Re: Tweaking the Age Distribution Tables

From: Michael Schwartz <mschwartz_at_mi-CmdKA1h3eEJOYiPuUCyZ7XExELBkvPkrigfYL703x8xauQgSaAEFAFYR2IdRUP_>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:09:19 -0400


John Hughes wrote:

>We have a few options. One is to reduce the 50%
>children figure, which is historically bizarre.

None of the data we have tells us the most important of details: the number of children which a community can realistically support. Lacking that, I believe we should focus on the general age categories rather than specific age ranges so we won't get stuck on this sort of problem. Real-world data, while useful, needs be tweaked to fit Glorantha, not necessarily vice-versa.

For example, why not bump John's estimate of 45 as age of menopause to 55 (i.e., the age when the Elder category begins)? Surely Ernalda's magic prolongs the number of years which a woman can bear children. What is to say that the five newborns to three mothers does not include an orphan or two brought from another stead, or affinal kin in another clan?

Get creative, people! Statistics are ultimately meaningless guesswork, and we can count beans until we all pass out from boredom. Broad strokes are better than picked nits, in my opinion. We want to create something other people will be able (and *want*) to use, not just us. "Keep it simple, stupid" should be our watchword, even as we strive for completeness.

--
Michael Richard Schwartz | Language is my playground,
mschwartz_at_RsrdWpYzhVIRtKfdoK7hDfMsi3QI3epY6XQXuFAyoIgYOLr6YdNjAPdTgT-N4Dlr8E59zg_TWoBdvOFvhJs.yahoo.invalid | and words, its slides and
Ann Arbor, Michigan  USA | swingsets. -- yours truly


           

Powered by hypermail