3 ms·
> As much as I am a bolshy union member and supporter, this doesn't seem too bad on the surface, the article doesn't make clear what the issues with it are? Th
by xpe 2y ago
> As much as I am a bolshy union member and supporter, this doesn't seem too bad on the surface, the article doesn't make clear what the issues with it are?
The linked article is the New York Times writing about a strike _against_ the New York Times. Factor this into your assessments.
- dialup_sounds 2y agoIf you're implying bias, consider that the news and editorial staff have been unionized since the 1940s.
- Xelynega 2y agoConsider also that these workers have been unionized for over two years and the NYT is refusing to acknowledge them.
- xpe 2y agoSure, this is also worth factoring in. But factor in how? (rhetorical question) Understanding bias well cannot simply reduce to a high-school debate style of tallying arguments for and against. First, there are more than two sides. Second, reasoning under uncertainty (with probabilities) is essential. Third, the best way for humans to reason requires getting the complexity out of your head. So one way or another, if you want to win [1], you have write down your model (we're not yet doing this here, but at least we're laying out some of the moving parts). Anyhow, I'm not making a "final" assessment of overall bias; I'm trying to (a) expand discussion of the moving parts and (b) promote a rational and probabilistic approach here. [1] "Rationality is Systematized Winning" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARtkT3EYox3THYjF/rationality-is-systematized-winning https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARtkT3EYox3THYjF/rationalit... but consider the counterpoint at "Rationality !== Winning" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3GSRhtrs2adzpXcbY/rationality-winning https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3GSRhtrs2adzpXcbY/rationalit...