Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirHoneyBadger]

NW_Kohaku: Sorry, I haven't had a good chance to do much posting for the last 2 days, so a lot of information and ideas were sitting around in my head--and I still have a lot on magic that I want to get out.



I don't honestly know if there's a good way to make the division between a theoretical technology and an applied one, in Dwarf Fortress, but I would suspect that, if there's a way to link demand for a product with technological growth, one key to that might have something to do with modeling our Fortress's interaction with the MountainHome, and there being some sort of unseen global event tracker/producer that can take your relationship between the MountainHome--in very basic terms of just supplying their demands, to start with--and extrapolate from that, how well the dwarf civilization as a whole is doing in the world.

This could start translating into something where, if you aren't producing more advanced goods, you start getting more demands for raw resources (leaving you less for your own Fortress), and increasingly heavy migrant waves (of unskilled, low-stat dwarfs looking for minimum wage work in the mines).
It might also mean that you start getting attacked by more seiges, as the MountainHome starts losing it's influence and ability to protect it's outlying Fortresses, and starts demanding instead that you sent quotas of armed soldiers.

The game might then begin tracking how well those soldiers do, and if you equip them poorly, you could start recieving a lot of letters containing the word "regretfully", and little boxes containing the beards of what used to be your people.

On the other hand, reports of victories on the battlefield could be rewarding, and give you greater motivation to keep progressing through the game.

The game could also restrict what items the MountainHome is willing to trade with you, so that by doing badly, you might be lucky to be offered crutches and bags of sand, but by doing well, you could gain access to all sorts of rare and exotic resources (including magic) you can't otherwise get.

[wierd]

Please allow me to take this opportnity to remedy some recurring incorrect presumptions about my positions on the subject, for instance:

The problem here, Wierd, is that you're accepting the information, but refusing to see the philosophy that creates it.

(Which is pretty ironic, because what you're arguing is that books will open up a philosophy that enables people to do things they otherwise couldn't just by exposing them to that philosophy without considering the philosophy being put out in opposition to that philosophy.)

You're operating from the point of view that "reading a book with instructions" = "capacity to do what that book says to the degree of proficiency that the book's author was capable of demonstrating".

Is incorrect.  What the book does is demonstrate a technique that the reader lacks the fundemental building blocks of knowledge to have reached on their own, and explain, to varying leves of success, why that technique was used.  Eg, why is adding charcoal to a saggar containing glass smalt of a certain color necessary to get certain other color? The reader may be unaware that copper containing glass can become "tomato red", instead of "aquamarine blue", simply because of the atmosphere it is 'fined' in. Telling them that it can, and does, and why, will introduce them to a new area they can explore; the atmosphere type of their glass operations. Without first investing knowledge in a LOT of alchemy, or hitting lucky breaks, they may not have known this, and now the direction of their industry changes as a consequence.

That said..

Then, when I talk about concepts like microchips, or furnaces, you agree on the informational level - that it's a matter of refinement, but then still argue on the philosophical level that it's not the case.

This is not correct in the latter statement, but correct in the first statement.  The fault is that you believe that I am asserting that books can convey SKILL. I have argued against this multiple times, but the weight of those protests against your arguments seems to be lost in translation.  A book is able to convey information. On this we agree. The disconnect is that you seem to view structural plans, and information about how to adapt those plans as being incapable of being conveyed by a book. That information, along with the rationale of why, would fall into your mnemonic category of "philosophy".  I would remind you that books containing nothing BUT philosophy exist, and have existed for centuries.  Books need to be able to convey this. Conveying this does not confer skill, nor discipline.  One can teach themselves the skill, through practice and determination, if given a sufficiently detailed education on process and purpose, however. 

The philosophy you are arguing is incongruent with the information you are using to prove it.

Your last few posts even helps prove the point about how limited a usefulness a book can even have - without the technology to actually understand or implement the philosophy, the book cannot convey useful information, much less the philosophy.  It's just junk data.

