I stopped reading autobiographies for the same reason. No human alive has the self-awareness to write about themselves objectively.

But non-auto-biographies!! So many history books are the high level "this happened in that year caused by whatever-just-trust-me" while biographies dig into how the world actually worked. Especially if they're set in the last few hundred years and not the last 30, there's a tremendous amount of primary sources to base the writing without over politicizing the topic. What kind of history won't have a survivor bias? Is this an excuse to ignore history entirely?

> I also try to read as many anti-biographies, i.e. people who don’t like the subject

That's introducing it's own bias. But you might as well read The Power Broker if you're going that direction. Fascinating story.