linking literacy rate with the speed of scientific research, isn’t it too far-fetched?

[Nekoluve]

I found that the literacy rate in the Yuan Empire was very high. If literacy rate determines the speed of scientific research, then China could definitely achieve the industrial revolution while being closed to the outside world. What I mean is that before the establishment of national scientific research institutions, research should obviously be led by the private sector, so that scientific research will be based on market demand. Many nations in history developed slowly because they lacked the need for development, not because their people were illiterate.

In fact, in the early days of the British Industrial Revolution, inventions and creations had little to do with knowledge, but were created in the practice of workers. Watt, Samuel Crompton, and Hargreaves had never been to university, and Hargreaves was even completely illiterate.

 

[Freshplayer]

There should be a way to lower the literacy rate

 

[Mef]

Unfortunately the game, like so many others, seems to equate literacy rate with education level, and it does make sense that a more educated population could progress in technology faster.
But what complicates matters is that there are a lot of advances that aren't really technology. They kind of mix different things together.

I do think that the research system right now is very barebones and needs improvement before release...

 

[Nekoluve]

There should be a way to lower the literacy rate

If it’s like vic3, it’s easy to achieve

 

[Nekoluve]

不幸的是，与许多其他游戏一样，该游戏似乎将识字率与教育水平等同起来，而受教育程度更高的人群在技术上进步更快，这确实是有道理的。
但让事情复杂化的是，很多进步其实并非真正的技术，而是各种不同的东西混合在一起的。

我确实认为目前的研究系统非常简陋，需要在发布前进行改进……

I think the biggest influence on advance is demand. In fact, when the French army set foot on Algerian soil, they found that the local literacy rate was very high, comparable to that of the French. High literacy did not help Algerians modernize earlier to resist the French invasion

 

[lukesilveira]

I found that the literacy rate in the Yuan Empire was very high. If literacy rate determines the speed of scientific research, then China could definitely achieve the industrial revolution while being closed to the outside world. What I mean is that before the establishment of national scientific research institutions, research should obviously be led by the private sector, so that scientific research will be based on market demand. Many nations in history developed slowly because they lacked the need for development, not because their people were illiterate.

Strongly agree. It would only make sense in the very late game, ie later eras or after embracing specific later eras institutions, with the scientific revolution and democratization of research

 

[Nekoluve]

Strongly agree. It would only make sense in the very late game, ie later eras or after embracing specific later eras institutions, with the scientific revolution and democratization of research

Yeah, I think in the early stages of the game all a player can do is sponsor advances and create demand to attract people to research.

 

[Fish4me]

I found that the literacy rate in the Yuan Empire was very high. If literacy rate determines the speed of scientific research, then China could definitely achieve the industrial revolution while being closed to the outside world. What I mean is that before the establishment of national scientific research institutions, research should obviously be led by the private sector, so that scientific research will be based on market demand. Many nations in history developed slowly because they lacked the need for development, not because their people were illiterate.

Assuming mid/late game institutions are appropriately difficult for them to attain, they'll be directly prevented from making use of that high research speed. Which is I think the point of that system, rather than trying to somehow prevent the Chinese from reading.

Tying literacy to research speed isn't a perfect representation of how advancements were actually made, but it is still a huge step up from EU4's system in terms of making more organic.

 

[lukesilveira]

I also think the whole concept of literacy can be pretty strange, especially in the early game. Let's say I'm a peasant in 1340 Toulouse who happens to be literate. Yay! But I'm literate in some local variant of Occitan, not whatever the top French scholars are reading and writing (let's go with Latin for argument's sake).

I'm also completely bound by the rigid social and class structures of medieval Europe. EVEN if I somehow knew Latin, I'm not (and couldn't possibly be) using it to advance scientific knowledge. How on earth would I be contributing to French research?

At most, I might marginally help spread knowledge if I'm reading manuals and applying its knowledge in my daily life, but even then, such materials would only become widely accessible after Gutenberg's printing press (which would be a institution). Before that, my literacy barely impacts broader society.

