Correct, films will only get better from here. Films made today can only really make references to pop culture of the last 100 years but a movie from 2120 will have twice as much pop culture to lean on
Unironically true. Every part of moviemaking nowadays - except for the writing for some bizarre reason - is so hilariously better than previous decades’ standards that it hardly makes sense to even call them the same thing
There are exactly 5 directors in world cinema that have even remotely approached the best directors of the 50-80s. There are a ton of factors for why there's so much shit nowadays and why 99.9% of it is pure trash. A lot of it is money, ease of access, no standards/taste.
I mostly agree, but who do you think those 5 directors are
I'll admit I haven't thought too deeply about it but I can imagine no more than 5 if I really tried. The standouts are Tarr, Rousseau, maybe Greenaway, Oliveira (even if he was technically making films well before the 80s). Bi Gan shows promise but he's not there yet, maybe with a few more films under his belt.
>no tsai, apichatpong, lisandro alonso, grandrieux, and others if I could be bothered to look through my lists
I reckon there's currently around 1 great director per (developed) country
7 months ago
Anonymous
I strongly oppose Apichatpong being included in this list. Hedonist filth
Those directors may have advanced the craft more than anyone else has, but the fact is they’re the giants whose shoulders we're standing on - to be above them
>what are the odds that the greatest writer would have been born in 1564?
given that all things being equal, same odds as any other year. but all things are not equal. there are many variables.
Look at how society is degenerating right now and then you look me straight in the eye and tell me some fricking homosexual TV writer who was striking just last week is superior to Shakespeare simply because the gay is from hundreds of years after his death
And besides, the classical education Shakespeare received at an Elizabethan grammar school gave him the necessary learning. What does it matter if the majority of the population was illiterate, when Shakespeare - like Marlowe and Ben Jonson - was extremely well read?
Genius doesn’t come from thin air it has a neurological basis which is controlled by genetics and the environment.
You might as well say Michael Jordan is transcendent and can’t be explained by biochemistry or genetics. Intelligence is a physical attribute like everything else.
Genius doesn’t come from thin air it has a neurological basis which is controlled by genetics and the environment.
You might as well say Michael Jordan is transcendent and can’t be explained by biochemistry or genetics. Intelligence is a physical attribute like everything else.
So how does that align with the fact that the claim itself is evidently false? Where are the thousands if not million of writers better than Shakespeare that statistically must exist? The quote is moronic because it's trying to use scientific reasoning to come to a conclusion we fundamentally know isn't true.
Shakespeare was part of a culture that valued poetry and the spoken word. This culture no longer exists. And the value of his ouvre is enhanced by all the derivative works, commentators and influence it has had.
And besides, the classical education Shakespeare received at an Elizabethan grammar school gave him the necessary learning. What does it matter if the majority of the population was illiterate, when Shakespeare - like Marlowe and Ben Jonson - was extremely well read?
Yes.
We don't have a culture that leads to great writers.
Films has only been going strong for like, 50-60 years. 100 years if you're a silent era-gay. Statistically, the greats aren't even born yet by your moron logic. From observation, gen-Y and Z filmmakers are garbage. So garbage, that when the good boomer and gen-X filmmakers try to stay hip and up with the times they flop 100% despite their experience and best efforts. That's just how shit what's trendy in film the last 15-20 years has been. If Shakespear was bad for being one of the peaks of the renaissance writers, you can only imagine how shit today's filmmakers will look being the bottom of film's dark age in 1000s years, if they're remembered at all.
Look at how shitty accessibility makes everything. Even with access to typewriters most people didn't write because it was hard, then computers came along allowing at jackass to shit out a story and books have gotten progressively worse since then. In fact, there's no more major writers anymore, no new Kings, no new Koontz, no new V C Andrews. All the famous writers are over 40, in moet cases over 60, and despite there being more writers than ever no new personality has come out.
Look at the internet. When normies came onto it in droves with the advent of cable internet social media sites were invented within a year and the whole internet became corporatized. Now non-whites are on it in droves it's become even worse.
And a good and more recent example: AI. Before to make a funny picture you had to have some moderate talent and patience using photoshop or mspaint. Now some gay can just tap a few words into a corporate AI picture generator and endlessly flood this site with unfunny AIslop bringing down the quality of threads and massively decreasing the quality of funny pictures; and it's only been months since it became widespread.
