not at all) associated with having a favorable outcome. By definition, and according to the opening in the lead, "A vicious circle (or cycle) is a complex chain of events that reinforces itself through a feedback loop, with detrimental results. The term, as commonly used, does not have an uptick, or "favorable" outcome.
- Webster's definition of "vicious circle": "A chain of events in which the response to one difficulty creates a new problem that aggravates the original."[2]
- Webster's definition of "virtuous circle": "A chain of events in which one desirable occurrence leads to another which further promotes the first occurrence and so on resulting in a continuous process of improvement".[3]
- In economics it is a system with no tendency toward equilibrium. The words are contradictory. Wiktionary lists them as antonyms because they are actually opposites[4] so one cannot be a variant of the other.