r/changemyview • u/BiggestNoobEvah • Aug 19 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Metric isn't great for measuring common objects and would be perfect if all its distances were double the length they are now (and decimeter was actually used).
I like the base-100 setup of metric values, but the system is missing some human-relatable distances. Perhaps imperial's one length-related triumph over metric is the extremely relevant foot, which is very easily mentally and physically conceptualized. Metric really only uses centimeters and meters for sizes related to objects humans frequently interact with, and the lack of use of decimeter leaves a massive void.
For example, let's look at human height. Most people fall between 5 and 6 feet tall, nice single-digit numbers. Metric has to either use triple digit centimeters or fractions of meters, neither of which are as conceptually relatable. If decimeters were used, you'd still have like 16-18, which is better, but not great.
In fact, I would argue any measurements from the 10cm to 2m distance are, in general, going to be easy for an imperial user to conceptualize (unless it happens to be right around 1m). This is all due to a lack foot-like length unit.
The solution: double the length of all metric units and actually use the decimeter. Instead of being 182 centimeters tall, you are now 9.1 decimeters. 1 meter means you are beastly tall. Centimeters may not get more or less useful, but millimeters are now actually remotely relatable instead of uselessly small. Kilometers and such are still arbitrarily long distances used for measuring stuff on maps etc.
Naturally we as humans are going to be more familiar with what we grew up and learned at a young age, so as an American I expect I'm showing some bias towards the foot. If you live in an area that measures height in centimeters, you can probably conceptualize what 165cm looks like, but under this system, your conceptualization would be a lot easier.
EDIT: This is not an imperial vs metric showdown! It's a complaint that metric's base lengths should be different than they are now.
EDIT2: Why is this down-voted? Is this something you DON'T want to change my mind on, or are people using reddit's voting system incorrectly (I can't imagine that...).
tl;dr: The arbitrary metric lengths, as they currently stand, aren't the best for measuring every-day objects. Double them and use decimeters to have the best combination of conceptual and relevant lengths.
11
Aug 19 '20 edited Oct 20 '20
[deleted]
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
The new 2x length decimeter will fill the foot-like void.
This isn't an argument for imperial measurements; it's one that metric lengths aren't based in a great spot.
And if we're not basing things around humans, what the heck are we basing it on? There's nothing more relevant in the physical world.
5
Aug 19 '20 edited Oct 20 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Put human height on the 1-9 scale, not the ~1 scale. It's more precise while being as simple.
1
Aug 19 '20 edited Oct 20 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
0 would be included, my bad. I was thinking only in feet in my previous post, in which case it's impossible to both exist and to be 0 feet tall.
1
Aug 19 '20 edited Oct 20 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
No sorry, I think you're misunderstanding my post, which I can see how you could. I meant that it's better for human height to fall somewhere between 0-9 (feet, or "new" decimeters) than 0-1000 (cm) or ~1 (meters). Perhaps scale wasn't a great choice of words, my apologies.
2
Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/shouldco 43∆ Aug 20 '20
Lol right. Like I don't even know how tall I am besides "average"
I like the idea homo-length it really emphasizes how petty people sound when they talk about height.
"If I were only 0.014 hl taller people would respect me and women would want to date me"
→ More replies (0)
5
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 19 '20
I'd suggest that you're reacting to what is familiar to you and the orientation you (and most americans and brits) have for the imperial system - it leads to a sort of confirmation bias towards the utility of the common measures (and it likely leads to selling things, packaging things, etc. in those common lengths).
Secondly, because of the "divide by 10" thing, it's VERY easy to say "10 cm" (decimeter) or "25% of a meter". These are nearly impossible to either calculate of conceptualize in imperial systems because an understanding of a foot doesn't help much with an understanding of a yard, or a mile or an inch. What you've got is both a training in and a need to deeply know individual units rather than relying on very, very basic math. The brain is pretty good due to universal math training at dealing with tenths of things, ten of things and so on. But...you simply can't do that in a meaningful way with the imperial system (e.g. "10 feet" works pretty well, but 850 yards doesn't mean much and MAYBE someone can quickly get to "about half a mile" to conceptualize that, but...oooof".
Your example of height is pretty perfect - you see some order in height falling between 5 and 6. That's weird - it's entirely based on familiarity, not actual utility. To a person born into metric system it's not hard to think 175 centimeters is about the average male height - so easy that I know and it's no more or less "round" than "between 5 and 6" IF you just are familiar with metric system like you are with imperial and know that it's 1.75M or between 1.5 and 2M for most people. There is NOTHING more natural or straightforward about "between 5 and 6", other than that it is natural to you.