This is a faulted premise:  somebody that doesn't understand a modern glassworks, cannot make the mental leap from what they currently do know, to what the book is instructing, no matter how well written the book is.

I covered this, with a hypothetical example.  A "from the ground up" treatise on chemistry, that provides exercises that build the knowledge and skill required to advance to the next chapter.

Eg, the book starts with some very simple background, sets some conventions for the student to follow to have good results, such as establishing weights and measures using easy to implement methods, like "one milliliter is equivalent to 1 cubic centimeter of distilled water, which also weighs one gram. Once cubic centimeter of volume is the approximate volume of distilled water as a single droplet."  From that, the student can derive any other unit used by the book. It then walks the student from the ground, all the way up to complex atomic theory, provides increasingly complicated exercises that make use of the products of successfully completed previous exercises, so that it never calls for a refined substance the student will not already have been exposed to.  At the beginning of the chain, are only raw, unrefined, and commonplace materials.

A complete, fully inclusive comprehension of the subject can be conveyed by such a book, because it does not make any presumptions about the background of the reader. Only that they are literate.  This example was completely ignored, and is still being ignored.

The philosophy of a book can only be taught to someone who was already close enough to understanding the contents of the book that it would have been possible for them to have understood it and "discovered" that technology/philosophy on their own, given some time.  Books are merely a training tool for getting the untrained of a given technological level up to the trained status of that civilization's tech level. 

As above, false, QED.

All the rest of your argument hinges on this faulted precondition of what can be obtained with a book.

It is important to point out that the reader of said hypothetical chemistry book can't read the book cover to cover, and be able to skip to the final experiments.

The book does not magically convey skill.

If the student uses the book as intended, and builds the skill as he/she progresses through the book, the student will acquire that skill naturally as a consequence, along with the instruction provided. Slowly working through the book, and repeating chapters until they understand and ca repeat the exercises correctly, will naturally build that skill in the individual, such that they *will* be able to eventually do the complex work activities in the end.

Granted, most books on subjects are not written this way.  That isn't the point. The point is that they CAN be, and that this makes your argument invalid in at least one edge case, and therefor must be addressed.

[Neonivek]

Back on topic please.

As well as a suggestion try relating what you are saying to actual mechanics that could be implimented or plotlines that could emmerge in the game while implimented.

For example a good middle ground could be that books give you some skill to a certain point, then allow you faster skill gain to another set point.

Where books have a greater effect the more academic and cerebral the subject is (for example philosophy, if it was a DF skill) while books on applied knowledge (fighting techniques) give you less of an effect but a tangible.

This skill boost should break through plateaus as well. Often what helps people break through their limits is just learning how to do something a different way.

A lot of your arguements are based off of theory without relating it back to dwarf fortress.

[wierd]

Back on topic please.

Lulwat? It is on topic-- if only tangentally.  If books are going to be in the game, then some hard set conditions on how they operate must be established.

That is what we are doing.

[Neonivek]

Back on topic please.

Lulwat? It is on topic-- if only tangentally.  If books are going to be in the game, then some hard set conditions on how they operate must be established.

That is what we are doing.

Right relate them back.

I given a mechanic

1) Books gives skill and Skill boost when read which is based upon the skill you already possess, your reading comprehension (reading skill), and the quality and complexity of the book.
2) It has greater effect on subjects that are thinking in nature and less of an effect in things that are generally doing activities.
3) Reading a book has a chance to break down learning barriers. Tutoring under different masters should have a similar effect.

[wierd]

The issue is that reading a book does NOT convey skill, though!  I can understand the motivation to design the mechanic this way, but this is incorrect.  Skill is only gained by DOING.

A book, by itself, only gives instruction, or knowledge.  That instruction CAN be on HOW TO DO something, but it is still up to the reader to actually DO those things, to build said skill.

A book can still influence a person who is using a different approach, by exposing them to new ideas, and expanding their horizons.  This does not make the alchemist into a gem maker (yes. MAKER) simply because they read how to make saphire and ruby from aluminum oxide. They have to actually try to do this many times to get the skill.