So I'd rather see literacy rate tied to research bonuses incrementally (say, starting with 5% of its current value), unlocked piece by piece through developing and embracing institutions, until it finally becomes vital for research with the Scientific Revolution and the democratization of scientific knowledge. Imho this makes more historical sense literacy's importance to innovation wasn't static throughout history but evolved as knowledge systems and social structures changed. It would also serve as a mechanic to explain why some countries that had strong literacy rates didn't necessarily have strong technological advances

 

[Nekoluve]

I’m not trying to say that Chinese people should be prevented from reading. Just reading books does not actually directly increase scientific research capabilities. The scholars of the Chinese Empire only studied Confucian classics, and did not even learn logic. These scholars would regard scientific creations as gimmicks. Chinese dynasties even often opposed technological progress because it would lead to massive unemployment, aggravating the domestic unemployment problem (land annexation has already led to massive unemployment), and the lack of sufficient markets for more products produced by technological advance meant that basically no one would invest in advance.

 

[Nekoluve]

I also think the whole concept of literacy can be pretty strange, especially in the early game. Let's say I'm a peasant in 1340 Toulouse who happens to be literate. Yay! But I'm literate in some local variant of Occitan, not whatever the top French scholars are reading and writing (let's go with Latin for argument's sake).

I'm also completely bound by the rigid social and class structures of medieval Europe. EVEN if I somehow knew Latin, I'm not (and couldn't possibly be) using it to advance scientific knowledge. How on earth would I be contributing to French research?

At most, I might marginally help spread knowledge if I'm reading manuals and applying its knowledge in my daily life, but even then, such materials would only become widely accessible after Gutenberg's printing press (which would be a institution). Before that, my literacy barely impacts broader society.

So I'd rather see literacy rate tied to research bonuses incrementally (say, starting with 5% of its current value), unlocked piece by piece through developing and embracing institutions, until it finally becomes vital for research with the Scientific Revolution and the democratization of scientific knowledge. Imho this makes more historical sense literacy's importance to innovation wasn't static throughout history but evolved as knowledge systems and social structures changed. It would also serve as a mechanic to explain why some countries that had strong literacy rates didn't necessarily have strong technological advances

Literacy should be considered an influencing factor, not a determining factor. Literacy itself does not make a person want to improve, it can only make him improve faster.

 

[Freshplayer]

Maybe we should throw a bible back to Stone Age and see whether there are some changes for now.

Sometimes I think it's true but it's hard to make that indication.

 

[GDQuirm]

I found that the literacy rate in the Yuan Empire was very high.

Source?

I know only one English source making a hard claim to the literacy rate of ancient China, which is Evelyn Rawski's "Education and Popular Literacy in Ch'ing China". Since the government did not measure literacy, and the legal capacity to print and publish was not available to the common person at any period in China's history, she uses the method of "How many schools do we think there were" to extrapolate a rough guess that "there was an average of almost one literate person per family".

This is very unreliable. We don't have a concrete record of the number of schools, and we're fairly aware that the "schools" throughout premodern China were not generally accessible to the public; those that were were generally Buddhist or Taoist* religious institutions, which often did not teach using writing, except the displaying of a few specific characters; and as a general rule, the vast bulk of rural China did not have access to most of the institutional elements of the Chinese state beyond public works.

This can be compared to many parts of Europe, where we do have concrete records for the literacy rate of the clergy, which we can at least compare against records for the clerical population. The religious obligation to be literate then later had a huge impact in Europe when the capacity to print and publish became controlled and accessible to the common burgher (something that never occurred in China), while the church took an active interest in teaching as many children as possible, and critically the children of the common peasantry (again, something that did not happen in China), to read, on the basis of a religious obligation to do so, particularly in protestant countries.

So I would say we don't really know the literacy rate in most of Chinese history, and secondly that we do know that Europe was fairly unique in actively promoting literacy among the poor and the working class of many nations as we approach the 1500s.

*Taoist schools in particular placed an emphasis on the large written scripture, but throughout most of its history these schools were more restricted to the upper class than Buddhist schools were, and often were deliberately restricted or suppressed by various dynasties.

 

[Kovax]

Literacy should be a modifier to the rate of progress, but should not be the primary cause, and should start with very little actual effect. Many Institutions should oppose technological advancement, as should a deeply entrenched bureaucracy (such as China had), while the gradual increase in power and influence of Institutions favoring progress should be a major driver of technology and social development. This in many places should be a result of a growing middle class, searching for unorthodox ways to advance into the upper class.