Gatekeeping is an unequivocal good and the more access the average person has to creative arts the worse that art becomes. Shakespeare lived in a time where he had to learn how to read and write when most people couldn't, he had to write painstakingly by hand using materials that most people would not tolerate using, working solely off his own wit and a limited number of books instead of having instant research available from the internet, and he made defining works that still haven't been surpassed. More people creating art doesn't mean art gets better or the frequency of good art occurs more regularly, it's the exact opposite.
I've got an interesting theory about the total degeneration of creative mediums over the past 20 years. It's not ease of access, it's public opinion. You write a book 50 years ago, and the only fan response you'd see is the odd person who cared enough to send a letter, and book signings.
Write a book now? You'll get wall to wall feedback from the masses, more of it bad than good, because the internet is the platform of the commons and it requires no effort to make a dogshit tweet or write a crappy article for a shit online publication. This feedback has lead to a naturally defensive state for the artist, which creates works that have no real intentions behind them, just attempts at clout chasing for fame, or lame "subversions" which are really just the artist hiding themselves behind ways to deflect. You didn't like my work? Oh, you just didn't get it. This is how the modern artist protects his ego from massive critique.
As always with why the arts are shit today, it's both. . . plus 10 other complex factors dumbing down any creative outlet at every turn. Normies not caring, just consuming whatever slop is in their trough, and pretending it's good because it's new is the ultimate factor though. A problem that has existed since Shakespeare's time that has only gotten worse.
something ive noticed in video games with ongoing development and a large online community is that the more they listen to their fans the worse it gets. if the video game has a subreddit that the devs read and post on, forget it, whatever spark the game might have had will be crushed underfoot by the titan of mass appeal.
With large scale projects, the problem is invariably money. Things cost more to produce now because... the israelites say it costs more to make things, you don't want to be wrong, do you?
In order to justify the moronic budgets, thousands of people are hired to make a basic refresh to last years title, and none of them have any clue what they're doing, so you get a bland focus tested pile of shit aimed at whatever trends are popular last year.
Best game I played this year was made by 2 people using MS paint. Everyone else is farming half the production out to pajeets at this point because in-house work is too expensive and games "need" 500+ employees.
Lol ok bud. No most "big" games are more corporate than ever and GAS is the next big thing every corporation is trying to chase. They do not listen to the fans because these shitty companies keep releasing games in broken and incomplete states.
>scamming israelite >trying to slander one of the greatest genius's of history
it's like an itch, they must drag someone superior to themselves down for no reason other than ego
Would this hold up in court? >your honor there are billions of Black folk in the world. What are the odds that this woman would have been raped by a white boy like myself? The Bayesian priors aren't very favorable.
Just look at any mainstream population projections. By 2100, Africa will have a population of between four and a half and five billion, hundreds of millions of whom will move to Europe and to the United States unless we're willing to abandon practically every humanitarian convention in existence and physically repel them. The best art, architecture, literature, and philosophy already exists. The European and European-descended peoples of the future will have to expend all of their creative energies on simply keeping the lights on.
>By 2100, Africa will have a population of between four and a half and five billion, hundreds of millions of whom will move to Europe and to the United States unless we're willing to abandon practically every humanitarian convention in existence and physically repel them.
yikes! that's a dangerous conspiracy theory.* you should delete it.
That's the thing, it's not a matter of statistics. You have billions of people all over the world, but yet no Shakespeares. The reason for this is manifold, but basically it's just that no Shakespeare-liked skills will be developed over time in people because the systems that allowed Shakespeare no longer exist.
Just like we don't have good blacksmiths anymore, or good coopers, etc.
Just adding more people doesn't mean the natural brilliance will come out, you have to develop it.
Compare the writings on an every day literate peasant from anywhere prior to the 20th century to the posts from an average twitter user and tell me more of the general populace attending university has improved writing skills as a whole.