As such, I feel books should have this mechanic:

A civ that has iteratively worked out that you can do "X", writes down how to do "X".

An unskilled worker reads the book on how to do "X".  This tells him that "Hey, You can do 'X!'"

This unlocks the industry, but there is nobody skilled in any of the inputs. The option in the workshop cannot be satisfied, because it lacks the materials. (No aluminum oxide!)

You have to collect *all* of the requisite knowledge to enable the technology to actually be attempted. This can either by through investing time and resources into developing it yourself, or through getting a book that tells you how to do it.

Telling you 'how' does not confer skill. It just enables the labor.

To actually get it going, you have to actually have somebody build the skill from "no relavent skills", up to "proficient".

Workshops built and operated by people who have no relavent skills should have nasty performance penalties. A poorly made workshop should make poor quality materials, and poor quality materials should produce poor quality end product. This "negative" skill effect needs to stack, the more levels of tech there are in the chain, and with the quality of the workshop, with a high probability that instead of a crapy return, there will be no return at all. (Other than dwarves learning from mistakes.)

[Neonivek]

If a book gives the equivilant of skill then using the mechanic of gaining skill works.

The ability to cut through many mistakes, trail, and error... Is "like" skill and can be taught from books.

"Telling you 'how' does not confer skill"

Skill is basically your ability to do something. If a book improves your ability to do something without changing the entire way of doing something, then it is skill.

--

I think what you are thinking of is Expertise.

As well certain things you can learn from books that dirrectly turns into skill.

Ultimately you have to do something to master it, you cannot learn cooking entirely through books, but an expert who studies is a master.

[NW_Kohaku]

... and many more ninjas...

Back on topic please.

1. What we have been discussing is about how technology should be implemented for the purposes of getting out of the Medieval Stasis that is the exact topic of this thread.

2. You're not helping, nor are on topic, yourself.

This is not correct in the latter statement, but correct in the first statement.  The fault is that you believe that I am asserting that books can convey SKILL. I have argued against this multiple times, but the weight of those protests against your arguments seems to be lost in translation.  A book is able to convey information. On this we agree. The disconnect is that you seem to view structural plans, and information about how to adapt those plans as being incapable of being conveyed by a book. That information, along with the rationale of why, would fall into your mnemonic category of "philosophy".  I would remind you that books containing nothing BUT philosophy exist, and have existed for centuries.  Books need to be able to convey this. Conveying this does not confer skill, nor discipline.  One can teach themselves the skill, through practice and determination, if given a sufficiently detailed education on process and purpose, however. 

This is the exact problem.

My argument isn't that books don't convey philosophy, it's that a philosophy is exactly what those books convey.  It's just that philosophies are products of culture, and cannot be transplanted by book.

There is cognitive dissonance in what you are arguing. 

You say in one sentence that you agree that books do not convey a skill, but then in the next sentence say that books convey the ability to have a better understanding of a topic, and enable use of a better technique... and that is exactly what skill abstractly represents.

It's also not "structural plans" that are lacking, it's the structure.  You cannot build a porcelain-firing furnace the way that the Chinese did with just texts that tell you how to build them - those took armies of woodcutters to feed the furnaces.  You cannot build air-tight devices with precision just by reading a book about them.  You cannot build modern Pentium Quad-Core processors by just reading a book.  It takes technological development, and that's not something you get from a book -- and you know it.

This is a faulted premise:  somebody that doesn't understand a modern glassworks, cannot make the mental leap from what they currently do know, to what the book is instructing, no matter how well written the book is.

[...]

A complete, fully inclusive comprehension of the subject can be conveyed by such a book, because it does not make any presumptions about the background of the reader. Only that they are literate.  This example was completely ignored, and is still being ignored.

It is not ignored, I argued why it was wrong.

That's why I talked about there never being a single historical case of what you are proposing ever happening.  Because it cannot happen.

