
The Politics of Pockets - prismatic
http://www.racked.com/2016/9/19/12865560/politics-of-pockets-suffragettes-women
======
dlss
1\. Are you a woman who wants bigger pockets? Those are for sale. Buy them!

2\. Are you a man who wants no pockets? Those are also for sale. Buy them!

That's really all there is to it. Stores stock what customers buy, not the
other way around. I'm sure Macy's would love nothing more than every woman on
the planet deciding to buy a new wardrobe of pocket-laden pants... the weak
link in that plan is not Macy's management, but rather women not wanting to
buy those pants.

OP sounds about as sane as a die hard haskell programmer claiming haskell
books don't sell because booksellers secretly want to oppress programmers.

~~~
brenschluss
> in that plan is not Macy's management, but rather women not wanting to buy
> those pants.

And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than
understanding the cause. You're doing the former.

History allows us to actually understand how historical/societal trends have
changed over time. To ignore that is to be overly simplistic.

Like saying "Q: Why is the '<a>' tag used to make links in HTML?" "A: Because
browsers interpret <a> as a link!"

~~~
dlss
> And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than
> understanding the cause. You're doing the former.

When you're talking about emergent behavior of extremely complex systems,
"why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer
inaccurately. I honestly have no clue why women en mass (apparently) don't
care for pockets. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate
preference. Can you honestly tell me that anyone can say more?

For example, I also can't tell you why I exist. I'm aware that there are many
groups who claim to know why (god), but in my opinion their explanations are
wrong. I'm satisfied to simply #include evolution, and note that my female
ancestors and male ancestors probably liked each other, at least on average.

I also can't really tell you why I checked a bug into the project I'm working
on yesterday. I can tell you what the bug was, and what the fix is... but why?
I'm not sure. Maybe human brains just have a non-zero failure rate? I really
didn't want to code it wrong, but it happened anyway. All I'm really sure
about with respect to my bug is that the answer probably isn't because there's
a historical trend toward bugs.

Circling back, there are many areas in modern life where women have deviated
strongly from their historical conditions. You might even say that deviation
from historical trends is itself a historical trend. But you can't say that
without giving up on historical trends as a useful explanation :p

~~~
brenschluss
> "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer
> inaccurately.

Of course. Yet we should try, shouldn't we?

Your life, and mine, are made out of millions of choices that have been made
by people before you. The shape of the building you're in right now, the size
and proportion of your chair, the computer, the width of the roads you drove
on, or the form of the subway you were on. The fact that you're typing these
letters on a keyboard in a linear sequence, from left to right. There are
countless historical reasons why you

To say "I don't know why any of these happened; I'm just going to look at the
present" is fine. But it makes it impossible to evaluate any action in
context. Your profile says you're a statistician - surely you understand the
value of understanding things in context?

So, here's another example:

Bob says: "I honestly have no clue why black males en mass (apparently) commit
the most crimes. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate
behavior. We should stop and frisk and detain black males based on these
statistics. Can you honestly tell me that this is wrong?"

Would you agree? Why examine pesky historical trends, and the history of
slavery, the civil war, structural racism? After all, 'why' is incredibly hard
to answer accurately. The facts are clear, after all. Isn't it okay to enact
policies based on the present that don't care at all about the past?
/devilsadvocate

~~~
dlss
_> > "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to
answer inaccurately._

 _> Of course. Yet we should try, shouldn't we?_

I mean, maybe? If you see a way to do it that you think would actually work?
What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would work,
and that I've spent quite a while looking for one. At best it's a pure waste
of time, at worst you accidentally trick yourself into believing you've found
something.

Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you and
I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this problem
looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity or cult
formation.

 _> Bob says: "I honestly have no clue why black males en mass (apparently)
commit the most crimes. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate
behavior. We should stop and frisk and detain black males based on these
statistics. Can you honestly tell me that this is wrong?"_

This is a very very different statement than the one above. Although the
sentences have similar structure, mine is about the limits of knowledge, and
yours is someone being overconfident about a policy recommendation (since
there are presumably many other possible approaches to policing that would
need to be considered before a policy could be deemed best).

