Wikipedian explained why Zelensky had won: различия между версиями

Нет описания правки
{{цитата|The scientific and technological achievements of the [[:en:w:20th century|20th century]] are too complex to be repeated, and sometimes even simply maintained.}}
 
The audience’s reaction to the presentation was very different. As the Tyumen [[:en:w:Online newspaper|online newspaper]] «Vsluh.ru» [http://www.vsluh.ru/news/society/340163 reported] about the lecture on April, 4, some listeners expressed the view that usage of archetypes is impossible. At the same time, the editor-in-chief of the «[[:en:w:Moskovskij Komsomolets|Moskovskij Komsomolets in Tyumen]]» newspaper Vyacheslav Devyatkov [https://tumen.mk.ru/social/2019/04/17/v-tochke-kipeniya-obsudili-vliyanie-na-razvitie-sociuma-tekh-ili-inykh-psikhotipov.html was] more supportive of the speaker:
{{цитата|In fact, the question is open. But the relationship of history and psychology probably still exists. According to psychologists, everyday mistakes, technological disasters, economic downturns, terrorist attacks, mental health problems — these are all phenomena of the same type.}}
 
Private [[:en:w:Trader (finance)|trader]] Alexander Pytiev, who was present at the presentation in Moscow, told our correspondent that he
{{цитата|«…is always interested in theories that work on personal level, a level of an individual, and also have claims to bring to a level of analytical continuations. Firstly, to smaller organized groups, and later to more and more large communities. I liked the presentation, it was interestingly designed. The format of the discussion wasn’t very successful, but it seems to become better in future.}}
 
Private [[:en:w:Investor|investor]] Stanislav Taktaev, who also participated in the Moscow presentation, shared the following opinion with our correspondent:
{{цитата|In his speech, Dmitry Koshelev set an interesting predictive model relevant to what happened in history and is happening now in the world. How much it really works, we will find out soon. The archetypal approach itself, of course, is controversial, but the experience of its practical use, for example, in mass art allows us to think that it has real grounds for it.}}