Interesting, thanks for your experiences (and persistence), Mark OK, so I guess we have four (at least) problems:
- Resistance (either to change in general, or specifically against this) - the Loveable Stubbornness problem (in which American refusal to switch to metric, despite all apparent logic, and with all the craziness that ensues is perceived as warm/charming/organic, in short, loveable…) - the Metric Dweeb problem (whereby the metrication cause is undermined by a perception of being out-of-touch with “real” problems through its insistance on a seemingly trivial point) - the Blank Stare problem (whereby the need for change is not fully appreciated, ie. you already have metric, so what?) Fascinating stuff. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with the latter two points. It's just an attempt at my part at identifying some potential perception problems and poking around at them. They seem especially thorny because they may require psychological/sociological insights — do we have metrication fans that can generate such insights? For the Metric Dweeb problem, I guess the first thing we can ask ourselves is if there are any behaviours on our part that play into this. We may never be able to change this perception, but I wonder if there are any low hanging fruit to pick in terms of not reinforcing it any further? Hyperbole may be one, for example, appearing to blame all of America's ills on the lack of metrication, predicting the collapse of American industry, etc (I only know of one person that does this). Dunno. Awareness is probably a good first step, awareness of the possibility of our actions reinforcing the Metric Dweeb perception… Sorry if that's rambly. On 17 June 2013 19:34, Henschel Mark <mw-hensch...@neiu.edu> wrote: > That was me. I was intending to give the bumper sticker to Bill Clinton, > but by the time I got to where he was he had moved on shaking other > people's hands. > > I finally wound up giving the "Go Metric" bumper sticker to two women who > seemed like they were attached to the campaign. > It gets worse. > > The Technology Vice President, (AL Gore) seemed totally mystified when I > asked him if he would fight for the Metric System. He was talking about > fighting for this and fighting for that, so I shook his hand and asked him > to fight for the Metric System. "Huh" was all he could say. > > I talked to Rod Blagojevich when he was a Congressman, but nothing > happened when he was in Washington and later went to jail for being a > corrupt Governor. Then when I talked to Dick Durbin about the FPLA, all he > could say was "Metric is already on the labels." > > These guys just do't understand the issue, and no matter how many phone > calls I make or letters I write, they still just don't get it. > > > Mark > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Kow <eric....@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:10 am > Subject: [USMA:52953] Re: Practical Letter to Congressman > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > > > Is this a resistance issue, or a not-taking-the-problem- > > seriously issue? > > > I'm a bit curious about this, because I remember somebody on list > mentioning handing a metric campaign bumper sticker to a Clinton campaign > aide and getting a smirk for his trouble. It'd be interesting to see how > the metrication community can overcome the Looking Like a Bunch of Clueless > Silly Nerds problem (ie. of appearing to care about > > something that appears to be relatively inconsequential > > [regardless of how correct the perception is]). I'd love to > > see a metrication effort that was sophisticated enough to skirt > > around the problem. For example, by changing the perception, > > turning the tables on it, or even playing it our endearing advantage… > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17 June 2013 03:31, Henschel Mark <mw-hensch...@neiu.edu> wrote: > > > > >> >> NIST has prepared the legislation, but it first has to be accepted by the >> Cabinent before being submitted for Congressional action. As far as I know >> there are still members of the "change" Caninent who still are not willing >> to move forward from a 16th Century measurement system. >> > >> > >> > Mark >> >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> >> > >> > Date: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:05 pm >> > Subject: [USMA:52948] Re: Practical Letter to Congressman >> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Amending FPLA for permissive-metric-only requires Congressional >> approval. However, the assumption is NIST would recommend it to Congress. >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------ >> >> > >> > > *From:* "c...@traditio.com" <c...@traditio.com> >> > >> > > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >> > > *Sent:* Sun, June 16, 2013 6:45:19 PM >> > >> > > *Subject:* [USMA:52947] Re: Practical Letter to Congressman >> > > >> > > Is this a matter of legislative action, or executive action? My >> understanding from Mark Henschel on this list is that it is in the >> executive branch. >> > >> > > >> > > ============ >> > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Natalia Permiakova wrote: >> > > >> > > > another suggestion - >> > > > >> > > > metric labeling should be required to be the fist one listed >> (following optional non-metric units in >> > >> > > > parentheses). I believe that should help growing generation to >> accept metric system, organically >> > > > complement teaching SI in elementary school and in science classes, >> > > and emphasize preferable >> > >> > > > measurement system for the general public. >> > > > >> > > > thanks, >> > > > Natalie >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > -- > > Eric Kow <http://erickow.com> > > > > > > > > -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com>
