Cultural Themes and Traits

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

True, but my point is, an excuse is required.

I still think there should be a prejudice value between different nationalities and races. After all, they're present in real life.

We need to sit down and talk about demographics, including the uncomfortable ones. The lesbian transsexual gamer in the room is all too well aquianted with prejudice, and the more I look into Thrive the more I realize how impossible it's going to be to simply not talk about this, considering the myriad of alternative sexualities that will be present in other races.

Well, first, we need to talk about how deep we're going into individual traits such as sexuality. We obviously need to include these differences in society, but do we have to simulate all said possibilities, or can we group into "average" and "outside of average" for such traits?

~sciocont wrote:

Well, first, we need to talk about how deep we're going into individual traits such as sexuality. We obviously need to include these differences in society, but do we have to simulate all said possibilities, or can we group into "average" and "outside of average" for such traits?

I like the idea of average and outside average. However, I want to point out how even beauty itself is arbitrarily and culturally determined.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Well, first, we need to talk about how deep we're going into individual traits such as sexuality. We obviously need to include these differences in society, but do we have to simulate all said possibilities, or can we group into "average" and "outside of average" for such traits?

I like the idea of average and outside average. However, I want to point out how even beauty itself is arbitrarily and culturally determined.

We know, Rex. I'm sure noone here is so bold and misguided as to think otherwise.

So, we have racial prejudice, national prejudice, sexuality prejudice. Anything else anyone can think of? Socioeconomic, maybe?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Well, first, we need to talk about how deep we're going into individual traits such as sexuality. We obviously need to include these differences in society, but do we have to simulate all said possibilities, or can we group into "average" and "outside of average" for such traits?

I like the idea of average and outside average. However, I want to point out how even beauty itself is arbitrarily and culturally determined.

We know, Rex. I'm sure noone here is so bold and misguided as to think otherwise.

So, we have racial prejudice, national prejudice, sexuality prejudice. Anything else anyone can think of? Socioeconomic, maybe?

socio engineering is a difficult subject as it is in basic a prediction how a group behaves so on this subject we need also some one that has sufficient knowledge from socio engineering through the ages the one thing that is the core especially in the beginning is the almighty and from out of that point things evolve if the mainstream god is one about liberal sex and acceptance for differences then that nation won't become prudent on sex and won't go Hitler style in the way you are different so you must die everything starts with the god concept and that is the most difficult but you can go out of the earthly worship's to god's to make a red line what will probably be also in other cultures

Raven Destroyer.... not entirely certain what you just said, but let me point out two things.
- Most societies are not directly engineered. The process of changing or creating one over multiple generations is really kind of complicated, and there are a lot of factors outside of human control. No one person controls what religion becomes popular as well as how the economy, familial systems, and politics work.
- Prejudice is not always about religion. (My apologies if you were not trying to drive at that, or if it was just an example, but it looked like you were making the point.) It often is part of a prejudice, but prejudices often also have political and socio-economic basis. Political basises for one would generally be disguised as something else, but to take a very american example, the economy of the southern states during the 18th and 19th (1700's and early 1800's, respectively) would not have worked without slavery. All sorts of prejudices towards african-americans have a basis in the fact that they were, at this time, slaves, and that the entire economy at the time had a vested interest in keeping them that way.

- To agree with Rex, I think that "deviation from the norm" would be good, because societies would have different levels of acceptance of "deviation from the norm," It would be easy to program, and the "norm" would change over time to accomodate more, less, or whatever.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Raven Destroyer.... not entirely certain what you just said, but let me point out two things.
- Most societies are not directly engineered. The process of changing or creating one over multiple generations is really kind of complicated, and there are a lot of factors outside of human control. No one person controls what religion becomes popular as well as how the economy, familial systems, and politics work.
- Prejudice is not always about religion. (My apologies if you were not trying to drive at that, or if it was just an example, but it looked like you were making the point.) It often is part of a prejudice, but prejudices often also have political and socio-economic basis. Political basises for one would generally be disguised as something else, but to take a very american example, the economy of the southern states during the 18th and 19th (1700's and early 1800's, respectively) would not have worked without slavery. All sorts of prejudices towards african-americans have a basis in the fact that they were, at this time, slaves, and that the entire economy at the time had a vested interest in keeping them that way.

prejudice is also a way how we look at things and that is part of our society and that comes from constant evolution of our society from hunter gatherer societies to our current society basic speaking our believe system was the foundations

*note* i have currently not enough time to further work it out and english might be my most important language i do screw up sometimes and so i did on social engineering what it supposed to be was social sciences (if i'm not again mistaken)

Raven, forgive us if we take a while. You're still learning, and it can be a bit hard to read Scripto Conntinuo. I think the word you were looking for was something between Sociology and Social Sciences.

