On 2005 Jun 2 , at 10:34 PM, Phil Chernack wrote:
I would argue that while there is nothing wrong with 3-digit driving
distances (mi or km) (but) most people) would have a problem with 3-digit clothing sizes
or shoe sizes. The same goes for measuring small lengths (lengths under a
meter.)
I see no justification for Phil's statement above that most people would have trouble with 3 digit clothing sizes or shoe sizes or small lengths under a metre. If you "argue" for it, where is your argument? What EVIDENCE do you give for this position, Phil? Without evidence, it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion.
I claim that THERE IS EVIDENCE that people can and will accept 3 digit measurements. That EVIDENCE is that THEY DO. They easily accept 3 digit driving distances (in miles), 3 digit body weights (in pounds), 3 digit cooking temperatures (in degrees Fahrenheit), even 4 and 5 digit prices for cars (in US dollars) not to mention 6 and 7 digit prices for homes (in US dollars). Based on the above EVIDENCE of people willingly using 3-digit measures, I argue that they can accept 3-digit measures for anything else. It just takes getting used to it.
Where is there evidence that they can't?
Can anyone cite cases, for example, where body weights in pounds are so bothersome when they exceed 100 lbs. that people have used or invented bigger units for weighing themselves so that the numbers are smaller? (By the way, I CAN cite one example but why should I make the argument against my own position; let the opponents find it.)
Indeed, there is even a clear example that people resist measuring their body weight or mass in a larger unit so that the numbers will be under 100. The example is measuring it in kilograms. Clearly, people in the US currently prefer weighing themselves in pounds which yield results (for most adults) over 100 pounds and therefore 3-digits, when they could weigh themselves in kilograms and get a 2-digit number under 100 kilograms.
If people really do object to three digit numbers, why don't they eagerly adopt kilograms to get rid of the 3-digit pound values? It is clear that the problem is not an objection to 3-digit numbers; it is simply an unwillingness to CHANGE. They like what is already familiar. They like 2-digit waist sizes (in inches) because they are familiar with 2-digit waist sizes. If they were accustomed to 3-digit waist sizes (in millimetres) they would be comfortable with 3-digit waist sizes just as much as they are comfortable with 3-digit body weights.
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
========================
SIMPLIFICATION begins with SI
========================
