Jump to content

Talk:Animal spirits (Keynes)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin of the idea

[edit]

Just wanted to say that the "bull", "bear" and "animal spirits" are not introduced by Keynes in The General Theory. I believe he first mentions them in his Treatise on Money, but I'm not sure because I haven't read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannischgott (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Add wplinks to "emotion or affect" : Two pages, two ideas which are the Raison d'être for this article? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages, one idea, and we all know what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Differentiation (linguistics). If curious, this is also potentially of interest: Differentiation (sociology). 99.181.151.5 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely Discrimination, as opposed to Indiscriminate by User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) at Talk:Dirt! The Movie. 99.181.147.122 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, the use of the word "affect" you want to add and link means "emotion", so should not be added or linked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arthur Rubin removed [1] affect, User:99.181.155.122 only reverted. Let's keep this an authentic performance, please. 99.181.139.225 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to use or link "affect". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would be better, Affect (psychology). 99.19.42.89 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Why wasn't that in the disambiguation, affect. It's still not appropriate here, but at least there's a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no reason to "clarify" the word "emotion", unless Keynes did it himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about clarifying addition of Mood (psychology) ? 99.181.150.109 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about the original, misleading addition of Mood (psychology). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still no reason to include affect (psychology) or mood (psychology). Discuss? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion

[edit]

The wikipedia article on Emotion is beyond "common", why not wikilink it? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, what's uncommon there is not relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there? 99.181.141.143 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify your wording Arthur. 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)
It should be obvious. There is the article emotion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emotions are clearly central to this article, so why not wikilink to it? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully agree with WP:OVERLINK, but I follow it. It says "Avoid linking plain English words." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You, Art, stated that emotion is uncommon. And the term Animal spirits (Keynes) is uncommon, and the understanding of emotions in economics is uncommon ... see Neuroeconomics for example ... even more uncommon. Emotions are central to this article, clearly. 99.190.85.111 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I said "what's uncommon there is not in our article." I didn't say there actually was anything uncommon there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Hardly, just looking at wp's emotions TOC. 99.56.120.67 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the IP editors concerned with this do not accept the guidance in WP:OVERLINK. "Emotions" is clearly a common English word. It is properly linked in the See Also section. What is worse, the IP editor/s involved are labeling AR's edits as vandalism in the edit summary. Such is not the case, and the label only shows that these/this editor does not follow (or understand) WP:AGF.--S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)15:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moggridge

[edit]

Exactly what does Moggridge say in Keynes On The Wireless about Doyle & Wodehouse? If there is a tie-in between what Keynes read as a kid and animal spirits, it might be worthwhile. But let's not engage in speculation or improper WP:SYN.--S. Rich (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal spirits (Keynes). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_spirits_(Keynes)&oldid=1198756335"