If you're asking how I'd respond to someone saying that today? I dunno, the
hypothetical speaker sounds dumb. I guess I'd ask for references and do some
reading before coming to a conclusion. That's what I did for the pockets
argument, and how I came upon the above economic rebuttal.

I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime
statistics mentioned above... are you saying the statute literally mentioned
race? If so that seems dumb / unjustifiably specific. If not, well, you just
failed an ideological turning test[1].

My understanding as someone who doesn't follow politics is that some parts of
the country are sufficiently high crime that people want to designate those
places as essentially airports (so you'll need to be screened if you'd like to
enter). That doesn't sound insane to me, but then again I haven't really read
anything on the subject.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test)

~~~
brenschluss
> What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would
> work, and that I've spent quite a while looking for one.

> Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you
> and I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this
> problem looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity
> or cult formation.

History! Research! That's the best we can do, but there are entire disciplines
devoted to trying to understand.

I would rather that humankind as a species is enlightened enough to try to
understand the universe, past and future and present, and to consider that
'why' and 'how' is a more important question then, I don't know, appeasing
some shareholders.

It sounds like you're interested in highly deterministic ideas of why, and any
form of inaccuracy is unacceptable, so to find highly accurate 'proofs' for
'why' something happened in such a highly complex system as "the world" is
nearly impossible. Better not to try.

It's difficult, yes, because there are no clear answers. But part of many
things is about making decisions without clear answers, or clear reasons. Does
it sound like madness? Sure, from the point of view of statistics or pure
models. But in the field, in situ, improvisation and heuristics and 'best-
guess' progress is currently what we have.

> I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime
> statistics mentioned above...

Stop and frisk is racial profiling. Racial profiling is based upon prejudices
or statistics about crime based on race. Please do a little bit of research.
There's a reason why it was ruled unconstitutional in New York City.[1]

\--

At the end of the day, I think that approaches like yours are dangerous
because the choices you make will unwittingly map onto the choices that others
have made, previously. What seems like an independent decision with
independent analysis actually is an amplifier of others' existing decisions. I
am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent and
clear thinking.

Take for example 'turning high crime areas into required screening areas' that
"doesn't sound insane" to you.

On the surface, it might make sense. Dangerous areas should be segregated.
That way we can lower the danger. Diagnose the symptom and stop it.

However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons (which
is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the history of
racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2], you'd
understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason why
these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a
feedback loop.

The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the
major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled
underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social
structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area?

Are these analyses trying to understand 'why' going to be rock-solid 100%
verifiable? No. Is the symptom 100% verifiable? Yes. Despite that, it makes
sense to at least TRY to understand the cause.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-
frisk_in_New_York_Cit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-
frisk_in_New_York_City) [2]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-
raci...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-
housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/)

~~~
dlss
The point I was trying to make was not that good judgement under uncertainty
is impossible. As you mentioned, I'm a statistician... as such, I'm 100%
certain I would never say that :p

What I was trying to say was that the methods commonly used in social sciences
departments, and the watered down versions used in popular social science
writing (perhaps typified by OP's essay) are basically a waste of time if your
goal is understanding rather than entertainment.

That's not to say I think that real world action (including ethical action) is
impossible, or that it's not worth doing. That's to say I have a strong,
somewhat professional, opinion on how it should be done.

I am not alone in this. There are groups of statistically minded people who
are making headway avoiding the traps of "common sense".
[http://www.givewell.org](http://www.givewell.org) might be a good
introduction, perhaps reading about how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
allocates funding would also be helpful if you'd like details. They do around
~500 times more measurable good per dollar donated than the average charity
(source:
[http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins...](http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-
treated-nets) etc). That this level of improvement was possible is a harsh
critique of the sort of watered down social sciences methods we're discussing.

 _> I am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent
and clear thinking._

I mean, I get that you're saying that... but oh man is a citation needed
there. "What"/"How" is normally the question that leads to insight and
paradigm change in my experience. I don't usually cite Kuhn, but
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)
might be worth a read for you.

Why almost invariably leads to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias)
and/or
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)
, both in my experience and according to the literature.