1000 white males classically trained in a severe selection of the best writings available in the Western traditioj. Given the time and fortunes to dedicate their lives to its perfection
Millions of amorphous globohomosexual blob where literacy and education have become common, lowly, and detestable; And all achievement awards select for one's identification with the culture that produces such abhorrence
I don't know why a concept I learned in elementary statistics is being used as some kind lifestyle but anyone who talks about Bayesian inference as some kind of philosophy is an incredible fricking homosexual.
eternal techbro genocide
I expected better thinking from the alumni of an institution as prestigious as MIT. I kinda get it if it was an exercise meant to inspire sensible judgement but this comes off as someone simply asserting an opinion without first having defined anything worth of value.
A PhD in physics at the MIT or Caltech is good in his field of physics. Doesn't mean he is reasonable in any other area.
And in some areas it is even worse in that they are not great even in their subject matter.
It's just the I went into trades so the idea that someone who could be this hopeless when it comes to the liberal arts and yet is able to attain a degree from an institution as established as MIT is something I simply cannot reconcile.
7 months ago
Anonymous
In STEM education, you only learn STEM.
In my country we have some people who believe being "university educated means you know more about every topic than others".
If you study engineering, you will only learn mathematics, physics, some chemistry and engineering. You are not being educated into being an intellectual, you are educated into being an engineer.
7 months ago
Anonymous
People here also believe a university degree means you're super smart. You can be a doctor and still be an absolute fricking moron. Also, with the amount of new doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc every year it's more than likely than most of them are not even above average in their own fields, let alone other disciplines
Everything else aside, people fail to see the incredible effect restrictions and limitations have on creativity. People today can do so much more than Shakespeare that they simply won't stop to think how to carve the right path.
Giga moron take, not accounting for that while the population of geniuses should probably be much higher today, their incentives and learned desires and inclinations are pretty much completely funnelled into either making cheap shit or marketing it. There's also the selection process of discovery, if someone was as brilliant as Shakespeare at writing today, why and how would they be discovered? Every social media website's recommendation algorithm and every editorial staff everywhere exists to sell more shit, not produce anything of spiritual value or anything lofty like that. Chop the heads off pseuds, impale pseuds, disembowel pseuds, scalp them.
People forget but the Shakespeare we possess has been enriched by subsequent centuries, we no longer consume him the way the average citizen in his time did.
The opposite, changes to the English language have degraded most people's understanding of the wordplay, the things he invented are now commonplace and have lost their lustre, and the style of theatrical acting the plays were written with in mind has been replaces with naturalistic acting. Not to mention most people's first interaction with Shakespeare is in the form of books
People in the Past had more 'New' things they could write about or come up with. People in the future have the burden of the Past already existing. You can't do star crossed lovers again because its just Shakespere.
This argument is moronic. Even if it is more likely that a genius is given an education today because he is a genius, or indeed just because, that does not mean you will have more geniuses: just that more of the geniuses will be educated. The chance that the greatest writer will be born stays the same, its just you are more likely to know it since he was more likely to be taught to write. Genius is something you are born with, not educated to be. He might as well make the argument that the chances were very low his name would be shakespeare since we have more names now.
So in fact, since there are more people dead who may not have gotten an education then there are people alive right now with an education, it is more likely that greatest writer was never taught to write and died, and shakespeare is not the greatest writer, but not because he was born long ago, but because he wasnt born long ago enough.
In ANY case, obviously as time goes, if "greatest writer"
The problem here is that a modern genius would get a shittier education than Shakespeare when it comes to being a writer.
And I think Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were better writers than he is.
>bayesian priors
Nerds don't understand art. They barely understand feelings. I don't give a FRICK about "bayesian priors" you fricking moron. Stick to video games and nerd shit. Art isn't for you.
This is why we used to bully nerds. Time was when if you stood up in English class and say "uhm well actually ahuh the statistical likelihood that uh that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in history is ahah essentially negligible :)" you would get your glasses broken and your face pushed into the dirt at recess. But not any more.
I'm enjoying the mental image of Nelson Muntz punching some nerd over and over whilst saying: "That's for besmirching the Bard of Avon!" I just don't recall it ever happening with any regularity.
Quality over quantity.
IQ has been declining.
The so-called literate people today don't actually read beyond learning to read at school. The brain of the average Westerner (or Easterner) is rotting away on IG, Tik-Tok, porn, TV, Cinemaphile, etc. They're not reading books.
No one today exercises his memory like people did in the past merely out of necessity.