Just having a book out of Alexandria wouldn't spring Europe out of the Dark Ages.  There's proof - they did have many of the books out of Alexandria, kept safe in monasteries, discussed by some theologians and intellectual elites of the church (that did the safekeeping), but it couldn't actually bring about real changes because their society wasn't capable of acting upon them.   They couldn't, and wouldn't, turn into recreations of Ancient Greece.

A single book, no matter how well-written cannot change a culture that wasn't already on the verge of being able to change that way, itself.  (Basically, at a tipping point.)

That is why technology and culture can be copied through contact, as with the Europeans and Arabs, or with the Japanese and Americans, where there is an impetus to change the culture of the society into accepting these ideas, but where it will never happen in a

You are also ignoring the whole philosophy I've been pushing this whole thread - even while agreeing to the information it conveyed frequently - that ideas don't drive technology, and therefore, books that carry ideas cannot drive technology. 

Economics drives technology. Cultural acceptance drives technology. The demand for newer or better products drives technology.

This is the problem I'm underlining - you're only looking at the surface-level information, not looking at the drivers of the changes you are talking about. 

And this is what this whole thread is about - modeling those drivers of technology. 

I've described a model for how technology advances or recedes, along with the industrial capacity, labor skill, and cultural willingness to push a technology along, or let it backslide into obscurity, only to be re-discovered again.  This model is based upon what actually happened in history (where things did backslide and were re-discovered later), not just a commonly-accepted theory that feels "truthy".   Books that reveal unto a whole society how to remodel themselves into the societies of the past, and give them the will to do so don't exist.

[wierd]

NWKotaku:


I am confident that I can personally create such a book, that you assert cannot be written. If I were to create such a book, and present it as evidence of my point, would you accept it, or argue some vague nuance to weasle out of it?

(I do have examples of such treatises, BTW. For a practical combination ot information and exercise on technique, I would forward you to "the Ashley Book of Knots", which covers everything from how to twist and braid the rope from grass straws, to how to tie knots, for what purposes, and why they were invented. It is surprisingly thurough, and commands a high price.  For a lss practical one, I would suggest getting a translated version of any of achimedes works.  The ancient greeks had different philosophies on what constituted a "proof" in mathematics, and required an "actual proof of concept" be demonstrated.  Working through his treatise, his technique will be manifest, even to one without any such skill.

(Careful throwing complex phrases like "economics drives technology" like that. It looks a lot like hipocrisy from earlier... I believe I qualified that better by saying that NEED drives technology. People won't barter or trade resources of any kind for things that they don't have a need for. Eskimos and Iceboxes, QED.)

[Neonivek]

You're not helping, nor are on topic, yourself

No, back on topic. I completed that section and got it on track. Offering dirrect relations.

I had to watch several pages of absolutely no suggestions.

though if you prefer.

---

PART 1

The first thing that needs to be understood in terms of Medieval Stasis is that dwarf fortress is fundementally a game and a narrative. As such the medieval cut off point is in fact a hard and solid barrier that can be relaxed but not removed. As such Medieval Stasis cannot be eliminated or removed.

As such we have to think of this in terms of the ability for dwarf fortress to represent new technologies, lost technology, ignoring technology, and losing technology. It is ultimately about the ability for civilizations to make fundamental changes to how they act and respond and the topic creator expressly referred to the other races.

Technology:

What is technology? Technology is any sort of invention. It can be new forms of government, social organization, instruments, new ways of doing things. It can even be martial arts.

Because of the sheer expansive amount of things that can happen this process needs to be simplified.

My proposition is that Dwarf Fortress adopt a system where each “technology” be treated as if it was as singular disconnected pieces of knowledge, possibly that bounce off of one another.

New Technologies:

The mechanic I advertise as my preferred one is that technology should come around randomly. Someone should periodically invent, discover, research, or trade technology. If it is taught and moves through the game's available person pool then the technology is adopted and added to the pool of knowledge.

