2002-11-23
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2002-11-22 20:25 Subject: [USMA:23549] RE: CNN, metric products > Mike: > Hmm, something tells me that showing a person emails from this list wouldn't > be the most effective way of winning them over. The problem, as I see it, > is largely one of context. To someone who has been following our > discussion, it would make sense to see a reference to "the stupid > horsepower" etc. To someone completely on the outside, though, it wouldn't > make any sense at all. Most people don't think of a horsepower as being 746 > W. They just know that it is a measure of how "powerful" an engine is--they > probably think of something along the lines of "force", not energy per unit > time. Yes, this is true of any measurements most people encounter. For the most part, the terms tickle their ear. They think they know what the term means only because they are familiar with the name. I'm sure in the case of the horsepower, it would not be an improvement in understanding just to start measuring power in watts. Unless of course, the person knows something about mechanics. Among more educated people, there might be an improvement in understanding if the horsepower is replaced by the watt. Someone who would experience other units of power replaced by the watt may now be able to see relationsships that were not previously visible. Thos in the electrical fields would have no problem understanding the power of the watt, even when used in non-electrical applications. > > To really get our point across to someone unacquainted with metrication, it > takes a carefully built explanation of what we are doing and why (and an > audience willing to listen or read for a few minutes). That is why I wrote > the documents I shared in USMA:22927. Simply launching an attack on > something that a person is familiar with but hasn't really thought about, > like horsepower, will only confuse them and make them defensive. I have > found that for written explanations of metrication, it takes a careful > introduction and detailed explanations. For spoken conversation, it takes > even more. It takes finding out what their concern is if they say that > metric is hard. Believe it or not, the best response is not "No it isn't > hard!" It is hard in their mind because they are not familiar with the metric unit terms, nor the value of the prefixes, nor the interrelationships with the units. The thing is, before they can feel comfortable with SI, they have to learn it. How do they learn it? Is everyone over 21 years going to return to school? Is the governemnt going to educate the people via the TV, internet, printed news, etc.? No, I don't think so. As long as people are ignorant of SI, they will resist it. Even if they are ignorant of FFU, it still makes no difference. They think they know FFU and will choose to stick with it even if it costs them. The trick to getting people to accept the change is to educate them in SI, and metricate products so that the people can see what they are learning. And that means sticking to rational sizes in SI. And if both of these happen together, the people will really believe SI is simpler. People also have to be instructed that clinging to FFU really costs them big time. They pay more to have non-standard devices. Products made here do sell elsewhere. And most of all it is they who will always have to deal with 2 conflicting measurement systems. Which of course is a cost burden they have to pay for. John The best response would probably be "Why do you say that?" Then you > can actually address what is weighing on their mind instead of just > disagreeing. Most if not all of the emails on this list assume that the > reader is an expert on metrication or physics or engineering. Most disagree > with colloquial units, rather than argue (which is understandable, given the > intended audience). > > Carl > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Joy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [USMA:23525] CNN, metric products > > > Carl, > > Good letter to CNN - well done. > > Re your weirdo co-worker, just print off a few of these e-mails so he can > see how backwards he is (but I don't think he has the brains to know much). > > For instance the one from Han yesterday:- > > "Yes, the caballo is the stupid horsepower, only it is the European > variety, > of 75 kgm/s or 736 W, 9 W less than the US/UK animal. Although this > travesty > of a measuring units has been outlawed from 1978 it is indestructible. What > makes it so, is beyond me. Is a unit the more durable, the more stupid and > irrational it is? > Caballo, cavallo vapore, cheval vapeur, Pferdestaerke, paardenkracht, all > names in different languages for the same animal, the continental > horsepower, that should really be sent to the knackers yard! > > Han" > > Regards > Mike > > | My coworker had a small can of Pringles that was labeled something like: > 1 > | 3/4 OZ (50 g). I mentioned to him that P&G was one of the companies > | requesting that they be allowed to use metric-only labeling, and he said, > | "What a bunch of weirdos." I told him that it was pretty important for a > | global company. I think he has already formed his opinions. Oh, well. > | > | Carl > | > > >