 _> However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons
(which is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the
history of racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2],
you'd understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason
why these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a
feedback loop._

 _> The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the
major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled
underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social
structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area?_

I'm so confused. You think the reason people have proposed stop and frisk is
because they _haven 't_ considered what the major factors correlating with
future crime are? (ie what makes a high risk area, how to city plan around
that, etc) I would be very surprised if that were the case. If it's a stupid
policy (and I'm more than willing to believe that it is) I would have thought
it would be an example of shoddy social sciences thinking (ie people who
_shouldn 't_ have asked "why")

How do you think government officials decide which policies to enact? They
went to some of our nations best schools (yes, that's meant to be a critique
of those schools). It's not like doing what social science has been doing,
only harder, will somehow change the results we're seeing.

Or at least that's my best guess. As we start talking about academia being
dumb I have read more :p

\----

If you haven't read it "Politics is the Mind-Killer"
([http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/))
is short and rather amazing as well. (Not wanting to go funny headed is the
main reason I've avoided reading about stop and frisk).

Just for fun here's a quiz letting you guess which interventions do the most
good (as you might imagine "common sense" isn't going to be much help)
[https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-
guess/](https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-guess/)

~~~
brenschluss
> the methods commonly used in social sciences departments

What methods? Could you clarify? There's an immense diversity within 'social
sciences' departments; are you including all forms of history/theory,
including the history of technology as well?

> There are groups of statistically minded people who are making headway
> avoiding the traps of "common sense".
> [http://www.givewell.org](http://www.givewell.org) might be a good
> introduction

I'm familiar with Givewell. As a non-profit, Givewell does good work, but they
perform a form of meta analysis of other non-profits, and do not do direct
work. As a result, Givewell isn't a good example of "real world action",

I'd love to see another example of 'real world action' that you think makes
good judgment under uncertainty that isn't a form of meta-analysis.

As a software developer AND architect (the bricks and mortar kind, not the
software kind), I find that my logic-oriented education is often less-than
helpful on the construction site. What's more important is a holistic (or
cybernetics[1]) way to understand a series of entangled questions - why people
use space, how they interact with a building, how a structure is constructed,
what technologies are used, construction time and cost, risk, relationship to
building codes, building inspectors et cetera.

So to me, a form of thought that thinks asking "why" is "insanity or cult
formation" is very well-meaning but ill-informed in terms of much forms of
action. It works on the screen, but it doesn't work when it interfaces with
complexity.

Or take it this way. Logic-based thinking works in a highly controlled
environment, where the logical axioms are pure and easy. Heuristic-based
action works in a highly complex environment, where there are no axioms, rules
are always bent, and things are always interconnected in highly unpredictable
ways.

> "What"/"How" is normally the question that leads to insight and paradigm
> change in my experience.

Sure, I've read SSR. So to clarify, your argument is that spending time on
'why' is "at best wasteful", and thus "what"/"how" is better?

I think we agree here, but I'd say that it seems like you're in disagreement
with your previous answer.

> I'm so confused. You think the reason people have proposed stop and frisk is
> because they haven't considered what the major factors correlating with
> future crime are?

> How do you think government officials decide which policies to enact? They
> went to some of our nations best schools (yes, that's meant to be a critique
> of those schools). It's not like doing what social science has been doing,
> only harder, will somehow change the results we're seeing.

First of all, yes, I do! History has proven that people have been consistently
wrong in thinking about policy. At some point, the country was against
miscegenation as a policy, for goodness's sake. Why wouldn't they be now?

You assume a neat synchronous relationship between knowledge and policies, so
lack of knowledge is the reason why good policies are not being enacted, and
thus if bad policies are being enacted, then the current forms of knowledge
practice (what you call "social science") are inadequate.

I don't think you've considered the results of politics, of democracy, of
messy decision-making practices between groups of people who disagree. This
often manifests as a temporal delay.

Take climate change, for example. Every sane scientist in the field agrees
that climate change is a real thing. Yet there are not enough policies
actively addressing the issue.

Couldn't I say: "You think the reason people haven't addressed climate change
is because they haven't considered what the major factors correlating with
future climate change are? They must have since they went to good schools, so
if there aren't policies, then it must be that our current science about
climate change is bunk."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics)

\---

> "Politics is the Mind-Killer"

Politics is endlessly fascinating to me; if you want a merger between
politics-thinking and statistics or modeling, The Parable of the Polygons
([http://ncase.me/polygons/](http://ncase.me/polygons/)) (which is a model of
the Schelling Segregation Model) is an interesting project.