So in the case of a martial art. If someone invents a new way of knife fighting, it only catches on so long as there is someone new to teach.

Technology is thus stored in locations rather then civilizations as a whole and only passes as whole civilization knowledge should entire saturation occur.

Because of this mechanic of using individuals it not only goes through a civilization's ethics but it allows a possible counter culture technology, or an underground technology, to develop. So if a civilization believes that swords are “evil” the bandits of said civilization may very well be using them.

Being a magical scenario however this also leaves avenue for other sources:

Gods, Demons, Angels, Scions, and other creatures can bestow these as a boon. As always this should be random yet linked to the god in question.

Gods should of course have their own knowledge, unless they are generated with omniscience, and focus it around their focuses, spheres, and jobs. Yet one should remember that even in Greek mythology was the knowledge of the gods not always supperior to those of the Greek, and in some cases their technology was outright equal or less.

So the game should not keep track or intentionally buff up technology of the gods.

End of Part 1

-----

Economics drives technology. Cultural acceptance drives technology. The demand for newer or better products drives technology

There is no exact way to represent this as there is no way for the game to recognise any of these factors.

Thus we need more simple mechanics that hint at a much larger one.

So here is one...

As a society experiences Hardship the pressure to increase technology increases

As the heros, kings, and leaders wish for change the pressure to increase technology increases

A society in perpetual hardship and strive will end in revolution.

Goblins should constantly innovate, yet lack the means to retain.

[NW_Kohaku]

NWKotaku:


I am confident that I can personally create such a book, that you assert cannot be written. If I were to create such a book, and present it as evidence of my point, would you accept it, or argue some vague nuance to weasle out of it?

It's not a vague nuance, it's the whole point of everything I've discussed in this thread, and that's why I'm repeatedly saying you're missing the point.

The problem is you have the wrong idea of what technology is.  You're not stopping to consider the massive number of things I've said that talks about what technology actually is, because you're so busy trying to get over the information that you don't consider your own philosophy.

Knowing how to make a microchip isn't technology.

Having the industrial capacity, the skilled labor, the infrastructure, the culture that values a microchip is the technology.

The argument is that you're not grasping what technology actually is.  You don't get a worldwide economic ecosystem from a book, so you don't get technology from a book, you just get an idea. 

You can't produce a book that does that, no matter how hard you try.

Look, let's try arguing this from another angle...

A book is able to convey information. On this we agree. The disconnect is that you seem to view structural plans, and information about how to adapt those plans as being incapable of being conveyed by a book. That information, along with the rationale of why, would fall into your mnemonic category of "philosophy".  I would remind you that books containing nothing BUT philosophy exist, and have existed for centuries.  Books need to be able to convey this. Conveying this does not confer skill, nor discipline.  One can teach themselves the skill, through practice and determination, if given a sufficiently detailed education on process and purpose, however.

[...]

If the student uses the book as intended, and builds the skill as he/she progresses through the book, the student will acquire that skill naturally as a consequence, along with the instruction provided. Slowly working through the book, and repeating chapters until they understand and ca repeat the exercises correctly, will naturally build that skill in the individual, such that they *will* be able to eventually do the complex work activities in the end.

Granted, most books on subjects are not written this way.  That isn't the point. The point is that they CAN be, and that this makes your argument invalid in at least one edge case, and therefor must be addressed.

Now, let's talk about what books actually can do to change a culture, and what books don't change...

No textbook on "hows" ever changed a culture, or truly revolutionized the ideas that a people thought were not just possible, but worth pursuing.

However, some books do shape culture, indirectly.  And that's because they are culture.  Not technology - culture, and there's a big difference.

To discuss philosophy, Plato did far more (harm) to the sciences of the Middle Ages because of how his works shaped the way that culture was willing to view the sciences.  His theory of forms, the metaphysical, argument about The Cave and physical reality being shadows of a the forms, all had tremendous resounding impact on the continued intertwining of theology, philosophy, and science. 