Anyway.

In response to the religion arguement: GOD ALWAYS COMES LAST. Religion is FREAKING SLOW to change, and all it does is provide an excuse for the arbitrary rules. But the rules come first, the excuse later. In 1950 the conservative church wasn't preaching support of the nuclear family, but it is now. Why? Because in 1950 the nuclear family was coming into existance, and was pretty much assumed. When the unwritten rules started being broken, people began finding an excuse to try and enforce them.

Our biggest challenge is finding out why the unwritten rules themselves form and change. Therefore, you have homework. I want everyone to find a period and area they are familiar with (NOT YOUR OWN, we are blind to our own cultures) and describe the culture on this thread. Then, check and note any major political events, demographical changes, etc. in the period leading up to this.

Got it, or should I make a devblog?

Tenebrarum wrote:

Raven, forgive us if we take a while. You're still learning, and it can be a bit hard to read Scripto Conntinuo. I think the word you were looking for was something between Sociology and Social Sciences.

Anyway.

In response to the religion arguement: GOD ALWAYS COMES LAST. Religion is FREAKING SLOW to change, and all it does is provide an excuse for the arbitrary rules. But the rules come first, the excuse later. In 1950 the conservative church wasn't preaching support of the nuclear family, but it is now. Why? Because in 1950 the nuclear family was coming into existance, and was pretty much assumed. When the unwritten rules started being broken, people began finding an excuse to try and enforce them.

Our biggest challenge is finding out why the unwritten rules themselves form and change. Therefore, you have homework. I want everyone to find a period and area they are familiar with (NOT YOUR OWN, we are blind to our own cultures) and describe the culture on this thread. Then, check and note any major political events, demographical changes, etc. in the period leading up to this.

Got it, or should I make a devblog?

I'm not sure i understand. We need to talk about events that changed prejudices? So you mean like the women's rights movement? And what is this going to do? Find a trigger? I'm pretty sure the trigger is always someone saying enough is enough and everyone else joining in.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Raven, forgive us if we take a while. You're still learning, and it can be a bit hard to read Scripto Conntinuo. I think the word you were looking for was something between Sociology and Social Sciences.

Anyway.

In response to the religion arguement: GOD ALWAYS COMES LAST. Religion is FREAKING SLOW to change, and all it does is provide an excuse for the arbitrary rules. But the rules come first, the excuse later. In 1950 the conservative church wasn't preaching support of the nuclear family, but it is now. Why? Because in 1950 the nuclear family was coming into existance, and was pretty much assumed. When the unwritten rules started being broken, people began finding an excuse to try and enforce them.

Our biggest challenge is finding out why the unwritten rules themselves form and change. Therefore, you have homework. I want everyone to find a period and area they are familiar with (NOT YOUR OWN, we are blind to our own cultures) and describe the culture on this thread. Then, check and note any major political events, demographical changes, etc. in the period leading up to this.

Got it, or should I make a devblog?

I'm not sure i understand. We need to talk about events that changed prejudices? So you mean like the women's rights movement? And what is this going to do? Find a trigger? I'm pretty sure the trigger is always someone saying enough is enough and everyone else joining in.

so that will be 500 BC till 500 AD (or close to that) roman era or 1929 - 1945 the Third Reich and that will be probably the latter part


and i think the whole thing of the church trying to hold back science has a bigger message then we can handle as a species but that is just my theories and this is a universal creator and not a conspiracy forum so this will be my only remark on that part

US_of Alaska wrote:

I'm not sure i understand. We need to talk about events that changed prejudices? So you mean like the women's rights movement? And what is this going to do? Find a trigger? I'm pretty sure the trigger is always someone saying enough is enough and everyone else joining in.

Actually, I'm looking for the more basic foundations of society. Gender roles, racism vs. tolerance, class vs. fluidity vs. fluid class, that sort of thing.

