While I'm not disputing your observations and experience, Pat, please consider the following thoughts (below).
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:17:52 Pat Naughtin wrote: >...That's understandable and you are not alone. Many others - even on this list >- have trouble with this, and so did I for many years. I simply could not >understand why metrication programs using millimetres worked so well, and >metrication programs using centimetres hardly worked at all. I kept saying >things like, 'Can't they see that it's simple - can't they just move the >decimal point'. > Firstly, Pat, consider that people from these professions have a very different mindset to begin with. This alone could account for the stiff resistence they put against metrication. All of a sudden they'd have to "abandon" their fraction use, or thinking in halves, quarters and the likes, the sizes would be different, etc, etc, etc... To some of these folks they couldn't see the advantages, like 'moving a decimal point'. Actually they didn't even HAVE to deal with decimal points before at all, you see! So asking them to start doing that now proved to be too much for them to handle, despite the undeniability of the simplicity of moving decimal points when compared to dealing with fractions, for instance, to pick on just one item! >However, the evidence before me was irrefutable and it would not go away. > >My conclusions are based on many years of personal observation in many >different activities. > Not that I do not graciously accept our brother-in-arm's pool of experience, observation, etc, but I still believe that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, so to speak. >For example, I directly observed, as a trainer of trade teachers, the ease >of the metric transition for these trades: boilermakers, bricklayers, >carpenters, fitters and machinists, furniture builders, piano makers, >plumbers, and welders. > >I also observed the difficulties faced by cooks, tanners, and textile >workers such as scourers, carders, gillers, combers, spinners, weavers, and >knitters when they tried the same metrication process using centimetres. > >Simply put, if a group decided to 'Go metric' using millimetres, the process >was quick and relatively easy. It didn't matter whether the people concerned >were scientists, technicians, or bricklayer's laborers. Let me therefore suggest that one take a closer look at how these professions work in their line of business. Let me recommend that firstly we'd need to understand their professional requirements better before we can pass judgment. It might just be, for instance, that accuracy requirements may flip-flop between *needing* things to the cm precision while on other occasions the mm would be required. Or that halving is an integral part of their day-to-day business, Pat. In other words, we should study and compare why the introduction of decimal points, for instance, would be perceived as more of a nuisance to these traders than simply migrating to the use of the mm. Again, I'm not disputing your contribution, my dear friend, but merely launching the debate to a different level. ...On the other hand, if a group decided to 'Go metric' using centimetres, the >process is slow, difficult, accompanied by moaning, groaning, and threats of >mutiny. Using centimetres, the metrication process for these groups has >taken 33 years - so far - and there is no clear end in sight. [As a side >issue, this is the path to metrication apparently chosen by the world's >computer industry - I wish them well.] > Again, possible, but we should dig deeper into understanding why. For example, have you have the chance to inquire with these guys what their beef would be vis-a-vis using the metric system? What sort of complaints do they lodge against it? Is the source of the problem the accuracy aspect (like I hinted above)? Or is it difficulty in 'halving', lack of a more cohesive approach by suppliers vis-a-vis "standard sizes"? Or is it the issue of having now to abandon fraction mindsets while embracing decimal thinking? As you can see, Pat, this seems to me to be somewhat more complex than one may think. Perhaps as a result of these dialogues one may indeed conclude that IF they were "given the mm" things would run more smoothly, but until we learn of their beefs more in details, this may all be speculative, don't you think? Again, I must cite the example of my birth country about this. We NEVER experienced ANY difficulties adopting and using the cm in construction, for instance. Since boyhood our tradespeople have been taught to not worry about the presence of decimals. Since younger age they've learned to NEVER think in terms of fractions for nearly anything, except for very few and specific examples where the use of fractions would prove more beneficial (like in equations). So, how could one then explain *our* success with the use of cm in this *same* industry over there? Do you see what I mean? We're talking about the *same* trade here, but different people, different environment, different circumstances. >... >Think about the bricklayer's laborers that