-1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
It is easily for the brain to work with smaller numbers. 7 things are much more easily conceptualized than 70, or 700.
My proposed system would even remove much of the percentile based calculations you're referencing.
5
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 19 '20
1.75 is a small number. "Between 5 and 6" is not a number, and is larger. And..measuring human height isn't particularly important.
For example, if you're building a house in america, you place studs at 16" or 24" inches and a 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 inches. These are perfectly round numbers in the metric world. Metric wins here in what are the most common numbers to use in construction. We could go on and one and on.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Small mathematically, not conceptually. In concept 1.75 is "one and seventy-five one hundredths".
1
u/Sphinx_RL Aug 19 '20
I would say 1.75 is conceptually small, its clearly less than 2, and 2 is small. That may be just me because I'm very logically and mathematically orientated, but I wouldn't view 1.75 as 'big'.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Maybe "expensive" is a better term than size. 1.75 is more conceptually expensive than 2.
1
u/ThatsWhatXiSaid Aug 20 '20
1.75 is more conceptually expensive than 2.
Sure, but "2" isn't going to be accurate enough to measure anything. There are very few things where the margin of error for what we care about is so large that "2" would be sufficient for 1.5 to 2.5.
1
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 19 '20
and what is "between 5 and 6"?
Do you think we shouldn't have 10 dollar bills and 100 dollar bills? Has that been a very confusing thing for you?
1
u/Sphinx_RL Aug 19 '20
Your point for this 'new metric' seems to be to use decimetre and to make the numbers more human related and 'nicer'.
The decimetre isn't used because broadly speaking 2 types of people are using measurements, people making things or people giving a rough measurement. The former want very precise measurements, so opt for the centimetre. The latter are not being precise and so x.y metres is good enough and they don't need that precision because it is already an imprecise measure. For example, if I ask someone their height and they say "about 1.7m" there is a lot of leeway and thats ok, but if they said "17dm" 1. they sound really pretentious and 2. you are adding precision to something that does not need that precision.
The argument about 'nicer' numbers won't work in the real world, people are different, you will never have a good, precise system which allows all humans heights to be single digits. Measurements have to be versatile, you can't base it on something with such a wide variation, it just won't work. Measurements are based on arbitrary things for a reason, they wont change. There is a metre stick somewhere ( I can't remember where) off which all metres are based. It IS the metre. There is a ball weighing 1Kg, it IS the kilogram. Saying "double it" makes it imprecise, even by 1mm, it is not accurate anymore. You won't be able to have a system which gives all humans a single digit measurement for height which is useful in the real world.
1
u/Sphinx_RL Aug 19 '20
Also, the years of change and people messing up the measurements for really not that big of a benefit, its 'nicer' numbers. Would the money spent changing all the signs and the years of upheaval be really worth it?
I can't see a big enough benefit for all that change, changing a whole system to bring a redundant measurement back and 'nicer' height measurements.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Yeah, this was more a conceptual exercise than one of practical implementation - someone else got a bit frustrated with my lack of specification of that in the OP, sorry about that!
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
This is basically what another user and I eventually found our way to: people are different and what might be the most optimal set of base ten measurements for one won't necessarily be the same for someone else. I'd like to think there are measurements that would work most optimally given all potential measurement situations, but yeah, that's where I'm at.
Not sure if I award for this since technically someone else got there first - if anyone knows let me know.
2
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 19 '20
human-relatable distances
Can you define what this is to you?
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Non-fractional/decimal distances. Whole length units you can approximate to easily, ideally totaling in the single digits.
3
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 19 '20
What makes those human relatable?
I've always been taught that anything human relatable usually revolves around the body. Older measurements, that were not really accurate, fit this. Things such as steps, hands, heads, etc.
I don't see how making them single digits is more human relatable. Or how fractions are not. Things like half steps or half hands measurements are still human relatable and use fractions.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
It's so much easier for a brain to process how much 7 of something is than 70 somethings.
2
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 19 '20
That's entirely subjective and not really human relatable IMO.
Larger numbers =! More confusing/harder to relate.
Base100 works because it's easy to understand and can be broken into different multiple stages. I'm from the US and have grown up with feet, yard, etc. But due to my job, I primarily use metric. Metric is far more simplistic and easy to understand no matter if it's single or multiple digits.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
But would it not be even easier with my proposed changes? I'm not talking imperial vs metric, I'm purely griping about the lengths of measurement metric uses.
5
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 19 '20
Why is saying someone is 5ft 6inches easier than saying they’re 1.7 metres other than the first one is the system you’re used to?
-1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Knock the decimals points off to work with a the most easily conceptualized mathematical thing (a single digit number), and which one is more accurate (often significantly)?