Advancement is not due to the peasant farmer, who has no spare means to take advantage of any ideas he or she may have. It is rarely the work of the nobility, who are more concerned with retaining the status quo than in unbalancing the social structure where they are already at the top. It is often the actions of the middle class which brings about change, as they have some means of putting new ideas into effect and a strong motivation to do so.

 

[Mef]

Many Institutions should oppose technological advancement, as should a deeply entrenched bureaucracy (such as China had), while the gradual increase in power and influence of Institutions favoring progress should be a major driver of technology and social development.

Which institutions oppose technological advancement and which institutions favor progress?

Advancement is not due to the peasant farmer, who has no spare means to take advantage of any ideas he or she may have.

I'd say that the crop rotation developed by Waasland farmers in the 16th century, which was eventually adopted across western and northern Europe, leading to a massive increase of agricultural output that was able to sustain strong population growth, was a pretty significant advancement.

 

[Nekoluve]

Source?

I know only one English source making a hard claim to the literacy rate of ancient China, which is Evelyn Rawski's "Education and Popular Literacy in Ch'ing China". Since the government did not measure literacy, and the legal capacity to print and publish was not available to the common person at any period in China's history, she uses the method of "How many schools do we think there were" to extrapolate a rough guess that "there was an average of almost one literate person per family".

This is very unreliable. We don't have a concrete record of the number of schools, and we're fairly aware that the "schools" throughout premodern China were not generally accessible to the public; those that were were generally Buddhist or Taoist* religious institutions, which often did not teach using writing, except the displaying of a few specific characters; and as a general rule, the vast bulk of rural China did not have access to most of the institutional elements of the Chinese state beyond public works.

This can be compared to many parts of Europe, where we do have concrete records for the literacy rate of the clergy, which we can at least compare against records for the clerical population. The religious obligation to be literate then later had a huge impact in Europe when the capacity to print and publish became controlled and accessible to the common burgher (something that never occurred in China), while the church took an active interest in teaching as many children as possible, and critically the children of the common peasantry (again, something that did not happen in China), to read, on the basis of a religious obligation to do so, particularly in protestant countries.

So I would say we don't really know the literacy rate in most of Chinese history, and secondly that we do know that Europe was fairly unique in actively promoting literacy among the poor and the working class of many nations as we approach the 1500s.

*Taoist schools in particular placed an emphasis on the large written scripture, but throughout most of its history these schools were more restricted to the upper class than Buddhist schools were, and often were deliberately restricted or suppressed by various dynasties.

The source is a screenshot of eu5, I'm complaining about the game's mechanics.

On the issue of literacy rate in China, well. In the Ming Dynasty, villages in economically developed areas usually had private schools set up by gentry, and poor people also have the opportunity to go to school. There are always stories about poor scholars who were motivated to study hard, because once they succeed in the imperial examinations, they can turn their lives around and become scholar-officials and landowners. For example, the famous historian and politician Song Lian was born into a poor family, but he became a bureaucrat because of his love of learning. So China's literacy rate may be higher than other countries.

 

[Nekoluve]

哪些机构反对技术进步，哪些机构支持技术进步？

我想说，瓦斯兰农民在十六世纪开发的轮作制度，被西欧和北欧广泛采用，导致农业最终大幅减少，并能够保持强劲的人口增长，这是一个相当重大的进步。

In fact, in addition to merchants, there should be many people who oppose advance... For example, the nobles are likely to oppose professional armies, emancipation of serfs, centralization of power, and selection of talents. Peasants will oppose enclosure. Handicraft guilds will oppose the adoption of new production technologies and free markets. If the Black Death had not killed so many people, Europa would have been even less supportive of adopting new technologies.

 

[Cratty]

I'm pretty sure estates have separate modifiers for literacy. It would make sense if peasant literacy had very little impact on research and other estates had more impact;

 

[MasterPaw]

The fact that theocracy have higher research than other countries due to this is weird

 

[Sulphurologist]

I'd say that the crop rotation developed by Waasland farmers in the 16th century, which was eventually adopted across western and northern Europe, leading to a massive increase of agricultural output that was able to sustain strong population growth, was a pretty significant advancement.

small nitpick: the 16th century innovation in the Waasland was the application of 'bolle akkers', a variation of ridge-and-furrow fields.
As far as I've read the four-field system was a broader agricultural practice around Flanders-Brabant-Hainaut.
If you have a more in-depth source, I'd be very interested to read it though!