Raven Destroyer wrote:

so that will be 500 BC till 500 AD (or close to that) roman era or 1929 - 1945 the Third Reich and that will be probably the latter part


and i think the whole thing of the church trying to hold back science has a bigger message then we can handle as a species but that is just my theories and this is a universal creator and not a conspiracy forum so this will be my only remark on that part

*Sigh*

First off, the seperation of science as it's own catagory is only a few hundred years old.
Secondly, Religion has only disapproved of studies for less than that.
Thirdly, we're only ever talking about conservative religion, and usually fundimentalism, which is less than a century old.

RELIGION IS NOT NESSISARILY BAD. CONVERSATION OVER.
I'm sorry, but we had to fight this stereotype for what must have been years before we could finally establish this rule. It's made me especially a little touchy.

I'm pretty sure that most of the underlying things you've been talking about are functions of how a society worked during one or more periods of stress, Rex. So maybe we could also look at points of stress and points of change? I'll have a nose around - I'm patchy on a multitude of areas, so maybe I'll find something.

Hmm... Rex, the idea of "religion is bad" is probably a combination of factors, so I suggest we look into that particular prejudice as well.

and @ Raven - clarified.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of Alaska wrote:

I'm not sure i understand. We need to talk about events that changed prejudices? So you mean like the women's rights movement? And what is this going to do? Find a trigger? I'm pretty sure the trigger is always someone saying enough is enough and everyone else joining in.

Actually, I'm looking for the more basic foundations of society. Gender roles, racism vs. tolerance, class vs. fluidity vs. fluid class, that sort of thing.

So what are we talking about in game terms? I'm guessing something about the animations and affecting leader popularity, as well as affecting diplomacy?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of Alaska wrote:

I'm not sure i understand. We need to talk about events that changed prejudices? So you mean like the women's rights movement? And what is this going to do? Find a trigger? I'm pretty sure the trigger is always someone saying enough is enough and everyone else joining in.

Actually, I'm looking for the more basic foundations of society. Gender roles, racism vs. tolerance, class vs. fluidity vs. fluid class, that sort of thing.

So what are we talking about in game terms? I'm guessing something about the animations and affecting leader popularity, as well as affecting diplomacy?

Culture effects everything remember. It effects events that cause (un)happiness, popularity, all things relating to demographics, stability, religious codes, religious tolerance, philosophical attidutes, everything.

Don't worry about translating into game format just yet. Give me the different cultural tropes straight, so I can go through and we can talk about what should and should not be reflected in gameplay.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of Alaska wrote:

I'm not sure i understand. We need to talk about events that changed prejudices? So you mean like the women's rights movement? And what is this going to do? Find a trigger? I'm pretty sure the trigger is always someone saying enough is enough and everyone else joining in.

Actually, I'm looking for the more basic foundations of society. Gender roles, racism vs. tolerance, class vs. fluidity vs. fluid class, that sort of thing.

So what are we talking about in game terms? I'm guessing something about the animations and affecting leader popularity, as well as affecting diplomacy?

Culture effects everything remember. It effects events that cause (un)happiness, popularity, all things relating to demographics, stability, religious codes, religious tolerance, philosophical attidutes, everything.

Don't worry about translating into game format just yet. Give me the different cultural tropes straight, so I can go through and we can talk about what should and should not be reflected in gameplay.

basic speaking walk outside look around how we do now our things and that we need to process and that of 15000BC till today (it might easily be 25.000BC) so if we actualy need to collect this much data we will be talking about a terrabyte of crude info that needs to be crushed into workable content so this thingy might take month's work but the upside if we do it directly nearly perfect we don't have to worry about it anymore just when chance happens to our current things yeah then we need to add that new lair of info

and yeah i'm serious about trying to process a lot of data atleast the period of 10.000 BC till 500 AD and 1900 till 1945 will be time tables that i will be researching a lot into

*note* if my mouse decides to die this weekend that would be a thing i don't want to think about as he is already semi dead

Raven Destroyer wrote:

basic speaking walk outside look around how we do now our things and that we need to process and that of 15000BC till today (it might easily be 25.000BC) so if we actualy need to collect this much data we will be talking about a terrabyte of crude info that needs to be crushed into workable content so this thingy might take month's work but the upside if we do it directly nearly perfect we don't have to worry about it anymore just when chance happens to our current things yeah then we need to add that new lair of info

and yeah i'm serious about trying to process a lot of data atleast the period of 10.000 BC till 500 AD and 1900 till 1945 will be time tables that i will be researching a lot into

*note* if my mouse decides to die this weekend that would be a thing i don't want to think about as he is already semi dead

10000 BC to 500 AD? Woah there boy! Slow down! That's a lot of work! And like 4000 different cultures to cover!

ALso, put down area.