~~~
dlss
_> I'm familiar with Givewell. As a non-profit, Givewell does good work, but
they perform a form of meta analysis of other non-profits, and do not do
direct work. As a result, Givewell isn't a good example of "real world
action",_

While I do agree that decisions under time pressure take on a different
character than more deliberative decisions, I disagree with the implication
that they are somehow fundamentally different than performing day-to-day
construction coordination tasks. The complexity level that the givewell guys
grapple with when formulating their models is very high (ie finding a simple
model that's not missing the point is a lot harder than using such a model
after the fact).

 _> What's more important is a holistic (or cybernetics[1]) way to understand
a series of entangled questions - why people use space, how they interact with
a building, how a structure is constructed, what technologies are used,
construction time and cost, risk, relationship to building codes, building
inspectors et cetera._

(Other than the non building specific parts) these are exactly the kinds of
questions givewell grapples with -- time and cost, risk: shifting disease
patterns, unstable governments in the third world, estimated future efficacy,
capital saturation, etc.

 _> Or take it this way. Logic-based thinking works in a highly controlled
environment, where the logical axioms are pure and easy. Heuristic-based
action works in a highly complex environment, where there are no axioms, rules
are always bent, and things are always interconnected in highly unpredictable
ways._

Right, statistics (well, probability theory) is an extension of logic to the
sorts of highly complex environments you're describing.

 _> So to me, a form of thought that thinks asking "why" is "insanity or cult
formation" is very well-meaning but ill-informed in terms of much forms of
action. It works on the screen, but it doesn't work when it interfaces with
complexity._

Perhaps you were meaning something different than I was with regard to why
questions? I was referring to what OP does in her essay, and what you evoked
when you asked for with _" > women not wanting to buy those pants. And why do
you think that is?"_

Ie a non-tested (and often non-testable <\- a much worse sin) speculation not
backed by evidence with the feeling of truth. A pet theory in an area I know
relatively little about for the purpose of seeming smart or interesting in
conversation. A unnecessary heuristic to cloud my future self's vision. An
unwarranted and unnecessary generalization about a group of people. A new
religion to join.

To speculate accurately about the reason for one person's actions may
sometimes be possible. I'll say again that I don't believe this can be done
with any accuracy in the area of societal level women's fashion choices. There
are simply too many women, buying pants for too many reasons. We can make
aggregate predictions about that group much like an actuary would price a life
insurance contract, but that deals with the what of a situation, not the why.
You can even correctly infer the structure of the what (ie "cigarette smokers
should be charged more for life insurance"), however you must be very careful
when doing this, as this is extremely difficult to do without experimentation.

 _> So to clarify, your argument is that spending time on 'why' is "at best
wasteful", and thus "what"/"how" is better?_

 _> I think we agree here, but I'd say that it seems like you're in
disagreement with your previous answer._

Well good! Glad to meet a sane person such as yourself. I have not read SSR
myself (it's social science nonsense / overgeneralization in my opinion), but
I'm glad to hear that my mentioning it seems to have been helpful. I've gotten
the cliffs notes by spending time on the internet.

I think the root of our disagreement was I thought my replies where being
taken in the context of the article (ie "I think pockets are political because
history"), whereas I think perhaps you've merely been responding to my replies
(which I wouldn't blame you for -- it's an awful article). If you could be
more specific with a question re: consistency I'd be happy if I discovered
something I've missed, and perhaps you'd be happy to discover something you'd
missed.

 _> You assume a neat synchronous relationship between knowledge and policies,
so lack of knowledge is the reason why good policies are not being enacted,
and thus if bad policies are being enacted, then the current forms of
knowledge practice (what you call "social science") are inadequate._

I did no such thing. My model is that (1) misguided speculation by social
scientists leads to (2) good sounding by ultimately wrong intervention ideas
that are (3) turned into a religious doctrine by way of party politics and
then (4) implemented to the great suffering of all who are governed by them.
My belief is that this is the default for most new social policies. The data
on unintended problems caused by policy decisions seems to back this model up.