(And the reason why Plato was accepted, while most of the other "pagans" were downcried was because Plato's philosophy was a key shaper of the cultural, religious, and philosophical upheaval of the Middle East (alongside the fall of the Persian empire, the rise of the Sassinids to take their place, and their Zoroastrianism laced with its dualistic Cosmic Good vs Evil theme) right in time to create what gets called "Biblical Times".  Basically, he was confused for being an "visionary early believer in Christianity", when he actually probably built the culture that created it.)

Most of the mathematical or mechanical treatises were either largely forgotten or actually rediscovered and improved upon in the cases of those technologies that the people of the Middle Ages actually had use for.  (Mostly weapons of war.)

Shakespeare had more to do with the driving of technology than any technical manual, because simply knowing "how" is not technology.

The History of Technology (and I've taken the course, thank you very much,) is the history of cultural adaptations and economic drivers, not of someone getting a bright idea. 

If you are looking at a book to provide someone with a technology through a how-to manual, you fundamentally misinterpret the role that not just technology, but all of literature had upon the development of society. 

[Neonivek]

The problem is you have the wrong idea of what technology is

Technology can be thought as a change. Yet really gamewise it should be considered as part of knowledge systems.

Now, let's talk about what books actually can do to change a culture, and what books don't change...

And with that Kohaku has gone into another mechanic: Desire for change

Both the need to change and the desire to change as far as dwarf fortress is concerned should be considered seperate entities even if they are closely related.

Or to be more specific
1) Environmental factors to change
2) Societal factors for change

The first is fostered by ill situations. A lot of famines puts a push on change.

The second is fostered by the "important people" which is a false in a historical sense but works for dwarf fortress. Anytime an actor acts upon a society in dwarf fortress in some way, the game should add it to the pool. Creating a sort of unconscious for a society.

Yet as always this goes into how I think the game should treat large numbers of people as entities onto themselves... but that is a suggestion in it of itself.

---

Ehh if I am going to complain that people arn't reaching... any conclusions... I might as well keep the conversation on that track myself. As long as Bay12 doesn't lag me out as it does.

So my goal will be to melt down this conversations for now on and put them into suggestion format by deriving mechanics rather then theory.

As well as splitting the elements that apply to real life and dwarf fortress.

[wierd]

NWKotaku:


I am confident that I can personally create such a book, that you assert cannot be written. If I were to create such a book, and present it as evidence of my point, would you accept it, or argue some vague nuance to weasle out of it?

It's not a vague nuance, it's the whole point of everything I've discussed in this thread, and that's why I'm repeatedly saying you're missing the point.

The problem is you have the wrong idea of what technology is.  You're not stopping to consider the massive number of things I've said that talks about what technology actually is, because you're so busy trying to get over the information that you don't consider your own philosophy.

Knowing how to make a microchip isn't technology.

Having the industrial capacity, the skilled labor, the infrastructure, the culture that values a microchip is the technology.

The argument is that you're not grasping what technology actually is.  You don't get a worldwide economic ecosystem from a book, so you don't get technology from a book, you just get an idea. 

You can't produce a book that does that, no matter how hard you try.

Look, let's try arguing this from another angle...

A book is able to convey information. On this we agree. The disconnect is that you seem to view structural plans, and information about how to adapt those plans as being incapable of being conveyed by a book. That information, along with the rationale of why, would fall into your mnemonic category of "philosophy".  I would remind you that books containing nothing BUT philosophy exist, and have existed for centuries.  Books need to be able to convey this. Conveying this does not confer skill, nor discipline.  One can teach themselves the skill, through practice and determination, if given a sufficiently detailed education on process and purpose, however.

[...]

If the student uses the book as intended, and builds the skill as he/she progresses through the book, the student will acquire that skill naturally as a consequence, along with the instruction provided. Slowly working through the book, and repeating chapters until they understand and ca repeat the exercises correctly, will naturally build that skill in the individual, such that they *will* be able to eventually do the complex work activities in the end.

