One approach is that English is the world language of technology, but so is SI. Why squander our advantage in being proficient in English by not using SI?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Kow Sent: 22 June 2013 19:31 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52972] Re: comms: cultural diversity/distinctiveness Thanks, Eugene, Sorry my mail was very long-winded. I'm poking around for constructive ways to avoid falling into one of metric advocacy traps, and not so much logical/practical arguments about the necessity of standardisation. It's a good point that standards arose from needs like you mentioned to avoid fraud, make sure parts are compatible. But logic by itself (a necessary condition) doesn't work (but not a sufficient one). We need to combine logical arguments with arguments that are compatible with people's feelings about things. That said, the diversity one may not be one of the major traps we fall into though, so probably isn't worth all the poking. I bet we can build an inventory of classic reactions/resistance to metric advocacy, sort them by how often people reach for them, and then prioritise the ones we need to anticipate better. But I'm sure this is stuff metrication veterans have thought long and hard about already :-) On 22 June 2013 16:28, mechtly, eugene a <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > You forget two major necessities for Standardization of Units of Measurement: > > 1. Prevention of Fraud in the Marketplace! > > 2. Reasonable expectation that manufactured parts are able to fit together as > designed! > > Diversity (do as you please units of measurement) can not accomplish either > of these two necessities! > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of > Eric Kow [[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:12 AM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:52969] comms: cultural diversity/distinctiveness > > Hello US metrication fans! > > So one proposition I tend to enjoy is that the relationship between > views and arguments should be understood in reverse. In other words, > that we don't form our views from the arguments we hear, but choose > the arguments we accept on the basis of their compatibility with our > pre-existing views. > > With that in mind, I'd like to explore the Cultural > Diversity/Distinctiveness Retort against standardisation. This retort > has both a left wing (cultural differences should be celebrated) and a > right wing flavour (cultural differences should be preserved, notably > our distinct American way is good to preserve), but regardless of the > flavour comes down to the feeling that standardisation threatens > culture. You've probably heard the retort before: “so you think > everybody should speak the same language, right?” > > OK so taking the lens of arguments-justify-views rather than > arguments-shape-views, we may need to find a way to promote > standardisation which aligns with people's pre-existing views. In > other words, we need a concise/snappy response to the cultural > diversity retort, or better yet, a way of talking about > standardisation that anticipates and preempts the retort. > > So what sort of things do you think we can say? For the left wing > crowd, it might make sense to talk about standards as bridges. > Without the bridge, you can still communicate across cultures (row a > boat across the river), but it's harder. Having bridges simplifies > this sort of communication (you cross the bridge with less > effort/conversion), and both cultures contribute to each other. On > the other hand, bridge talk may be less helpful to a more insular > crowd. What can you say there? How can you talk about > standardisation in a way which is non-threatening to pro-America-first > values? > > I realise I'm making a big rambly deal out of a small thing so let me > back off a bit by saying we're not talking about exchanging > philosophical essays here. These are things just boil down to short 1 > or 2 sentence exchanges, or little facebook posts, or whatever. > Concision matters. And winning the debate, leaving the other person > speechless etc are very much not the goal. Getting people on board > is. > > So what can we say? > > Eric > > > PS. This comes from the recent pop vulgarisations on cognitive biases, > and also my layman's mangling of Kahan et al's work: > > http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/cultural-cognition-of-s > cientific-consensus.html > > -- > Eric Kow <http://erickow.com> > -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com>