I mentioned earlier. We are not >talking about intellectual giants here, but these folk had little trouble >adjusting to house plans that contained numbers like 22 800 mm for the >length of a wall. One of the reasons for this, I think, is that the big >numbers have given their users three distinct advantages on a building site: > >1 There are never any fractions. >2 There are never any decimal points. >3 Calculations are mostly simple, but if they're not, they can be fed into >a calculator without conversions. > Very good! This is a great concrete example about why the mm worked in this case! I can live with that. But the above would NOT preclude that the cm would not work if presented to a different group of tradespeople in this area, you see. In Brazil, for instance, people would probably think the following: 1. We still do NOT have any fractions to deal with (in cm) 2. Decimal points are a fact of life, just like it is with money values (so, why should it bother us?...)? 3. Calculations are even simpler in cm (less digits), which may allow me to even do them by mind. 4. I'd still not need any conversion business actually because moving a decimal point to distinguish between receiving instructions in 1.80 m or another piece which is 54 cm is not confusing to me! I have a complete grasp about sizes, dimensions, etc, in either (cm or mm or 1 or 2 or... decimal places). As a consequence I'd venture say that if you tried to introduce the mm over there for construction you would actually face a stiff resistence. Why? Most would say, I don't need to know this size with 3 digits, so why should I bother? If I ever need to quote to that accuracy I will otherwise I don't need to clutter all my design and drawing specifications with additional numbers just for the sake of avoiding decimal points, for instance! (Besides, let's not forget that we use the comma as a decimal separator there which adds to clarity!... ;-) ) >If you compare this with the issues confronted by a textile worker (say a >weaver) who still has to: > >1 Negotiate halves and maybe quarters and eighths of metres and >centimetres. >2 There are almost always decimal points with varying numbers of digits to >the right of them. >3 Calculations might involve fractions, decimals or both of these. For >example, how many 7 1/2 centimetre squares can I cut from 3/4 of a metre of >fabric looks difficult, but how many 75 mm squares can I cut from 750 mm >looks much easier. Calculations often have to be mentally converted before >they can be fed into a calculator. > Very good! Requirements of the trade, basically. Now, one must ask the question. Is it *really* necessary that the mindset of these people be set to thinking in fractions or 'halving' all the time? I'd venture say that the answer should be a no! Therefore, perhaps one should think of changing their mindset *FIRST* to that of skipping or forgetting about fractioning and halving. THEN we should proceed with the new system. I don't know... This is just me thinking out loud (and I may be wrong after all!). ... >This is what most people do within their workplace. They arrange for their >units to provide convenient numerical values. *BINGO*!!! In other words: accuracy! What do they need? Up to mm precision, then, sure, by all means skip the decimal points by establishing numbers to that level of accuracy. That helps. But, is it cm? Then why insist on putting an extra digit, you see? The bottom line here, Pat, is the following. The educational system should teach people how to operate under a "decimal world". They MUST be trained to look at decimal points, for instance, as just a "fact of life" and not be bothered by their presence. Teach them to feel comfortable around ANY and EVERY type of number, be it in dm, cm, mm, with or without decimal places and see what happens, my friend! After that, I'd venture say that most would be bothered by seeing labels like the following: 54.2 x 61.7 cm, and would probably prefer to just see: 54 x 62 cm! Or, alternatively, they'd rather see 540 x 620 mm! As long as numbers are *user-friendly*!!! Let the *true* dimensions show them to actually be to the mm accuracy IF that is a must. Otherwise, let's not bother the public with such details and let's leave professionals alone to deal with measurements in any way they see fit. ... >As you and I know, it is only a matter of sliding decimal points backwards >and forwards - but how far and how often do you have to do it is very >important to those (such as textile mill workers) whose numerical skills are >not well developed; to them kilotex and centinewtons are just >incomprehensible jargon. > Fine, ok, then pursue some form of standardization after things like the mm, but please, *please* do not enforce those on others *outside* of this circle who may have no difficulties in dealing (or even prefer!) with 'centinewtons', etc. I must again point out a fundamental advantage of the SI system: f-l-e-x-i-b-i-l-i-t-y! What other system can be this workable under such variety of prefix options? ;-) >I remember being profoundly impressed by some research done on the >mathematical