TL and Mnemonics

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by nik1979

PC is a general commanding a vast army in TL1 or TL3, the player or the PC from another time, begins systemically training his army and staff using TL8 management science. He breaks down tasks in time-in-motion studies and uses six-sigma techniques to optimize all motions (and because he knows all these techniques he can easily communicate and rationalize their usefulness to the other leaders). If there is a strong religious focus, then the PC uses several marketing and propoganda techniques to get Divine legitimacy. Another PC employs a skilled spy and, uses focus group discussion to air-out sources of discontent and measure morale.

Well, in the first place, you cannot do time and motion studies unless you have a substantial number of people trained in collection of statistical data by careful and objective observation of human movement. That's not going to work if you don't have writing, or if most people in armies can't write; or if you don't have numbers of a suitable form; or if you don't have a precise technology for measuring time; or if you don't have the conceptual vocabulary for ratios of distance, speed, or work to time (the very concept that you could define a ratio between things not measured in the same units was a major breakthrough of TL4). Okay, maybe you as the leader know this. But you're not going to be able to explain them to other leaders in terms that even make sense to them.

That's leaving out the question of whether you can come up with any testing ground activity that actually corresponds with sufficient precision to utility in actual battle.

The other generals of the TL1 or TL3 don't have their tasks and duties in writing. there is no writing about doctrine, nor is there an organized reference. Other army and generals, don't use the scientific method to measure aspects of their organization for weaknesses.

I think Sun Tzu would disagree with you. In any case, war has some effectiveness in eliminating aspects of organization that make for weakness, by getting the people who run those organizations dead.

Bill Stoddard

[Lord Carnifex]

Okay, it looks like you're speaking of philosophy, logic, and mathematics and then ultimately information science and cognitive science.

I'll admit that I'm mostly familiar with the history of Western Eurasia, specifically, the Mediterranean, the Near East, and Europe with a little India and North Africa.

While you're right, there isn't a whole lot of technological infrastructure needed, certain things help. Ink, pens, pencils, paper. The printing press, the book, and the typewriter. Also, widespread literacy and enough economic specialization to support professional philosophers, scribes, and writers.

Also, like a lot of other technologies, philosophy evolves alongside the rest of a culture's technology. Areas of mathematics and philosphy gain increased focus when there is a specific problem to be solved. For instance, the mathematics of quadratics were mostly ignored until ballistics and gunpowder based artillery gave it a need to fill: how to hit the target. Investigation of formal logic and attempts to identify fallacious arguments comes from legal analysis and an attempt to achieve disinterested analysis of legal arguments (the idea that a formal argument is rendered valid by form alone ultimately stems from rabbinical attempts to rationalize interpretation of Torah and Talmudic law). Even the origin of writing itself comes from recording financial contracts in Sumeria, and the first professional scribes are accountants and contract lawyers.

James Burke's series "The Day the Universe Changed" is a good source for some of this.

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think Sun Tzu would disagree with you. In any case, war has some effectiveness in eliminating aspects of organization that make for weakness, by getting the people who run those organizations dead.

Bill Stoddard

Not to mention Julius Caesar and Tacitus. Writing about war is about as old as writing itself.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

Investigation of formal logic and attempts to identify fallacious arguments comes from legal analysis and an attempt to achieve disinterested analysis of legal arguments (the idea that a formal argument is rendered valid by form alone ultimately stems from rabbinical attempts to rationalize interpretation of Torah and Talmudic law).

How do you figure that one? The main source of formal logic that I know of is Aristotle's works, which were based on detailed examination of the less systematic ideas of his precursors. In fact, the very distinction between matter and form (or substance and essence), and the consequent idea that the form of an argument could be identified independent of the content, was first worked out systematically by Aristotle, as far as I know. What were the dates on the rabbinic work you're referencing?

Bill Stoddard

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by whswhs

How do you figure that one? The main source of formal logic that I know of is Aristotle's works, which were based on detailed examination of the less systematic ideas of his precursors. In fact, the very distinction between matter and form (or substance and essence), and the consequent idea that the form of an argument could be identified independent of the content, was first worked out systematically by Aristotle, as far as I know. What were the dates on the rabbinic work you're referencing?