Granted, most books on subjects are not written this way.  That isn't the point. The point is that they CAN be, and that this makes your argument invalid in at least one edge case, and therefor must be addressed.

Now, let's talk about what books actually can do to change a culture, and what books don't change...

No textbook on "hows" ever changed a culture, or truly revolutionized the ideas that a people thought were not just possible, but worth pursuing.

However, some books do shape culture, indirectly.  And that's because they are culture.  Not technology - culture, and there's a big difference.

To discuss philosophy, Plato did far more (harm) to the sciences of the Middle Ages because of how his works shaped the way that culture was willing to view the sciences.  His theory of forms, the metaphysical, argument about The Cave and physical reality being shadows of a the forms, all had tremendous resounding impact on the continued intertwining of theology, philosophy, and science. 

(And the reason why Plato was accepted, while most of the other "pagans" were downcried was because Plato's philosophy was a key shaper of the cultural, religious, and philosophical upheaval of the Middle East (alongside the fall of the Persian empire, the rise of the Sassinids to take their place, and their Zoroastrianism laced with its dualistic Cosmic Good vs Evil theme) right in time to create what gets called "Biblical Times".  Basically, he was confused for being an "visionary early believer in Christianity", when he actually probably built the culture that created it.)

Most of the mathematical or mechanical treatises were either largely forgotten or actually rediscovered and improved upon in the cases of those technologies that the people of the Middle Ages actually had use for.  (Mostly weapons of war.)

Shakespeare had more to do with the driving of technology than any technical manual, because simply knowing "how" is not technology.

The History of Technology (and I've taken the course, thank you very much,) is the history of cultural adaptations and economic drivers, not of someone getting a bright idea. 

If you are looking at a book to provide someone with a technology through a how-to manual, you fundamentally misinterpret the role that not just technology, but all of literature had upon the development of society.

I have a counter example.

Galen's collected treatise on medical technique. It held back medicine for more than a millenium.

It was so ahead of its time, that nobody dared challenge it, until the 1530s.

It influenced much more than just medieval culture; having a profound impact in antiquity, and on surviving arab medical traditions, long before reintroduction to the west.

It was not a philosophical book of rhetoric like aristotle.  It was as close to true science as the ancient world could produce, created through experimentation on human patients and corpses.

[Neonivek]

I have a counter example.

Galen's collected treatise on medical technique. It held back medicine for more than a millenium.

It was so ahead of its time, that nobody dared challenge it, until the 1530s.

Easily could be represented in game as a satisfaction mechanic. A intertia after technology is introduced.

Adding a Third factor

1) Push and Pull due to change: When change occurs, it should cause intertia as well. So a society that is in strife but changed radically should have more of a desire to stay put.

As well as having the "Person pull" require them to fight against the reputation of the ones who came before.

[NW_Kohaku]

It's not a vague nuance, it's the whole point of everything I've discussed in this thread, and that's why I'm repeatedly saying you're missing the point.

The problem is you have the wrong idea of what technology is.  You're not stopping to consider the massive number of things I've said that talks about what technology actually is, because you're so busy trying to get over the information that you don't consider your own philosophy.

Knowing how to make a microchip isn't technology.

Having the industrial capacity, the skilled labor, the infrastructure, the culture that values a microchip is the technology.

The argument is that you're not grasping what technology actually is.  You don't get a worldwide economic ecosystem from a book, so you don't get technology from a book, you just get an idea. 

You can't produce a book that does that, no matter how hard you try.

I have a counter example.

Galen's collected treatise on medical technique. It held back medicine for more than a millenium.

You didn't read a damn thing I wrote, did you?

You obviously held that quote prepared, and just copy-pasted it to whatever I wrote.

This is exactly what I'm saying: You don't stop to consider what people are discussing with you, you don't care about the why, you're only arguing the shallow, unimportant surface facts without challenging your assumptions.

This is why you don't understand.