I think you'll find that a lot of them repeat. For example, the Romans thought that the Britons were "primitive" and "stupid" because they didn't have the same military technology, and the Romans wanted to conquer them anyway. Eventually, the Britons set out building their own empire, and encountered many other civilizations, considering them to be "primitive" and "stupid" and many other variations on the same theme, because they had military technology that didn't work so well against them, and they wanted to take over. History repeats itself a lot, even though there are both common and individual factors in every situation.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Raven Destroyer wrote:

basic speaking walk outside look around how we do now our things and that we need to process and that of 15000BC till today (it might easily be 25.000BC) so if we actualy need to collect this much data we will be talking about a terrabyte of crude info that needs to be crushed into workable content so this thingy might take month's work but the upside if we do it directly nearly perfect we don't have to worry about it anymore just when chance happens to our current things yeah then we need to add that new lair of info

and yeah i'm serious about trying to process a lot of data atleast the period of 10.000 BC till 500 AD and 1900 till 1945 will be time tables that i will be researching a lot into

*note* if my mouse decides to die this weekend that would be a thing i don't want to think about as he is already semi dead

10000 BC to 500 AD? Woah there boy! Slow down! That's a lot of work! And like 4000 different cultures to cover!

ALso, put down area.

thats a lot i know but i will work with the grooved ware people and then the Mediterranean

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

I think you'll find that a lot of them repeat. For example, the Romans thought that the Britons were "primitive" and "stupid" because they didn't have the same military technology, and the Romans wanted to conquer them anyway. Eventually, the Britons set out building their own empire, and encountered many other civilizations, considering them to be "primitive" and "stupid" and many other variations on the same theme, because they had military technology that didn't work so well against them, and they wanted to take over. History repeats itself a lot, even though there are both common and individual factors in every situation.

what you just said comes with the plain human mistake we never look back when we need to hitler repeated Napoleons mistake of attack russia in autumn (when snow is not far away) and they used materials not meant for that terrain

Raven Destroyer wrote:

thats a lot i know but i will work with the grooved ware people and then the Mediterranean

Let me be a bit more specific with what I want then: Only look up one or two cultures. No more then that. Be detailed and specific. Make sure you understand all social strata. Nothing should be overlooked.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

I think you'll find that a lot of them repeat. For example, the Romans thought that the Britons were "primitive" and "stupid" because they didn't have the same military technology, and the Romans wanted to conquer them anyway. Eventually, the Britons set out building their own empire, and encountered many other civilizations, considering them to be "primitive" and "stupid" and many other variations on the same theme, because they had military technology that didn't work so well against them, and they wanted to take over. History repeats itself a lot, even though there are both common and individual factors in every situation.

Correct. However, there are a vast number of other factors determining how people are dealt with. We'll look at the reasons later, just find your culture and get the information first.

Never said it was simple, Rex. Just pointing out that, functionally, for every single factor that is unique to a certain group/time/place/culture, you're going to get a handful that can be boiled down to the basic mistakes of mankind.

I know you've already got romans and american and brittish history people, so I'll do some sniffing around the rest of the "ancient" world. I'll also take the conquistadores and the mesoamericans.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Never said it was simple, Rex. Just pointing out that, functionally, for every single factor that is unique to a certain group/time/place/culture, you're going to get a handful that can be boiled down to the basic mistakes of mankind.

I know you've already got romans and american and brittish history people, so I'll do some sniffing around the rest of the "ancient" world. I'll also take the conquistadores and the mesoamericans.

Do you think you could be a bit more specific about the mesoamericans? While there were plenty of unified cultural tropes, there were also some vast differences in society and theo-political philosophy in various nations.

Okay, so i decided to do Australia in the 70s. Because changes in social attitudes are easier to analyse than static social values, at least for me.

So, in the 70s most of Australia became more understanding of people of different genders, sexualities, nations and races. The idea of gender equality was present in Australia since before Federation (1901). More from a progression of the assimilation of cultures of the post-WWII immigrants than anything else, the average Australian also became less racist. This effect was compounded during the Vietnam War. A large number of Australians protested the war, and coming off this event the country began to view the British Monarchy as unnecessary and an impediment on Australian democracy. This led to the first wave of Republicanism in Australia.