Bill Stoddard

I don't have access to the book at the moment (there's someone staying in the library) but I'll look it up for you when I can.

Basically, yes, Aristotle did come up with the basics in his definitions of the basic types of syllogisms, and finding out which syllogisms always led from true premises to true conclusions.

What the rabbinical scholars did was extend the idea outside of syllogisms, establishing concepts like "If a specific statement follows a general statement, the specific statement provides an example of the general statement and the general statement is not solely limited to the specific case," and "if a general case is stated more than once, in relation to more than one specific case, then this indicates the universality of the general case." This violates a modern principle of formal logic, in that in considers the order in which premises of an argument occur, but it does abandon the somewhat rigid syllogistic style. Further, the rabbis tried to come up with rules to derive sound conclusions about the law, no matter where in the Torah or the Talmud those laws appear or what laws are under debate. Also, the rabbinical tradition is one of the first in Europe that recognizes the ad hominem attack: while a rabbi was one trained in the law, anyone who can present a clear and compelling legal argument is allowed to do so and have that argument considered on its merits; meanwhile Western Europe at the time (the Early and High Middle Ages, say 400 - 1200ish) generally required one to be a priest before one could present an argument on canon law.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

Also, the rabbinical tradition is one of the first in Europe that recognizes the ad hominem attack: while a rabbi was one trained in the law, anyone who can present a clear and compelling legal argument is allowed to do so and have that argument considered on its merits; meanwhile Western Europe at the time (the Early and High Middle Ages, say 400 - 1200ish) generally required one to be a priest before one could present an argument on canon law.

I believe that Roman law had this too. (Certainly "ad hominem" is a Roman phrase!) And Athenian law had aspects of it.

Bill Stoddard

[Lord Carnifex]

More information:

If you're willing to accept Wikipedia as a source, here's some links: Origins of Rabbinical Judaism, Halakot, Rabbi Ishmael

Originally Posted by Wikipedia: Halakot

# Every thing that was within the general rule and was excluded from the rule to teach us a rule, we don't consider this rule as pertaining only to this excluded case, but to the entire general case.
# Anything that was included in a general rule, and was excluded to be susceptible to one rule that is according to its subject, it is only excluded to be treated more leniently but not more strictly.
# Anything that was included in a general rule and was excluded to be susceptible to one rule that is not according to its subject, it is excluded to be treated both more leniently and more strictly.
# Anything that was included in a general rule and was excluded to be treated by a new rule, we cannot restore it to its general rule unless Scripture restores it explicitly.
# A matter that is inferred from its context, and a matter that is inferred from its ending.
# The resolution of two Scriptures that contradict each other [must wait] until a third Scripture arrives and resolves their apparent contradiction.

These are from the 2nd Century CE, so after Aristotle. So I may have been incorrect in saying that the principle of logical validity started in rabbinical Judaism. More correct would be to assert that rabbinical Judaism preserved and expanded on Aristotle's work on syllogisms.

[nik1979]

Sorry my mistake, your right time-and-motion is to sophisticated to be delegated, but job loading can be done by lower level scribes capable of basic math and pragmaticist philo. Depending on the era there are enough literate people the General with advance Int TL can train. Its not as much as statistical (probability) math but measuring math.

If you can give Intellectual TL to Axial Age developments by their effectivity and against the rule of "the technology is common practice" there is a big difference in Int TL depending on Civilizations that had larger percentile of schooled or literate people.

Its like certain Mental techniques are like techniques (like in LT crucible steel).

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, in the first place, you cannot do time and motion studies unless you have a substantial number of people trained in collection of statistical data by careful and objective observation of human movement. That's not going to work if you don't have writing, or if most people in armies can't write; or if you don't have numbers of a suitable form; or if you don't have a precise technology for measuring time; or if you don't have the conceptual vocabulary for ratios of distance, speed, or work to time (the very concept that you could define a ratio between things not measured in the same units was a major breakthrough of TL4). Okay, maybe you as the leader know this. But you're not going to be able to explain them to other leaders in terms that even make sense to them.

That's leaving out the question of whether you can come up with any testing ground activity that actually corresponds with sufficient precision to utility in actual battle.




