Gave Civ V yet another try...it's still not doing it for me

[Martin Alvito]

Part of my point is that the advancement of knowledge and the advancement of technology are not the same thing. Whether microsoft can sell one of their products is irrelevant.

I wasn't clear about why this matters. The Yang quote in SMAC is accurate - technological advance is iterative. It is also both path dependent and market driven. This means that the rejection of technologies by the market can hinder further advancement. That's the underlying rationale for your W term; some societies have institutional features which interfere with the adoption of efficient advances, which in turn precludes further advances.

In the example of tablets, you could argue that the rejection of the tablet technology hindered information exchange and slowed progress as a result. The example suggests that identifying the societal factors that cause rejection of new technologies isn't as easy as it looks.

The presence of competition (for survival or resources) is another one that comes to mind.

Is your hypothesis that this hinders or helps progress? Either is plausible. There has to be an interaction effect here.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I wasn't clear about why this matters. The Yang quote in SMAC is accurate - technological advance is iterative. It is also both path dependent and market driven. This means that the rejection of technologies by the market can hinder further advancement. That's the underlying rationale for your W term; some societies have institutional features which interfere with the adoption of efficient advances, which in turn precludes further advances.

In the example of tablets, you could argue that the rejection of the tablet technology hindered information exchange and slowed progress as a result. The example suggests that identifying the societal factors that cause rejection of new technologies isn't as easy as it looks.

I don't really consider poor sales or uptake of a particular product as a society's unwillingness to adopt the technology. One could just use recent knowledge to make a device that serves no purpose other than to demonstrate the technology, or perhaps it's just too expensive. In this case, it's not that society is unwilling to accept that tablet PCs are possible, because they obviously are. They just don't want them.

An example that better illustrates my point, but for which I can't make a very detailed description, was the willingness of society (at large) to accept the sun-centric view of the solar system (or alternatively reject the Earth-centric view of the universe). This is probably the best known case of religion or beliefs getting in the way (or slowing) the advance of scientific knowledge.

Basically I was getting more at the unwillingness of people to change their beliefs - not the unwillingness to change their spending habits or day-to-day behaviour.

Is your hypothesis that this hinders or helps progress? Either is plausible. There has to be an interaction effect here.

Helps. Maybe it hinders sometimes too (removing those free man hours, reducing wealth and resources, people dieing = falling population). Whatever the case, it's probably a factor to be considered.

 

[JonoLith]

An example that better illustrates my point, but for which I can't make a very detailed description, was the willingness of society (at large) to accept the sun-centric view of the solar system (or alternatively reject the Earth-centric view of the universe). This is probably the best known case of religion or beliefs getting in the way (or slowing) the advance of scientific knowledge.

I truly do not want this to deteriorate into a religious argument of any kind, but I do need to correct you here.

During the time this specific conversation was going on (The conversation about whether or not the earth or the sun was the center of the universe) there was no separation between Science and Religion in the way there is today. Professors would often be members of the clergy, and most of the most noted Scientists that are thought of as strictly Scientists were intensely involved with Religion.

Part of any Scientific conversation is the position of the skeptic. Any Scientist will attempt to thwart any theory proposed as a matter of scientific principle. It so happens that at that time most scientists are also priests, or clergymen, or monks. From our modern perspective we see this as "Religion holding back Science" when the reality of that day was that it was Science holding back Science... as it is designed to do. That's part of the process of Science, and it will always remain that way if the system wishes to remain honest.

Please abandon this position that Religion is responsible for holding back Science somehow.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Basically I was getting more at the unwillingness of people to change their beliefs - not the unwillingness to change their spending habits or day-to-day behaviour.

That came through clearly. But Douglass North's conclusion that guilds severely hampered technological progress in the Middle Ages by removing incentives to innovate also applies here. Rigid belief systems are one way that societal conditions could hamper technological progress, but they're a subset of a broader category - socio/institutional factors which cause a society to reject profitable change rather than accept it.