What a stupid goddamn argument. There are 0 reasons to suppose that educated masses and a select elite of literati are going to have the same probability of genius. There is 0 reason to suppose that any point in history is equal to any other in likelihood to produce individuals who are able to articulate the eternal. There is great reason to suppose that social complexity and interconnectivity and later information technology make people generally LESS able to touch that which is constant, eternal and sacred in human life, for these things destroy the True Sacred space which is REAL solitude, a place which does not exist any more for nearly all people.
Not in any way to slight Shakespeare but I'm a Sophocles kind of guy, anyway.
a civilization is like a flower and it grows organically, blooms, wilts, and then dies.
you would expect to see creativity maximized in the youthful parts of a civilization not its old age.
thanks to technology the current civilization has a great many people but that means nothing.
the quote is wrong and failing to take into account these variables.
Art doesn't have merit or value. Art that is deemed more worthwhile is usually just bad art in the sense that it is boring and not particularly meaningful but given false elevation by academics who want to create manufactured social esteem for a piece of art so that they can enjoy the elevated status of someone who deems it so and can appreciate it. Basically high art only exists for the benefit of the critic. Even Marvel slop is above most of the western canon. Hard pill to swallow I know but there's a reason the masses don't bother to engage with high art. It's just low art made intentionally worse. That's why older works are more considered more genius. Because quality isn't real and humans have an idea that older things are somehow inherently valuable. That's not to say that all art is equal in quality, (though it is all equally meaningless) just that it's not pretentious awardslop.
He is in error here, this is classic survival bias. Shakespeare was among the first to write scripts with his particular thematics, which in turn influenced future writers. Whenever someone equally or more talented wrote a script, people would call it "Shakespearean", for example.
It is like calculus, someone would develop it eventually, but because Isaac Newton did, we all think of Isaac Newton, even though he was humble and made it clear he was merely standing on the shoulders of giants.
He debunks his own statement in the statement. This logic assumes that becoming a great writer is just random chance determined at birth, and ignore the environmental factors. But in his own statement he admits that he doesn't count uneducated farmers. So if farmers can simply be considered impossible to become great writers, perhaps the current culture also makes it impossible to become a great writer.
>the bayesian priors arent very favorable
I hate idiots that try to use fancy sounding technical terms they don't understand.
This dude can eat shit and die. >t. Phd student on inverse problems
Antonio Corradini came from a city with 110,000 people when he sculpted pic related, therefore if I go to Delhi in 2023 there will be tons of sculptors on his level.
Sometimes the best is literally who manages to do it first.
Correct, films will only get better from here. Films made today can only really make references to pop culture of the last 100 years but a movie from 2120 will have twice as much pop culture to lean on
imagine the funko pops from 3023
shakespeare re-wrote and referenced western culture all over the place. nice quads, though.
Unironically true. Every part of moviemaking nowadays - except for the writing for some bizarre reason - is so hilariously better than previous decades’ standards that it hardly makes sense to even call them the same thing
There are exactly 5 directors in world cinema that have even remotely approached the best directors of the 50-80s. There are a ton of factors for why there's so much shit nowadays and why 99.9% of it is pure trash. A lot of it is money, ease of access, no standards/taste.
I wonder who you believe these directors are?
Tarantino
Villeneuve
Fincher
Nolan
Gerwig
horrible b8
If this list had any sincerity then Wes Anderson, who is a far better filmmaker than Greta Gerwig, would be on it in her stead
I'll admit I haven't thought too deeply about it but I can imagine no more than 5 if I really tried. The standouts are Tarr, Rousseau, maybe Greenaway, Oliveira (even if he was technically making films well before the 80s). Bi Gan shows promise but he's not there yet, maybe with a few more films under his belt.
>no tsai, apichatpong, lisandro alonso, grandrieux, and others if I could be bothered to look through my lists
I reckon there's currently around 1 great director per (developed) country
I strongly oppose Apichatpong being included in this list. Hedonist filth
Those directors may have advanced the craft more than anyone else has, but the fact is they’re the giants whose shoulders we're standing on - to be above them
I mostly agree, but who do you think those 5 directors are
Lmao no. In 100 years film will be dead or be AI slop prompted by Disney.
>what are the odds that the greatest writer would have been born in 1564?
given that all things being equal, same odds as any other year. but all things are not equal. there are many variables.
>but all things are not equal.
Evidence?