Bill Stoddard

Ahhh. Sun Tzu is an Exception and no one used "Pragmaticism" like the Scientific Method the way he did after him. No one until renaissance era ever approached war as scientifically. The earliest near-scientific or pragmatic generals used winning as a sign of divine right, so you can be suspect of the comprehensiveness of their process.

He's one of my favorites, as early as 700BCE he was already hinting that there were no such thing a supernatural events and there was a skeptical almost scientific nature to his writings on Intelligence gathering. Also his writings were mostly lost and found during the many eras, plus edited and it seems the most surviving pieces hints to so much lost.

I think Sun Tzu would disagree with you. In any case, war has some effectiveness in eliminating aspects of organization that make for weakness, by getting the people who run those organizations dead.

With Int Tech, IW games where high TL characters go to lower TL worlds can give valuable pieces of information not just in the form of technology. Imagining the introduction of a print-blocks for the Anasathra or the Prince in the right era (700BCE to 1500CE) optimized with TL8, 9, or up Int TL techniques is like giving "real" magic in the hands of lower tech people.

Powerful Learning techniques are self propagating but can have a high resource barrier (only the elite and requires facilities for learning etc. like a Magic University) you can have Mage class of elite with TL4+4 or up organization and calculation skills.

I guess identifying how much more effective are int TL techniques from their more flawed and earlier versions, or how much more effective they can potentially be given the progress and direction the science is taking them.

Its one of the few technologies you can bring to the Low Tech world even if you land there naked and penniless.

Its that Tech that breaks down the greatest mind's talents (like how Einstein mastered the visualized thought experiment-and how the technique has helped other scientists figure out their own scientific problems, the vision and organization of great leaders) into accessible forms with using advanced Tech scientific techniques and progress in the other sciences.

[oldgringo2001]

Concepts don't have to be complex to be forgotten, even if they are incredibly useful. For instance, how could anyone forget how to march in step so everyone in the formation--especially that vital front line!--knows that he has a man to his right and a man to his left and a man right behind him, without thinking? The idea seems to have disappeared from history after the battle of Adrianople, perhaps because the barbarians felt so cocky afterwards they couldn't be forced to do their drills. Soldiering had become unfashionable among "real" Romans by that time. There's no proof anyone marched in formation again until the Renaissance, which arrived on the points of pikes wielded by townsmen against their "rightful" lords.

But the time-travelling conquistador must also speak the language of the locals. Murphy's Laws documented a game where people from the same village still had a good chance of failing to understand each other. This was not all that great an exaggeration of the situation in any rural area up until the Reformation. Regional dialects were not very mutually intelligible, and villages might not have any outsiders except travelling priests and tax collectors (often one and the same), and they probably spoke just Latin and French. People in the next village might very well not understand the funny way those folk abide the slog cartened fa moosen, toy keen?

In one episode of the series What the Tudors Did for Us, there's a hilarious example of how different English dialects really sounded before the English bibles, read in every church every Sunday, began to homogenize English.

Staunchly Catholic Spain, on the other hand, retained its regional dialects and its Latin-spouting priests until this generation; I can tell you from direct experience that the Andalusian dialect sounds about as close to the Spanish you tried to learn in high school (or even the Spanish you learned at your mother's breast in Puerto Rico, Spanish Harlem, East LA) as Yiddish does to Norwegian. No wonder Spain came so close to coming apart in the 1930s!

[Polydamas]

Nik, you're right that intellectual technologies are just as important as physical ones, and tend to be neglected by gamers. Mathematical notation is a good example (eg. accounting methods); or the custom of farmers from a wide area getting together and trading seed and methods.

But several of us are saying that its hard to change how societies do things, there will be resistance, and that its not clear that systems developed by industrial societies will work better than what a preindustrial society is already using. For several of the things you are suggesting, the first step would be to build a school and train the teachers. After spending five to ten years, a small fortune, and lots of political capital, the time travellers might see their first class graduate.

One thing to think about: if most people learn their trade by apprenticeship, and you are an outsider not recognized in that trade, how can you spread a complex new technique as quickly and widely as possible? Its an interesting problem and I don't have the answer.