Pat,
Out of fairness to the rocket scientists
at NASA, they had no problem with metric. Their contractors on the other
hand…
Anyway, you do make a good point of the
effect literacy and especially, numeracy of the population has on the
effectiveness of a metrication program. I’m not sure of what the
literacy rate is here in the US but I am sure it is comparable to Canada and Australia. The problem is that people who are functionally illiterate live their
lives based on “knowing” things, that is they may not be able to
conceive how long a mile is but they have the reference points down. Same
goes for weight and volume. When a new system or standard is introduced,
it is a lot of work to get the new references down (even more so than for
people who are literate). I’m sure even simple changes like a
realignment of a highway exit causes these people problems.
Phil
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat Naughtin
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 10:38
PM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:33119] Re: Use of
millimetres
on 2005-06-06 09.56, Bill
Hooper at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely if there were a big problem with the use of 3-digit numbers,
someone in the US would have proposed we add the stone to our
"system" of measures so that we could "more easily weigh
ourselves". :-)
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Dear Bill and All,
One of the issues here is that so much of our population have few numeracy
skills and the use of millimetres (only) on a building site reduces all
measures to simple numbers – granted they may be large numbers –
but they are simple, and able to be successfully handled by a large range of
workers.
I was reminded of this yesterday when I heard a radio report from Canada that reported on a study of some 23 000 adult Canadians. This report found that
about 42 % of their test subjects were functionally illiterate and
innumerate. I tried to find references to this on the net but could only find
these old quotes:
Quote 1
See: http://canadaonline.about.com/b/a/024678.htm
September 08, 2003
Literacy in Canada
On International
Literacy Day, it's important to realize that approximately 20
percent of adult Canadians do not have basic literacy skills in reading,
writing, counting and computing to meet the demands of the workplace. Another
20 percent have difficulty.
Quote 2
See: http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/abc/impabc/p5.htm
Reading skills of Canada's adult population
Reading level
Definition
Percent of Canadian population
Level 1
Non-readers
Have difficulty dealing with printed materials. Most likely identify
themselves as people who cannot read.
7%
Level 2
Poor readers
Can use printed materials for limited purposes only, such as finding a
familiar word in a simple text. Recognize themselves as having difficulties
with common reading materials.
9%
Level 3
Reluctant readers
Can use reading materials in a variety of situations, provided the
material is simple, clearly laid out/ and the tasks involved are not too
complicated. Generally do not see themselves as having significant reading
difficulties, but tend to avoid situations requiring reading.
22%
Level 4
Readers
Can meet most everyday reading demands. Are a diverse group and exhibit a
wide range of skills.
62%
Source: Adult Literacy in Canada: Results of a National Study
Although this confirmed the 42 % figure (previously reported as 40 %
and as 38 %) it did not give any more details.
>From data that I have seen in Australia the local figures are about the
same in Canada as in Australia. But again the literacy figures are only
sometimes reported and the numeracy figures almost never. I know nothing about
literacy and numeracy rates in the USA.
The reason that I am reporting these figures here is that I believe that to
manage a successful metrication program you needs to consider the literacy, and
more especially the numeracy, of your target audience. If your intended
audience is the whole population of a nation then you need to know about
literacy and numeracy rates -- and, as I said, these can be very hard to find
and literacy figures are more often quoted than numeracy figures.
Anti-metric forces have often pointed out how silly it is to name large,
imprecisely measured objects in hundreds or even thousands of tiny millimetres
with long rows of zeroes. In isolation this is not a bad argument, but it
ignores the enormous practical benefits of the complete removal of fractions,
both vulgar and decimal from all measuring work. Measurement and calculations
are much easier because there are so few costly errors produced by calculations
that involve any sort of fractions.
Experience in Architecture and Engineering, and in the Bricklaying, Butchery,
Carpentry, Electrical Trades, Fitting and Machining, Gas-fitting, Joinery,
Metal Fabrication, Plumbing, and Saddlery trades has shown the benefits of
using millimetres both in the initial learning of measurement skills and in the
use of them on a daily basis.
This 'difficulty' is put into context when we consider that builder's
labourers, in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, often with little
secondary education, have no trouble with tens of thousands of millimetres, but
rocket scientists at NASA in the USA have trouble landing a Mars Probe using a
combination of metric decimals and customary feet and inches with fractions.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin ASM (NSAA), LCAMS (USMA)*
PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia
Phone 61 3 5241 2008
Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication
matters'. You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com
and clicking on 'Newsletter'.
* Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the
Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual – for writers,
editors and printers', he is an Accredited Speaking Member (ASM) with the
National Speakers Association of Australia, and a Lifetime Certified Advanced
Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association.
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may
contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email
and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly
reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of
disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this
email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the
sender by return email.