Existence, nature, reason. Basic biology, chemistry, and economics. All art theory. Sport. Math.
What a Reddit way to think.
Look at how society is degenerating right now and then you look me straight in the eye and tell me some fricking homosexual TV writer who was striking just last week is superior to Shakespeare simply because the gay is from hundreds of years after his death
Individuals are not statistics.
Genius cannot be explained by statistics.
Genius is transcendence.
This is all there is to say to such a dumb take.
And besides, the classical education Shakespeare received at an Elizabethan grammar school gave him the necessary learning. What does it matter if the majority of the population was illiterate, when Shakespeare - like Marlowe and Ben Jonson - was extremely well read?
Of course it can be explained by statistics. We’re not talking about magic we’re talking about biochemistry, genetics, environment etc
Honestly?
Try to explain Shakespeare by biochemistry or genetics. You’re a joke.
You can explain him by referring to literary and cultural history
Genius doesn’t come from thin air it has a neurological basis which is controlled by genetics and the environment.
You might as well say Michael Jordan is transcendent and can’t be explained by biochemistry or genetics. Intelligence is a physical attribute like everything else.
So how does that align with the fact that the claim itself is evidently false? Where are the thousands if not million of writers better than Shakespeare that statistically must exist? The quote is moronic because it's trying to use scientific reasoning to come to a conclusion we fundamentally know isn't true.
/thread
Its like saying Homer is a bad writer because almost no one could read in ~700 BCE
That's why we use statistical analysis of populations to judge the olympics, right?
Shakespeare was part of a culture that valued poetry and the spoken word. This culture no longer exists. And the value of his ouvre is enhanced by all the derivative works, commentators and influence it has had.
Yes.
We don't have a culture that leads to great writers.
Films has only been going strong for like, 50-60 years. 100 years if you're a silent era-gay. Statistically, the greats aren't even born yet by your moron logic. From observation, gen-Y and Z filmmakers are garbage. So garbage, that when the good boomer and gen-X filmmakers try to stay hip and up with the times they flop 100% despite their experience and best efforts. That's just how shit what's trendy in film the last 15-20 years has been. If Shakespear was bad for being one of the peaks of the renaissance writers, you can only imagine how shit today's filmmakers will look being the bottom of film's dark age in 1000s years, if they're remembered at all.
Look at how shitty accessibility makes everything. Even with access to typewriters most people didn't write because it was hard, then computers came along allowing at jackass to shit out a story and books have gotten progressively worse since then. In fact, there's no more major writers anymore, no new Kings, no new Koontz, no new V C Andrews. All the famous writers are over 40, in moet cases over 60, and despite there being more writers than ever no new personality has come out.
Look at the internet. When normies came onto it in droves with the advent of cable internet social media sites were invented within a year and the whole internet became corporatized. Now non-whites are on it in droves it's become even worse.
And a good and more recent example: AI. Before to make a funny picture you had to have some moderate talent and patience using photoshop or mspaint. Now some gay can just tap a few words into a corporate AI picture generator and endlessly flood this site with unfunny AIslop bringing down the quality of threads and massively decreasing the quality of funny pictures; and it's only been months since it became widespread.
Gatekeeping is an unequivocal good and the more access the average person has to creative arts the worse that art becomes. Shakespeare lived in a time where he had to learn how to read and write when most people couldn't, he had to write painstakingly by hand using materials that most people would not tolerate using, working solely off his own wit and a limited number of books instead of having instant research available from the internet, and he made defining works that still haven't been surpassed. More people creating art doesn't mean art gets better or the frequency of good art occurs more regularly, it's the exact opposite.
I've got an interesting theory about the total degeneration of creative mediums over the past 20 years. It's not ease of access, it's public opinion. You write a book 50 years ago, and the only fan response you'd see is the odd person who cared enough to send a letter, and book signings.
Write a book now? You'll get wall to wall feedback from the masses, more of it bad than good, because the internet is the platform of the commons and it requires no effort to make a dogshit tweet or write a crappy article for a shit online publication. This feedback has lead to a naturally defensive state for the artist, which creates works that have no real intentions behind them, just attempts at clout chasing for fame, or lame "subversions" which are really just the artist hiding themselves behind ways to deflect. You didn't like my work? Oh, you just didn't get it. This is how the modern artist protects his ego from massive critique.
