Talk:Time preference

Time preference was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 1, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Archive 1

The paragraph on Mises' time preference theory

I'm quite familiar with von Mises' views on time preference, I have re-read the cited page, and I really don't see how, or where the inconsistency arises. Neither do I see how the interpretation of the cited page can be deemed correct. If anyone could explain why Mises is cited as being inconsistend I'd be glad to hear the reasons. If, on the other hand, he is not inconsistent, I'd recommend removing or at least modifying the paragraph, because I think diminishing Mises' contribution to time preference theory as defective - although it's not faultless - is misleading. Marci von Heves 13:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberleutnantMarton (talk • contribs)

Terminology

Regarding the terminology, from Frederick et al (2002): Template:Quote

Undue weight

Austrian school section gives undue weight. Suggest removal. Objections? LK (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: I see the argument, but it is relevant and referenced. It would be better to build up other content rather than remove this relevant school of thought. Klbrain (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Discounted utility

I propose merging Discounted utility into this article as they seem to be discussing the same issue. I acknowledge that I have limited knowledge in this area. Daask (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these are concepts that deal with the same area, but there are differences between them. Discounted utility is an economic concept that refers to the value of something. Time preference is a concept that is more related to the field of psychology, where it is used to describe a particular characteristic of people. The connection between them is that the preference of a particular person's time can certainly affect the way in which delay affects the value he attributes to something. But each has its own meaning. For example, the economic aspect can affect business considerations, the psychological aspect is expressed in the fields of education and treatment in cases of difficulty in postponing gratification etc. Chenspec (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to support to merge proposal, but on reflection also oppose. The primary reason is that there are other economic topic pages which are even more closely associated with Discounted utility, such as Discount function and Time value of money. I'll close given that there has been opposition and no support over more than a year. At least the topics are linked through the see also. Klbrain (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"European thrifty spirit"

What are we doing in that last section, about Turgot? It's certainly not consistent with an encyclopedic tone/neutral perspective to refer to a "European thrifty spirit" as some unsourced fact. Is this a direct quote from the scholar mentioned? If so this should be indicated. If not this definitely needs to be reworded, if not stricken completely. 108.59.63.90 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs section on cultural differences

The article needs a section on cultural differences in time preferences between countries, with a link to Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. Long term orientation is typical of East Asian cultures, while short term orientation is typical of Latin American cultures. Agnerf (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology 220A

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SurfingPenguinPhd (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SurfingPenguinPhd (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Time preference/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SurfingPenguinPhd (talk · contribs) 23:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 02:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quickfailing this nomination. First, the article does not comply with the Manual of Style layout guideline (GA criterion 1b). Second, there is an uncited section and several paragraphs lack citations (2b). Third, it appears to contain the article authors' original thoughts, and does not neutrally describe the subject in summary style (2c; 3b; 4). For example:

Work on time preference with John Rae’s “The Sociological Theory of Capital” in an attempt to answer why wealth differed across nations.
However, they failed to interpret the interest on a riskless loan and hence denounced the time preference discounter as sinful and usurious.
This may be due to the varying elicitation methods for the studies themselves. Put another way, how a study asks questions to uncover the discount rate can influence the result itself. (also lacks any citations)

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.