In my previous reply you are referencing above, I was evoking this in the
hopes of getting you to stop spending your time doing (1), on the grounds that
it doesn't seem to help anyone and at worst hurts them. Being less ambitious
in areas of great epistemological risk has a better base rate than the current
methods. Perhaps I was reading too much into your comments though. I do know
that OP was doing roughly #3 above.

 _> Take climate change, for example. Every sane scientist in the field agrees
that climate change is a real thing. Yet there are not enough policies
actively addressing the issue._

Yeah, I have no opinion on climate policy other than an inclination toward the
status quo. Forecasting societal economic effects is very hard, smart people
like Thiel have taken the con side, and environmental regulation looks like
it's a death sentence for lots of people in the third world (though economic
hardship. I point this out because a decision that involves killing actual
living humans to save hypothetical future humans should require more
evidence). AGI timelines also seem important here, as it's likely to either
fix our climate issue or kill us all before the climate becomes a problem.
(Note I do think the science is largely accurate, it's policy questions I'm
referring to here).

 _> Politics is endlessly fascinating to me; if you want a merger between
politics-thinking and statistics or modeling, The Parable of the Polygons
([http://ncase.me/polygons/](http://ncase.me/polygons/)) (which is a model of
the Schelling Segregation Model) is an interesting project._

I usually strongly dislike Vi's work, but my love of Schelling was enough to
get me over the hump -- fun :)

I don't think the Mind-Killer interpretation is incompatible with "endlessly
fascinating". The tribal influence on thought is too light to be felt until
it's too heavy to be broken.

\---

PS. Do you happen to be in the market for a good book club, and live near SF?

------
Animats
How did Clinton get into this? She's at the level where someone else carries
your stuff.

~~~
tormeh
Or, as Thatcher said: "I have people for that".

Obama doesn't have keys.

~~~
Chris2048
Does the Whitehouse even have them? I expect it has security, who would
recognise Obama..

------
exstudent2
> Men are busy doing things

The "things" that have historically dictated men's fashion usually involve
being shot/stabbed at. Usually by force of draft.

A lot of men's clothing comes from the battle field. I'm not sure that counts
as a privilege as this article would have you believe. Not everything male is
a net positive.

~~~
Chris2048
Which clothing comes from the battlefield? I can only think of codpieces.

~~~
exstudent2
In addition to Lio's list I would add:

    
    
      * Ties/cravats
      * Belts
      * Watches
      * Epaulettes
      * Hair styles

~~~
Chris2048
Watches originate in the military?

~~~
exstudent2
For men they did:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Wristwatch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch#Wristwatch)

------
wodenokoto
I don't get this kind of writing. It starts out with a detailed description of
Clinton suit, but is full of pictures of fashion models. Am I supposed to go
on Google to look at it? Why isn't it included in the article?

------
Lio
Off topic:-

For an article stressing the importance of small sartorial details they missed
at least one detail in their photographs.

"Women riding 1880's bicycles" is clearly women riding 1880's tricycles.

I have no opinion on the politics of that extra wheel.

------
parsnipsumthing
If you are a woman or spend any time in feminist circles, you will come across
the "lack of pockets" argument multiple times.

It's a bad argument.

Fundamentally, "pockets" have only become a feminist rallying cry _because_ of
their unpopularity. Even if you assume that women's clothes do not contain
pockets because of underlying misogyny, that same argument would apply to any
other parts of women's grooming that do not apply to men. Skirts, makeup,
dresses etc.

Yet, no-one is willing to openly rally against makeup or skirts or dresses
because feminist women want to wear them. "Pockets" are a safe repository for
illusory protest because they have very few IRL defenders. There is simply no
demand for them.

This is simply virtue signaling. Nothing more and nothing less.

~~~
wodenokoto
There are people rallying against makeup, high heels and bras.

~~~
parsnipsumthing
Yes, but those are the more radical anti-femme feminists. There's very little
ideological consistency. The author of the post decrying the lack of pockets
wears makeup, high heels and bras on her blog.