As always with why the arts are shit today, it's both. . . plus 10 other complex factors dumbing down any creative outlet at every turn. Normies not caring, just consuming whatever slop is in their trough, and pretending it's good because it's new is the ultimate factor though. A problem that has existed since Shakespeare's time that has only gotten worse.
something ive noticed in video games with ongoing development and a large online community is that the more they listen to their fans the worse it gets. if the video game has a subreddit that the devs read and post on, forget it, whatever spark the game might have had will be crushed underfoot by the titan of mass appeal.
With large scale projects, the problem is invariably money. Things cost more to produce now because... the israelites say it costs more to make things, you don't want to be wrong, do you?
In order to justify the moronic budgets, thousands of people are hired to make a basic refresh to last years title, and none of them have any clue what they're doing, so you get a bland focus tested pile of shit aimed at whatever trends are popular last year.
Best game I played this year was made by 2 people using MS paint. Everyone else is farming half the production out to pajeets at this point because in-house work is too expensive and games "need" 500+ employees.
Lol ok bud. No most "big" games are more corporate than ever and GAS is the next big thing every corporation is trying to chase. They do not listen to the fans because these shitty companies keep releasing games in broken and incomplete states.
i wasn’t referring to AAA titles, read more carefully and apply yourself better next time.
Society collapsed when we started taking the opinions of morons on the internet seriously
>Bayesian priors
I sure love when people learn a new term and use it despite having no idea what it means
This is from Sam-Bankman Fried. The FTX- scam israelite. Not saying he's right but he's probably familiar with that term.
It makes no sense in this context
Also he's moronic and in prison now lol
>scamming israelite
>trying to slander one of the greatest genius's of history
it's like an itch, they must drag someone superior to themselves down for no reason other than ego
Thankfully the brave soldiers of Hamas are working on this issue as we speak
>israelite who stole a lot of money therefore smart
You’re unironically subhuman
>using population statistics to judge the quality of art
This is literal autism
It's literally stupidity. He doesn't even understand stats.
I don't know why people think everything is chronological and everything progresses
Why are we having this conversation its literally just Kurosawa, silly queers
Kobayashi*
Shakespeare bros.
What are these from?
It's an interview by this guy
HAHAHAHA
Literal moron
Would this hold up in court?
>your honor there are billions of Black folk in the world. What are the odds that this woman would have been raped by a white boy like myself? The Bayesian priors aren't very favorable.
Would get a good chuckle out of me.
Just look at any mainstream population projections. By 2100, Africa will have a population of between four and a half and five billion, hundreds of millions of whom will move to Europe and to the United States unless we're willing to abandon practically every humanitarian convention in existence and physically repel them. The best art, architecture, literature, and philosophy already exists. The European and European-descended peoples of the future will have to expend all of their creative energies on simply keeping the lights on.
>unless we're willing to abandon practically every humanitarian convention in existence and physically repel them
Most of those conventions are only post-1945, even the Geneva convention is barely over a hundred years old.
>By 2100, Africa will have a population of between four and a half and five billion, hundreds of millions of whom will move to Europe and to the United States unless we're willing to abandon practically every humanitarian convention in existence and physically repel them.
yikes! that's a dangerous conspiracy theory.* you should delete it.
*also both good and inevitable
That's the thing, it's not a matter of statistics. You have billions of people all over the world, but yet no Shakespeares. The reason for this is manifold, but basically it's just that no Shakespeare-liked skills will be developed over time in people because the systems that allowed Shakespeare no longer exist.
Just like we don't have good blacksmiths anymore, or good coopers, etc.
Just adding more people doesn't mean the natural brilliance will come out, you have to develop it.
peak midwittery right there
>STATISTICALLY I CANNOT BE A TALENTLESS FRICKING moron. I CANNOT.
I look like this and move like this.
Damn, you are pretty fast.
imagine investing with a bafflegabing c**t
>impossible
you mean improbable*
using that logic the person who wrote that must come from the past
>statistically impossible
>statistically
>impossible
How to expose yourself as knowing nothing about statistics 101
Compare the writings on an every day literate peasant from anywhere prior to the 20th century to the posts from an average twitter user and tell me more of the general populace attending university has improved writing skills as a whole.