skills of adult Australians. This showed that slightly less >than half of their subjects could readily (within a fixed time limit) add >three items (such as $7.80, $13.25, and $11.90) from a restaurant luncheon >menu. When they included the complexity of calculating a 10 % discount or >10 % tip (just slide the decimal point remember!) the number able to do this >dropped to less than 10 %. > ? Really? This is interesting. I guess the most evident conclusion about this is that people have more trouble dealing with multiplications than sums... ;-) And/or, the problem stems with the fact that people would have to know that they should move the decimal point two places to the left BEFORE they could calculate this multiplication. Now, I don't see that this would be much different if the world had settled to a percentage concept that would deal with 3 digits!!! Let me explain, if percentages meant 1/1000 of something, say: 350% = 350/1000 People would STILL require to move a "decimal point", but this time, 3 places to the left as opposed to 2! In other words, I seriously doubt that the results would have been better for this hypothetical situation than it is with the present % framework. Actually, I will even be bold here and claim that it could be even worse given the fact that one would now have to deal with 3 digits as opposed to 2!!! (But, ok, I concede I may be wrong pending argumentations to the contrary) ... >> I still have a hard time accepting the general message that mm are always >> preferable to cm. > >I don't think 'that millimetres are always preferable to centimetres'. For >example, I do not doubt Marcus Berger's assertion that centimetres work well >in Brasil. However, I have to wonder, based on my own experience, how long >it took the Brasilians (from 1862) to make their metric transition. Did it >take fifty weeks or did it take fifty years? > I guess I can answer that, Pat. No, it didn't take 'fifty years'. It actually took less than a couple of years or so, **ONCE** the education infrastructure was in place! So, in essence, the success of this endeavor is critically tied to how you go about teaching people how to use the metric system, cm or no cm, mm, or dm or whatever!!! >I firmly believe that if you are planning a transition to metric and you >want it to go relatively quickly and smoothly, then choose millimetres as >your small unit. That's ok, you could choose that avenue if you firmly believe it would have a high degree of potential success. But please allow me to recommend another *more effective* course of action! Teach folks how to operate under the decimal metric system. Have people comfortably navigate from cm to dm to um (micro) to whatever. Do extensive exercises in adding, subtracting, multiplying, powering, EVERYTHING. Do that to exaustion (like we do over there!). Make day-to-day numbers appear in equal frequencies, i.e. not skewed in favor of ANY particular prefix and see the results! Let also be taught the business of accuracy, what it means, and how it affects measured values. Do exercises with these, to exaustion (again!). I'd bet my neck that the choice over cm or mm after this will be completely moot and a simple democratic vote or choice by users should suffice to settle the matter. ;-) :-) > I commend to you these policy statements from the >Australian building industry policy documents: > >3The SI units for linear measurement in building and construction will be >the metre (m) and the millimetre (mm), with the kilometre (km) being used >where required. This will apply to all sectors of the industry, and the >centimetre (cm) shall not be used.2 Standards Association of Australia, >1972, Metric Handbook Metric Conversion in Building and Construction >SAA MH1-19729 > If you do the above suggestion I doubt that the above item would be necessary. Why? Noone would really be bothered when seeing cm, dm or whatever. Sure, standardizations around a *specific level of accuracy* would have precedence. And if this industry means the mm, fine, if not, let it be. You may think that my suggestion is a recipe for disaster because if you do it this way you'd have opened a Pandora's box out there as people would start seeing supplies labeled in all sorts of dimensions and prefixes. But, you know what? So what??? That's precisely what one sees in Brazil and nobody is bothered by that! The only prefix I'm yet to see though over there is the dm. Why? I don't know of any application in construction that is built to the dm accuracy! ;-) >With these words the Australian Building and Construction Advisory Committee >effectively banished centimetres from the building trades in Australia with >the result that metric conversion in these trades was smooth, rapid, and >complete. Provided people abide by those rules, too, Pat! What would have happened if *in spite* of this apparent wise instruction people decided to NOT follow it. Then what? In other words, there MUST be *cooperation* among traders for this to work, otherwise, forget it! Anyways... Enough said (i.e. talked too much) Warm regards, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