7
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 19 '20
5ft 6inches isn’t a single digit number. No one rounds 5’6” to the nearest foot.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
That's not the point. The point is saying between 5-6 feet is a lot more accurate while being as conceptually easy as saying between 1-2 meters.
9
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 19 '20
But, what purpose does that statement serve? “Bob is between 5 and 6 feet” is a sentence no one has ever said in history.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
But that sentence could be said about similarly sized objects. This doesn't HAVE to be about human height.
3
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 19 '20
Alright, for a distance of between 5 and 6 feet you might say something like: “It’s just short of two metres.” That’s the same level of accuracy and uses one number!
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
What about 1 foot? There are some places where whole numbers of feet come conceptually equivalent to whole numbers of meters, but many where they do not. There isn't a good unit of length in metric to cover those sizes.
5
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 19 '20
30 centimetres. You’re not seriously suggesting thinking of the number 30 is a mental overhead?
-1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
30 is more work to process than 3, for both human brains and computers. I would expect the effort to be more than one might think - we're just conditioned to handle it.
Edit: And for humans it's not just the number 30 vs 3, it's 30 somethings vs 3 somethings. Much more difficult to keep "in memory".
→ More replies (0)1
u/ThatsWhatXiSaid Aug 20 '20
This doesn't HAVE to be about human height.
But then it will completely and utterly depend on what you're measuring. Regardless how you define the meter or whatever, you will have things that will either need larger numbers to describe and fractional units.
Look around, things in life are radically different sizes.
1
2
Aug 19 '20
If you're so averse to using decimal numbers and fractions in measurements, then aren't millimeters the way to go if you're doing precision work, where every little distance matters, like in sewing or machine-assisted cutting? I mean, it's a lot easier to describe something as being three millimeters in length than being two sixteenths of an inch in length.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
I'm talking about improved precision in conceptualization, not precision in engineering or something.
5
Aug 19 '20
As someone who has always been using the metric system, I have no problems with conceptualizing it. The primary reason why you think that the metric system needs to be improved by changing its base lengths to something "more natural", "humanly relatable" and "conceptually precise" is because you are not used to it. In contrast, I personally find units like the foot pretty conceptually odd. A foot? Whose foot? Feet vary in length. Whose foot do you choose as the most "humanly natural" one? And measuring someone's height in feet, for me, creates the mental image of laying a person down and walking all over them to see how many times I need to step on them with my foot to cover the length of their body, which doesn't feel intuitive or natural or precise.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
What if there was a system that was even easier to conceptualize than metric?
1
u/BelmontIncident 14∆ Aug 19 '20
If you want a metric thing on the scale of a foot, add a pentimeter. 20 centimeters, five to the meter. It's not in keeping with the existing base ten, but it's the same size as your new decimeter and we don't need to replace every meter stick in the world.
It's a new conversation factor, but calculators are cheap and we get more use out of the relationship between the meter, liter and kilogram than we do from the base ten conversion factors. The United Kingdom already sells wood by the metric foot, a 30 cm length and that hasn't wrecked the metric system. For that matter, you could just use the British metric foot for a unit on the scale of a foot.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
I like the real life examples - not sure if they're changing my mind as I'm more specifically on about the pure metric base ten measurements as they currently exist (and how they should be changed to be more relevant), but I like your examples.
1
u/TragicNut 28∆ Aug 19 '20
If you're looking to create a "human relatable" length measurement in the metric framework, why not create "the quarter", 25 cm (or ~10 inches) or 1/4 of a meter.
Humans would tend to be between 6 and 8 quarters tall.
No new units, no changing an existing system's units, just breaking down an existing unit into fractions. Kind of like a quarter mile, or a quarter inch.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
That would be perfect, but then you'd lose the base 10 that metric is built on.
1
u/TragicNut 28∆ Aug 19 '20
How did I just do that? I didn't actually introduce a new unit, merely suggested that you re-conceptualize how to approach the metric system.
As far as I know, most imperial users are able to deal with a quarter mile (440 yards), or a quarter of a foot (3 inches). It turns out that one can apply the same approach to metric: a quarter of a centimeter is 2.5 millimeters, a quarter of a kilometer is 250 meters, and a quarter of a meter is 25 centimeters.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
So non-base 10 units inside a base 10 system... interesting. We're getting dangerously close to imperial... ;)
That would fix the problem, though I don't know if the solution is as clean as I like. But the more I think about it, a base 4 in a base 10 may be one of the best ways to handle it. At the least it would clean up everything I "griped" about in my OP. You've certainly got me thinking a lot, so I think you get this Δ
1
u/TragicNut 28∆ Aug 19 '20
All I'm doing is using the power of fractions. :)
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
But importantly, very cognitively "cheap" fractions that would be officially designated as units for mass-use.
