Thanks for the heads up, Daniel! I think my mail was very confusingly written, sorry! It sounds like potentially a good idea to focus on economic arguments first. I was exploring culture because I thought it comes up sometime, and that we may need a framework for dealing with it efficiently when it arises:
A. Metric fan: standards are good B. Skeptic: so in your ideal world, everybody would only speak one language, right? C. Metric fan: ??? Then again, this only really matters if B actually comes up frequently enough to be an issue. If not, we can probably just ignore it. More likely we run into other roadblocks instead, for example, general indifference, resistance to change of any sort, etc. But when it comes to arguments, I do still like the overall attitude of trying to meet people where they are rather than expecting them to adopt your worldview (my first paragraph, *). I just don't know how to do it very well! Thanks! Eric (*) If this idea makes you feel uncomfortable, the Golden Rule can help: you do this only to the extent that you'd hope somebody else would do the same to/for you On 23 June 2013 00:47, Daniel_Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > There is absolutely no need to ever bring up culture when it come the > metrication. The vast majority of America's (and Britain's too) population, > like it or not are very, very ignorant. Because of their ignorance, they > are very easily misled by anti-metric Luddites into believing that > metrication is a destroyer of cultures. Your entire 2-nd paragraph and on > goes 100 % contrary to what you state in your first paragraph. It is the > claim of our enemies that metrication would destroy America's culture. Thus > according to your first paragraph, we should avoid this argument. It is > not our argument but theirs. > > Can you name me one country that is metric whose culture was affected > negatively by metrication? If yes, who and how? Can you name me any > country whose culture is different with this generation from previous > generations? The answer should be all countries. Every country's culture > has changed significantly over the past 100 or so years and metrication > played no part. Education, modern technology, contact with other cultures > have changed every culture in the world. Think of clothing styles in Asia. > How many Asians dress in traditional clothing? Isn't clothing styles more > or less universal now and affected by universal trends that go against > national cultures and history? > > So, why is metrication being singled out when it isn't even a factor? > > If we are going to choose our arguments, we need to argue on how metrication > or lack of it effects our economy. Are Americans better off today > economically then in the past? Has the lack of metrication helped or hurt > America's economy or has it had no effect? Culture and other facets of life > are meaningless as the US goes deeper into poverty. We need to argue that > lack of metrication has cost the US work force high paying jobs and that > industry has no loyalty to the US and will easily take their work to metric > countries if no one in the US is willing learn and work in metric. > America's distinct was of life is not set in stone and comes at a price. If > Americans can't afford to maintain that way of life, that is vanishing and > will continue to vanish more. > > Metric haters don't want the ignorant public to know this. So, they will > divert and distract attention away form the real effects of not being metric > is having on the America's present and future to nonsense like cultural > destruction. > > Also, be very careful what you post to the USMA listserver. Not every > "member" is a metric fan. Metric enemies use the listserver to prevent real > metric action by keeping the discussions to trivial nonsense as well as > complaining to monitors that their mailboxes are being filled with spam, > etc. They will drive you away if your enthusiasm crosses a line. > > I hope my comment has enlightened you somewhat. > > Dan > > > > [USMA:52969] comms: cultural diversity/distinctiveness > > Eric Kow Sat, 22 Jun 2013 06:14:18 -0700 > > 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-scientific-consensus.html > > -- > Eric Kow <http://erickow.com> > > -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com>