Hmmm I wonder who will be better writers
1000 white males classically trained in a severe selection of the best writings available in the Western traditioj. Given the time and fortunes to dedicate their lives to its perfection
Millions of amorphous globohomosexual blob where literacy and education have become common, lowly, and detestable; And all achievement awards select for one's identification with the culture that produces such abhorrence
Truly, it boggles the mind
has he considered that maybe his priors are moronic
I don't know why a concept I learned in elementary statistics is being used as some kind lifestyle but anyone who talks about Bayesian inference as some kind of philosophy is an incredible fricking homosexual.
eternal techbro genocide
>they took my MISSILES, JERRY!
Statgays won't be satisifed until they suck every bit of imagination, happiness, art, and soul out of humanity.
Statgays must hang.
This is some faulty logic if I've ever seen it.
How did this brainlet get into MIT?
This sort of thinking is encouraged in academics.
I expected better thinking from the alumni of an institution as prestigious as MIT. I kinda get it if it was an exercise meant to inspire sensible judgement but this comes off as someone simply asserting an opinion without first having defined anything worth of value.
>I expected better thinking from the alumni of an institution as prestigious as MIT.
Why?
Because I still believe in the idea of credentialism
Stop that until we get some new institutions.
It's just the I went into trades so the idea that someone who could be this hopeless when it comes to the liberal arts and yet is able to attain a degree from an institution as established as MIT is something I simply cannot reconcile.
In STEM education, you only learn STEM.
In my country we have some people who believe being "university educated means you know more about every topic than others".
If you study engineering, you will only learn mathematics, physics, some chemistry and engineering. You are not being educated into being an intellectual, you are educated into being an engineer.
People here also believe a university degree means you're super smart. You can be a doctor and still be an absolute fricking moron. Also, with the amount of new doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc every year it's more than likely than most of them are not even above average in their own fields, let alone other disciplines
Come on, anon...
A PhD in physics at the MIT or Caltech is good in his field of physics. Doesn't mean he is reasonable in any other area.
And in some areas it is even worse in that they are not great even in their subject matter.
>the maf say whitey bad
Upon reading the OP I am henceforth assigning a .6 bayesian credence to the proposition that Shakespeare was not the greatest writer of all time.
Everything else aside, people fail to see the incredible effect restrictions and limitations have on creativity. People today can do so much more than Shakespeare that they simply won't stop to think how to carve the right path.
Giga moron take, not accounting for that while the population of geniuses should probably be much higher today, their incentives and learned desires and inclinations are pretty much completely funnelled into either making cheap shit or marketing it. There's also the selection process of discovery, if someone was as brilliant as Shakespeare at writing today, why and how would they be discovered? Every social media website's recommendation algorithm and every editorial staff everywhere exists to sell more shit, not produce anything of spiritual value or anything lofty like that. Chop the heads off pseuds, impale pseuds, disembowel pseuds, scalp them.
The main difference between Shakespeares time and ours is what authority israelites had
Do you actually believe that crap?
People forget but the Shakespeare we possess has been enriched by subsequent centuries, we no longer consume him the way the average citizen in his time did.
Shakespeare had to sneak in some dirty jokes to keep the grounding from throwing things.
The opposite, changes to the English language have degraded most people's understanding of the wordplay, the things he invented are now commonplace and have lost their lustre, and the style of theatrical acting the plays were written with in mind has been replaces with naturalistic acting. Not to mention most people's first interaction with Shakespeare is in the form of books
We live in 'Extremeistan'. Argument invalid.
People in the Past had more 'New' things they could write about or come up with. People in the future have the burden of the Past already existing. You can't do star crossed lovers again because its just Shakespere.
I just watched Rear Window and thought this exactly. It's a fantastic idea that can only be done once
This argument is moronic. Even if it is more likely that a genius is given an education today because he is a genius, or indeed just because, that does not mean you will have more geniuses: just that more of the geniuses will be educated. The chance that the greatest writer will be born stays the same, its just you are more likely to know it since he was more likely to be taught to write. Genius is something you are born with, not educated to be. He might as well make the argument that the chances were very low his name would be shakespeare since we have more names now.
So in fact, since there are more people dead who may not have gotten an education then there are people alive right now with an education, it is more likely that greatest writer was never taught to write and died, and shakespeare is not the greatest writer, but not because he was born long ago, but because he wasnt born long ago enough.