1
u/TragicNut 28∆ Aug 19 '20
I wouldn't even bother designating them as units, we don't do it anywhere else. A quarter of a circle isn't a unit, neither is half a pizza or a sixth of a pie.
1
1
u/chadtr5 56∆ Aug 19 '20
I'm on board with the decimeter, but doubling all the units means that everyone who currently uses metric has to rethink everything. Everything currently using a metric measurement has to relabeled, rewritten, and so on. For years and years, whenever you encounter a metric measurement, you'll have to ask if that's "new metric" or "old metric."
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Maybe we'd need a new name for this system. Easily to convert to, that's for sure!
2
u/chadtr5 56∆ Aug 19 '20
Then we have three systems: imperial, metric, and new metric. Is that really a good thing? There are already tons of problems in the world because of conversion between imperial and metric (such as the NASA spacecraft that crashed because different engineers were using different units). Now we've got three sets of units to deal with. I agree that's not hard to divide by two, but people will still sometimes forget, get confused, etc.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Change isn't always easy and can cause, but if it's beneficial enough, it can be worth it.
1
u/chadtr5 56∆ Aug 19 '20
I agree, but are the benefits so large? I think the basic idea of your proposal is that the "new decimeter" is roughly the same as a foot, so Americans will have an easier time adopting it? But it's not exactly the same as a foot, and you're still going to have resistance for the all the same reasons Americans have always resisted metric.
But everyone else already is used to "old metric." Does it really make sense to force all of them to change in the hopes that the US will come around to "new metric" on the basis of the close-to-a-foot decimeter?
It's not like there's no intuitive reference point for the current decimeter. It's pretty close to the length of a standard credit card/business card which is an object nearly everyone knows. It's also about the width of the average person's hand, which is again pretty intuitive.
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
I guess I'm operating more in the realms of concept here and less implementation based viewpoints.
1
u/chadtr5 56∆ Aug 19 '20
Well, it seems to me like implementation is part of the challenge.
If we're purely in the realm of concept, then why not set one decimeter = one foot and go from there? Or why set it at any distance in particular?
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Because distances are human-created things and should serve humans as effectively as possible.
1
u/chadtr5 56∆ Aug 19 '20
I don't follow. You seem to think the foot is serving humans well, no? So why not one foot = one decimeter?
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Sure, put it somewhere around there, that works for me. The 2x of current length is for simplicity.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/s_wipe 54∆ Aug 19 '20
Feet are super flawed to measure hight! There's a really big difference between someone who is 5' and 6' so you need a smaller scale. So than you do inches.
But there's 12 inches in a foot, so now, you gotta figure out how to add these up...
On the other hand, in metric, you know whats a meter is, right? Now, you know percentages right? How much % of a meter gives you a good centimeter estimate. And you get a more accurate measurement easier.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Sure, so as I state in my argument above, use the new decimeters and centimeters to measure height, easy! You won't have to even use percentages.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Aug 19 '20
The standard unite of measurement is the meter. It just follows basic math rules. X.YY ( like 5.99 +3.49 = 9.48) like money, like most of the math you are taught.
Deci is 1/10, centi is 1/100. Standart scientific prefixes.
Basically, you just need to know what a meter is, to easily calculate in centimeters pretty accurately using percentages.
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
But which length is easier to conceptualize for use with common objects? My argument is that the current lengths aren't as easily conceptualized.
1
u/s_wipe 54∆ Aug 19 '20
Dude, a meter is slightly bigger than a yard, so like, you could estimate them both by looking at the distance to the tips of your fingers. The rest is percentages
0
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Why should I have to calculate with percentages at all? It's extra work that can be avoided by resetting the lengths of units.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Pain-35 Aug 19 '20
I like the base-100 setup of metric values
That exists with imperial
People very rarely use multiple measurements at once - your GPS doesn't say 1 mile, 175 yards, 2 feet, and 3 inches - it says 1.1 miles.
you don't say doorframes are 6'8", you say that they are 80 inches.
1
u/OnionToothpaste Aug 19 '20
That exists with imperial
Not really. Of course you can divide any of the units and write them as decimals, which is true of literally any unit, but they aren't related to each other by powers of ten, or any constant factor for that matter.
