Talk:Critical positivity ratio

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Losada Ratio

it would be good to create a redirect here from Losada ratio. Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Unclear

This article is very unclear and never actually defines the "Losada Line". The article says who found the line, its "ratio", and that it "separates people who are able to reach a complex understanding of others", but it never tells us what the line is. Nor what a separated person or a "complex understanding" is. The sentence claiming it "bifurcates the type of dynamics ..." is pure psychobabble.

The wording of the article suggests it is a geographical location, like the Mason-Dixon line or 49th parallel north. --Corvus (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone & purpose

The tone is not encyclopedic. Also the article seems like a plug for someone's theory. Crasshopper (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debunked

... a theory which has been convincingly debunked. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/16/death-of-a-theory Richard Gill (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian Today (19/1/2014)

In the Grone today, a quote from Nick Brown

"This wasn't fraud. It was a brain fart".

Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piling on =

The Fredrickson findings are quite solid. There is a RANGE of positivity ratio, around 3, that continues to correlate with measures of flourishing, and that led to interesting interventions that she discusses in her book. I found that this correlation was true even for whole countries, based on UN data on emotions in 150 countries. Losada tacked on an over-intepretation, and that was wrong. But the critics fell all over themselves in a game to prove who is the smartest and sassiest by making the most over the top claims about how everything was a horrible fraud. I think that's the scandal, that people won't actually look at the work, and they conflate an extraneous technique with the actual results. They just want to act big and pile on. Kent Myers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.81.129.207 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]