So, basically tolerance was heightened because of events in the states (African American Rights Movement and Feminist Movement). It also was given a boost because of it's past strength in Australian culture, which could be traced back to the children of the convicts.

And the public opinion of imperialism was quite suddenly changed. Losing a war seems to have the effect of hating whatever establishment lost.

@ Rex: Mostly what I've got is a) conflict between groups under the control of those vast empires of the Aztec and Inca and b) what happened when spanish conquistadores encountered such groups, then c) spanish colonizing of mexico and everything (besides brazil, obviously) to the south.
Specific? I actually have to look up dates and stuff to make sure that things were happening at the times that I think they were happening.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

@ Rex: Mostly what I've got is a) conflict between groups under the control of those vast empires of the Aztec and Inca and b) what happened when spanish conquistadores encountered such groups, then c) spanish colonizing of mexico and everything (besides brazil, obviously) to the south.
Specific? I actually have to look up dates and stuff to make sure that things were happening at the times that I think they were happening.

Don't worry about dates too much. So long as the chronology is intact, it's fine. Definately what I'm looking for.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

longpost

Good work! Now, I'd like it if we could get some specifics of the rhetoric. That can help a ton when trying to understand people's reasoning.

Now, Australia is something of an odd duck, because we're not dealing with a natural cultural progression, given it's roots. AUstralia was a penal(sp?) colony, and thus we're taking one specific income/class and making it the only real income/class present. If we can get a better sense of it's progression from prison to nation, it'll be easier to make clear statements about the event you speak of.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Now, Australia is something of an odd duck, because we're not dealing with a natural cultural progression, given it's roots. AUstralia was a penal(sp?) colony, and thus we're taking one specific income/class and making it the only real income/class present. If we can get a better sense of it's progression from prison to nation, it'll be easier to make clear statements about the event you speak of.

Well, the convict's children naturally grew up with a general distaste for authority and a dislike of the motherland, which had (for the most part unfairly) imprisoned their parents and sent them on a deathship to a far away land that was strange and generally hard to cultivate. These children grew up with cockney-speaking parents, and their language was derived from that lower middle class speech.

Then we have the other side of the equation. Obviously a prison without guards would fail, and so the convicts were accompanied by a large number of British soldiers and officers. The children of these soldiers grew up with strong English loyalties, and also held intact the "proper" English of the Royal Family.

The aboriginals were always treated harshly by the British soldiers, because of their ingrained psyche of Imperialism and English Supremacy. They were mostly killed off or ignored. Later down the line, someone decided that Aboriginals needed to be turned into "white fellas" and took children from the natives to be raised by white Christian families.

The gold rush introduced many other cultures into our nation, but the government of the time spread propaganda and created laws to keep non-whites out and so this effect diminished fairly quickly. It also greatly increased racism around this time, especially towards Asians.

So, the 20th century rolled over with three basic culture groups. The wealthy descendants of the British Army personnel, the descendants of convicts and the Irish, and the Aboriginals that have been forced into white families. The middle class, and even lower high class, were always very egalitarian in their thinking. The classic Australian word "mate" shows this idea of equality and mateship. Even with this ignorance to class, Australians still trusted Britain to be a voice of reason. This is probably because of the simple parental instincts our history brought out.

After the World Wars, mass immigration to Australia occurred, and this time the government welcomed it with open arms. This led to a new wave of multiculturalism and tolerance that has only recently diminished to racist anti-refugee campaigns in parliament.

Basically:
Convict heritage = contempt for authority and imperialism
British heritage = separation of classes (the large proportion of Australians who disliked Britain wanted the opposite, probably just because it's the opposite of what Britain wanted).
Aboriginal influence = racism from imperialism, thinking other colours and cultures are "below" English culture.
Gold Rush = Racism to Asians who immigrated to Australia.
Post-WWII Immigration = Reduced racism
9/11 = Same effect as other Western Nations - renewed racism for Arabic peoples.

[quote="US_of_Alaska"]Longpost. [quote]
That's a good way to break it down. I've got a class system coming from imperialism too, so I'm starting to think that it's one of the commonalities. (Though there are other class systems in other times that don't necessarily stem from imperialism...) I need to go home and get my books, though.