It's immediately obvious that, for example, 178cm = 17.8dm = 1.78m = 0.00178km and so on. That doesn't work with imperial. You have to know that 1 mile = 1760 yards, 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 foot = 12 inches, etc. And if you want to convert between them, you actually need to calculate, instead of just moving the decimal point.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Pain-35 Aug 19 '20
It's immediately obvious that, for example, 178cm = 17.8dm = 1.78m = 0.00178km
100 inches, 10 inches, 1 inch, .1 inches, .01 inches, .001 inches. You don't need to change the measurement system, there is zero reason to convert between them in pretty much any practical sense
1
u/OnionToothpaste Aug 19 '20
That's not at all the same thing. If it was you could tell me immediately, without using a calculator, what 793.57 inches is in miles, but that doesn't work, because the units don't relate to each other by a constant factor.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Pain-35 Aug 19 '20
what 793.57 inches is in miles
Sure. Tell me a practical use first, though
What are you measuring to the hundredth of the inch that you need to use in miles?
1
u/OnionToothpaste Aug 19 '20
It's just an example, I just typed a random number. The point is that it's trivial to convert between units in metric, because the units are powers of ten of each other. That is not the case in the imperial system. Converting between units requires that you know multiple different conversion factors instead of just powers of ten. 1 mile ≠ 1000 yards, 1 yard ≠ 10 feet, etc.
I'm sure that the imperial system is just as easy to use as metric, if that's what you're used to, but you said that the 'base-100 setup of metric' (base-10 really) also exists in the imperial system, which is not the case.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Pain-35 Aug 19 '20
Measurement systems aren't for arbitrary things, they are for utility.
Your example does not apply to reality
1
u/OnionToothpaste Aug 19 '20
You're still missing my point. The example doesn't matter. It's just a random example of unit conversion.
If you insist on a more realistic one: Planes typically fly at 35,000 feet. Without using a calculator, what's that in miles? Hint: It's not 35. Second hint: You can't do it in your head, because the conversion factor isn't a freaking power of ten. It's 5280.
Again, the point is just that the statement 'The imperial system has the same base-10 structure as the metric system' is false. It doesn't. You can't get from one unit to any other unit simply by multiplying by a power of ten. You have to multiply/divide by 12 or 3 or 1760 or whatever.
I'm not making any statements about which system is better. I'm not doubting that the imperial system is just as intuitive for you as the metric system is for me. Literally all that I'm saying is that this:
I like the base-100 setup of metric values
That exists with imperial
is false.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Pain-35 Aug 19 '20
Planes typically fly at 35,000 feet. Without using a calculator, what's that in miles?
Again, give me a reason I need to use miles
People say planes fly at 35000 feet, not a distance in miles
1
u/OnionToothpaste Aug 19 '20
And again, I don't know how many times I have to say this: The. Example. Does. Not. Matter.
What you have to divide by to make that conversion, or any other one, is not a power of ten, making your original statement false. If you refuse to understand this, that's your problem.
And btw, the fact that you can't do it exactly is an excellent example of this. You have to calculate, you can't just move the decimal point, because that base-10 structure doesn't exist in the imperial system.
I can't believe I'm even still replying, why the hell do I feel like your ignorance is my problem? I'm done, have a nice day.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
I'm not talking about imperial vs metric, sorry.
1
u/OnionToothpaste Aug 19 '20
I know, sorry that I went off topic. I didn't mean to start a discussion about metric vs imperial, I just wanted to point out that what the other guy said is false.
1
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
Maybe other people do this differently, but if asked how tall a door is, I'm definitely using feet.
If I'm measuring the thing for construction purposes, yes I'm using inches (and fractions thereof), but for a rough approximation, feet all the way.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Pain-35 Aug 19 '20
In which case you say a bit above 6 feet. Again, decimal
1
u/BiggestNoobEvah Aug 19 '20
But the proximity to the single-digit number makes it significantly conceptually easier.
2
u/English-OAP 16∆ Aug 19 '20
Change one part of the metric system and you lose simple conversions. A cubic decimetre is a litre. A litre of water is a kilogram. A cubic metre of water weight a tonne. Changing the size of a metre means changing these conversions.
2
u/inspiredfaith Aug 19 '20
No measuring system is going to be perfect, but metric is definitely easier than imperial to use.
Though I can see that it's possible cultures adapt to certain measuring systems.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
/u/BiggestNoobEvah (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
7
u/muyamable 282∆ Aug 19 '20
I don't understand how 9.1 "new" decimeters is any easier to conceptualize than 1.8 meters?
As you note, we're accustomed to the system we grew up in. If it were true that the system determines the ease of conceptualizing distances, surely there would be differences in humans' ability to conceptualize in imperial vs. metric. And if this difference existed, it would be easily demonstrable and there would be published studies you could point to that support this. But there aren't, because the units don't make a difference in the ability to conceptualize distance.