I'll drop the tablets discussion because it obviously isn't helping illustrate.

Helps. Maybe it hinders sometimes too (removing those free man hours, reducing wealth and resources, people dieing = falling population). Whatever the case, it's probably a factor to be considered.

My suspicion is that it varies by the nature of the competition. It would appear at a glance that a space race or US-Japan economic clash is better than a war, but that a bloody war with many parties is better for innovation than a "minor" war. It sounds like the question could be a compelling dissertation topic.

Any Scientist will attempt to thwart any theory proposed as a matter of scientific principle.

That's an oversimplification. The most widely held modern view follows Lakatos, who argued that you falsify existing theories when a theory that adds excess empirical content without unduly adding additional complexity comes along.

That's a fancy way of saying that scientists in general aren't opposed to change, just change for the sake of change. Specific scientists tend to oppose or embrace change based on the implications of the proposed revision of theory for their own standing within the community. (ie: Does this new work make me look smart or stupid?)

 

[PieceOfMind]

I truly do not want this to deteriorate into a religious argument of any kind, but I do need to correct you here.

During the time this specific conversation was going on (The conversation about whether or not the earth or the sun was the center of the universe) there was no separation between Science and Religion in the way there is today. Professors would often be members of the clergy, and most of the most noted Scientists that are thought of as strictly Scientists were intensely involved with Religion.

Part of any Scientific conversation is the position of the skeptic. Any Scientist will attempt to thwart any theory proposed as a matter of scientific principle. It so happens that at that time most scientists are also priests, or clergymen, or monks. From our modern perspective we see this as "Religion holding back Science" when the reality of that day was that it was Science holding back Science... as it is designed to do. That's part of the process of Science, and it will always remain that way if the system wishes to remain honest.

Please abandon this position that Religion is responsible for holding back Science somehow.

I'm sure you get my point. The specifics of the example, or whether I should have used a different one, are really irrelevant. Though I disagree with your argument, I'm not going to continue that discussion here.

That came through clearly. But Douglass North's conclusion that guilds severely hampered technological progress in the Middle Ages by removing incentives to innovate also applies here. Rigid belief systems are one way that societal conditions could hamper technological progress, but they're a subset of a broader category - socio/institutional factors which cause a society to reject profitable change rather than accept it.

I'll drop the tablets discussion because it obviously isn't helping illustrate.

I'm really not trying to get deep in this.

My suspicion is that it varies by the nature of the competition. It would appear at a glance that a space race or US-Japan economic clash is better than a war, but that a bloody war with many parties is better for innovation than a "minor" war. It sounds like the question could be a compelling dissertation topic.

Probably. Not for me though.

 

[Shmike]

Yeah I stopped playing too... It's ok, hopefully by the end of the year it'll be in better shape.

 

[Solo4114]

I haven't tried a game since the patch, but my understanding is that it didn't fundamentally change the game. If what you disliked were core design elements, the game is likely still not going to really satisfy. If, however, you felt it "just needed a few tweaks" it's probably much more enjoyable now.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I'm really not trying to get deep in this.

Didn't think you were. Just figured that the arguments of someone with more Nobel Prizes than us were both germane and useful given the topic.

Probably. Not for me though.

Never said you had to write it

Worth pulling out of the bag if asked, though. I'm glad that the subject came up.

 

[JohnnyW]

I haven't tried a game since the patch, but my understanding is that it didn't fundamentally change the game. If what you disliked were core design elements, the game is likely still not going to really satisfy. If, however, you felt it "just needed a few tweaks" it's probably much more enjoyable now.

Exactly why I haven't played since January. Shockingly that coincided with when I started playing EU3.

 

[JoeBas]

Exactly why I haven't played since January. Shockingly that coincided with when I started playing EU3.

What? You like EU3? *GASP* I hadn't heard...

Moderator Action: No need to mock other members.