5 ms·

Reading the review, I think I could create my own TL;DR: Overall, there is confirmation bias. We see what we want to see. This is as true for Ms. Bezos's revi

Reading the review, I think I could create my own TL;DR: Overall, there is confirmation bias. We see what we want to see. This is as true for Ms. Bezos's review as it is for the author's biography. As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle area of consensus -- which we now know is anathemic territory for Mr. Bezos. EDIT: would appreciate a reply to understand why this was downvoted.

JabavuAdams 13y ago
See these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675042 Some things are actually verifiable. Or a weaker statement: if something could be easily verified, the fact that someone with an opinion on the matter hasn't bothered to research it indicates laziness. For people like journalists and writers, it may indicate misconduct. As a society, we need to fight the idea that everyone is biased therefore if your facts weaken my argument let's just agree to disagree, m'kay. While on a social level, this is a good idea, in the public sphere it allows bad actors to just shrug off contradicting evidence.
- jroseattle 13y ago
  I don't believe everyone is biased, but I do think it's reasonable to consider that Ms. Bezos might be, due to her relationship with her husband. It's not across the board, as you state certain facts bear themselves out, but several things she addresses are subjective in nature. I think it's more important we consider the fact that someone can raise valid points while also holding a natural bias, as opposed to the all-or-nothing state that it's become (which is what I believe you're referencing.)
SkyMarshal 13y ago
>EDIT: would appreciate a reply to understand why this was downvoted. Probably because neither of these statements is necessarily true: >As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle area of consensus -- which we now know is anathemic territory for Mr. Bezos. Also because bias is irrelevant to whether something is a verifiable fact or not. Thinking otherwise is like a reverse appeal to authority fallacy. Characteristics of the source have no bearing on the assertion, the latter must be evaluated on its own merits and verifiability alone, and nothing else. Lots of comments here about bias, none are relevant. Also, asking for explanations for downvotes is against HN ettiquette (see FAQ and Guidelines) and usually downvoted.
- jroseattle 13y ago
  Bias is certainly irrelevant to verifiable facts. Bias is not irrelevant to anything subject to interpretation, even when those subjects are presented as facts (politicians do this all the time.) I'm not suggesting bias toward anything other than the subjective matter, which I thought I'd described in other comments. As for downvote explanation, I wasn't aware of the HN etiquette. Duly noted.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

See these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6674569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675042 Some things are actually verifiable. Or a weaker statement: if something could be easily verified, the fact that someone with an opinion on the matter hasn't bothered to research it indicates laziness. For people like journalists and writers, it may indicate misconduct. As a society, we need to fight the idea that everyone is biased therefore if your facts weaken my argument let's just agree to disagree, m'kay. While on a social level, this is a good idea, in the public sphere it allows bad actors to just shrug off contradicting evidence.

jroseattle 13y ago
I don't believe everyone is biased, but I do think it's reasonable to consider that Ms. Bezos might be, due to her relationship with her husband. It's not across the board, as you state certain facts bear themselves out, but several things she addresses are subjective in nature. I think it's more important we consider the fact that someone can raise valid points while also holding a natural bias, as opposed to the all-or-nothing state that it's become (which is what I believe you're referencing.)

SkyMarshal 13y ago

>EDIT: would appreciate a reply to understand why this was downvoted. Probably because neither of these statements is necessarily true: >As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle area of consensus -- which we now know is anathemic territory for Mr. Bezos. Also because bias is irrelevant to whether something is a verifiable fact or not. Thinking otherwise is like a reverse appeal to authority fallacy. Characteristics of the source have no bearing on the assertion, the latter must be evaluated on its own merits and verifiability alone, and nothing else. Lots of comments here about bias, none are relevant. Also, asking for explanations for downvotes is against HN ettiquette (see FAQ and Guidelines) and usually downvoted.

jroseattle 13y ago
Bias is certainly irrelevant to verifiable facts. Bias is not irrelevant to anything subject to interpretation, even when those subjects are presented as facts (politicians do this all the time.) I'm not suggesting bias toward anything other than the subjective matter, which I thought I'd described in other comments. As for downvote explanation, I wasn't aware of the HN etiquette. Duly noted.