"TLQ" (TechLevel Quotient) of civilizations as a tool for analyzing tech development

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Yesterday night, in a long chat about technology, I came to an idea which might be useful when assessing (or deciding upon! this is GURPS) the technological progress of societies. First, a bit of an example to illustrate what the quotient should look like.

Psychologists have been seeking a way to measure intelligence, as opposed to the skills and knowledge of a person. A more-or-less workable way of measuring intelligence is to measure ability to process information and learn, as opposed to measuring only the amount of knowledge possessed. Thus, IQ was born - the quotient (at least initially), which was the result of dividing intellectual maturity of a person by the intellectual maturity expected at this age. It was imperfect, and it got rewritten later, but the basic realization survived: that intelligence is about one's potential, and not about how much 'goodies' you gained in your lifetime. Thus, there was a way of comparing the intelligence of children to the intelligence of adults.

Likewise, TLQ is not about what TL you have, but how TL corresponds to the resources given for attaining it. A group of scientists with good financing will NOT have a higher TLQ than a group of scientists with bad financing, even if they make more inventions in the same period of time. If, however, two groups produce the same number/quality of inventions, but one group has worse education, smaller numbers, or less financing, then said group definitely has higher TLQ.

This brings me to another observation: TLQ sometimes drops even if TL rises. Example: Efficiency is progress. Getting 90% functionality by spending 50% the resource is an advancement. So, software that performs simple functions should get more efficient, right? Wrong! Back in the day, a mouse driver was several KB in size. Today, mouse 'software' that is required for adding maybe 50% of functionality (extra button [3] and an extra axis of movement [wheel]) can easily have a size listed in MB. Compare: we can maintain our food supplies with a much lesser number of people dedicated to farming.

Of course, the last sentence underscores that TLQ is not the same in different categories of technologies.

Opinions, comments?
Thanks in advance!

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This brings me to another observation: TLQ sometimes drops even if TL rises. Example: Efficiency is progress. Getting 90% functionality by spending 50% the resource is an advancement. So, software that performs simple functions should get more efficient, right? Wrong! Back in the day, a mouse driver was several KB in size.

And this I think points up the problem. In fact, later mouse driver may be more efficient - in terms of some resource that actually *matters*. Memory size at this level essentially no longer does.

For an equivalent situation outside of computers, consider that putting up a modern balloon frame house uses a ridiculous number of nails compared to an 18th century structure put together with joinery and pegs. In 1750 it wouldn't even have been a joke - nobody would have paid for that many nails. In 1950, you'd have to be filthy rich to afford enough skilled carpenters to do the dovetails. Is one method more resource efficient that the other? Sure, they both are, but for *different* resources.

[Anders]

I don't think you can get the kind of measurement of 'quality' that you'd need for that kind of operation. I see grave theoretical problems...