Talk:Vicious circle

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2017 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Merger proposal

I oppose merging the Vicious circle article with this one. That article is a dab page, and this one describes economic and organizational theories in detail. Bry9000 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since the merge tag was added with no other comments, so I removed the merge tag. Bry9000 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

term is NOT ECONOMICAL BY IT SELF for me this page is a HIGHJACKING of the original use so i am AGAINST this merging since life is much more bigger than counting your corrupt way off file in " money" 'Honor killing' is a vicious circle. 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 so the economic part is the MISUSE 95.96.201.236 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of article

shouldnt this be viscious cycle?

Nope. Vicious is right, no S. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 06:25 (UTC)

And it is and has historically always been circle, not cycle. ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The images don't look right. Some of the ovals have been cropped. Swirlix 01:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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