Thanks for your patience with this. I appreciate your perspective that the metrication community should not allow itself to get bogged down by distractions like the culture-loss, or the divide-by-three arguments. It's a useful point I hadn't considered, that rather than asking “how should we respond to this”, we should just make a point of shifting the topic back to practical economic concerns.
There's a couple of things I don't yet understand, but I think maybe they're not interesting for the rest of the list, so maybe we should take it off-list: 1. How does the rest of my message go against my stated objective? I thought my objective was “devise a pro-metric response to the culture argument”, with the premise that arguments have to be tailored to their audience's perspective lest they be rejected out of hand? 2. What does “not the agreement (argument?) of the pro-metric side” mean? Because I think my original mail also works from the premise that this is not a pro-metric argument, but an anti-metric argument (made by a skeptic) that the pro-metric side may need to deal with? In any case, maybe you are right that letting ourselves get sucked into that argument would be a strategic error. Thanks, Eric On 23 June 2013 13:52, Daniel_Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > Your email was not confusing at all. It is just that your point of > discussion was contrary to your stated objective. > > You are 100 % correct, culture does come up in discussions, but it is not > the agreement of the pro-metric side, but that of the opposition. This is > just one of their diversion tactics, another popular one is that with > metric, a unit quantity can not be divided by 3. > > As for the one world, one language argument, it can be said that the world > is moving in that direction and for the present, that world language is > English. Whether is stays that way one can only guess. Even though those > who learn English continue to speak their native languages, how much time > will elapse after everyone in the world speaks English that they will > forsake their native language as being redundant? Only time will tell. > > Metric supporters are often trapped into defending metrication (in the US & > UK only) on issues like culture and divide by three. Whenever the economic > issue is brought up, the opposition quickly tries to suppress it and metric > supporters cower in fear. Whenever the issue of culture arises, we need to > divert the topic over to the culture of business and how metrication or lack > of it affects everyone's living standard. First, though, we need to > establish a valid argument and be able to defend our argument with facts and > historical examples. > > This needs to be our battle cry as the economy is really all that matters. > > Dan > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Eric Kow" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, 2013-06-23 03:34 > To: "Daniel_Jackson" <[email protected]> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [USMA:52969] comms: cultural diversity/distinctiveness > > >> 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> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6432 - Release Date: 06/22/13 >> >> -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com>