In ANY case, obviously as time goes, if "greatest writer"
The problem here is that a modern genius would get a shittier education than Shakespeare when it comes to being a writer.
And I think Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were better writers than he is.
STEMgays are insufferably
>bayesian priors
Nerds don't understand art. They barely understand feelings. I don't give a FRICK about "bayesian priors" you fricking moron. Stick to video games and nerd shit. Art isn't for you.
This is why we used to bully nerds. Time was when if you stood up in English class and say "uhm well actually ahuh the statistical likelihood that uh that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in history is ahah essentially negligible :)" you would get your glasses broken and your face pushed into the dirt at recess. But not any more.
I never had glasses but I still got beaten up plenty of times for being too smart (i.e. getting better grades than was socially acceptable)
Are you black or something?
No, where I went to school we had a total of three black people
I'm enjoying the mental image of Nelson Muntz punching some nerd over and over whilst saying: "That's for besmirching the Bard of Avon!" I just don't recall it ever happening with any regularity.
Quality over quantity.
IQ has been declining.
The so-called literate people today don't actually read beyond learning to read at school. The brain of the average Westerner (or Easterner) is rotting away on IG, Tik-Tok, porn, TV, Cinemaphile, etc. They're not reading books.
No one today exercises his memory like people did in the past merely out of necessity.
What a stupid goddamn argument. There are 0 reasons to suppose that educated masses and a select elite of literati are going to have the same probability of genius. There is 0 reason to suppose that any point in history is equal to any other in likelihood to produce individuals who are able to articulate the eternal. There is great reason to suppose that social complexity and interconnectivity and later information technology make people generally LESS able to touch that which is constant, eternal and sacred in human life, for these things destroy the True Sacred space which is REAL solitude, a place which does not exist any more for nearly all people.
Not in any way to slight Shakespeare but I'm a Sophocles kind of guy, anyway.
a civilization is like a flower and it grows organically, blooms, wilts, and then dies.
you would expect to see creativity maximized in the youthful parts of a civilization not its old age.
thanks to technology the current civilization has a great many people but that means nothing.
the quote is wrong and failing to take into account these variables.
Art doesn't have merit or value. Art that is deemed more worthwhile is usually just bad art in the sense that it is boring and not particularly meaningful but given false elevation by academics who want to create manufactured social esteem for a piece of art so that they can enjoy the elevated status of someone who deems it so and can appreciate it. Basically high art only exists for the benefit of the critic. Even Marvel slop is above most of the western canon. Hard pill to swallow I know but there's a reason the masses don't bother to engage with high art. It's just low art made intentionally worse. That's why older works are more considered more genius. Because quality isn't real and humans have an idea that older things are somehow inherently valuable. That's not to say that all art is equal in quality, (though it is all equally meaningless) just that it's not pretentious awardslop.
this is midwit shit. all of the best blacksmiths and cobblers are from the past
He is in error here, this is classic survival bias. Shakespeare was among the first to write scripts with his particular thematics, which in turn influenced future writers. Whenever someone equally or more talented wrote a script, people would call it "Shakespearean", for example.
It is like calculus, someone would develop it eventually, but because Isaac Newton did, we all think of Isaac Newton, even though he was humble and made it clear he was merely standing on the shoulders of giants.
there are only 3 or 4 guys who still know how to use film. obviously the greats are all from the past
I'm glad ppl r finally realizing Shakespeare made his times equivalent of marvel movies. The educated nvr attended his plays...
He debunks his own statement in the statement. This logic assumes that becoming a great writer is just random chance determined at birth, and ignore the environmental factors. But in his own statement he admits that he doesn't count uneducated farmers. So if farmers can simply be considered impossible to become great writers, perhaps the current culture also makes it impossible to become a great writer.
The only statistics I need are the FBI statistics on black crime
>the bayesian priors arent very favorable
I hate idiots that try to use fancy sounding technical terms they don't understand.
This dude can eat shit and die.
>t. Phd student on inverse problems
It's Sam Bankman fried. The FTX scamming israelite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried
Antonio Corradini came from a city with 110,000 people when he sculpted pic related, therefore if I go to Delhi in 2023 there will be tons of sculptors on his level.