October 10, 2023 - 1:00pm
Is William Shakespeare the greatest writer in the English language? Not everybody thinks so — and one of them is the fallen crypto-king, Sam Bankman-Fried. Discredited in his own field of expertise, SBF’s opinion on literary matters may seem irrelevant — until, that is, one looks at the detail of his argument.
It’s contained in Michael Lewis’s new book about the rise and fall of Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire. The relevant extract has been widely shared on X over the weekend. Here it is, via Trung Phan:
SBF using population statistics to argue why Shakespeare sucks is peak SBF pic.twitter.com/fOczElWvGF
— Trung Phan (@TrungTPhan) October 6, 2023
This is an ostensibly logical argument based on quantitative information. It doesn’t rely on subjective judgements: it just claims that it’s unlikely that Shakespeare is the GOAT because the population of literate individuals in his time was tiny compared to later centuries. On numbers alone, we’re more likely to find the greatest ever writer among the educated multitudes of the 20th and 21st centuries, not the thinly spread turnip-munchers of the 16th.
And yet, here we are, almost half a millennium later, and we’re still staging Shakespeare’s plays, reciting his poetry, and routinely using the many words, expressions and quotations that he contributed to the English language. This, too, is quantitative information. Bankman-Fried uses the term “Bayesian” to describe his probability-based argument, but Bayesian statistics is all about updating assessments of likelihood on the basis of previously unavailable or unconsidered data. Therefore, the objective reality of Shakespeare’s enduring reputation needs to be factored in as well.
It suggests that the relationship between the size of the literate population and the incidence of literary genius is not as straightforward as Bankman-Fried thinks it is.
Indeed, his hot take illustrates the pitfalls of a simplistically rational approach. Following a set of numbers might appear to provide an objective guide, but they can lead you astray if they’re incomplete, and if other confounding factors are at work. We’ve seen that happen enough times in the world of finance — and the crypto bros have shown that they’re no exception.
Nevertheless, SBF’s anti-Shakespeare argument — as flawed as it is — should haunt us. After all, there’s no denying that we greatly outnumber our ancestors. If we’re not producing our own Shakespeares, it’s not because there’s not enough of us. Nor is population size our only advantage. For instance, we’re also richer, healthier and longer-living. Then there’s our unprecedented access to knowledge: all of human civilisation is literally at our fingertips. Best of all, we have unprecedented freedom of thought and action. In terms of cultural achievement, we should be wiping the floor with our forebears.
But we’re not. The golden age of almost every field of human endeavour — be it literature, painting, sculpture, architecture or music — is in the past. Even the greatest achievements of the modern age, from cinema to science, belong to previous generations.
No wonder we paid so much attention to the crypto craze — with so little else going on it was the most exciting thing at the time. What should really make us cringe, though, is the verdict of our distant descendants. We won’t be around to hear it, but ask yourself this: will we leave them anything as inspirational as Shakespeare is to us?
If not, then why not? To me, the most obvious difference between us and those who built the civilisation that we inhabit is our lack of faith. That certainly includes a turning away from God, but also a faltering belief in ourselves.
After the crypto collapse, the new most exciting thing is AI research. This has hugely more potential — and yet, by definition, it can only succeed where humanity falls short. It’s as if we’ve given up.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHe – SBF – makes two of the most simple-minded blunders in statistics: assuming the underlying random variables are Gaussian and stationary over time.
Fellow is condemned to death. The judge tells him that, as part of his punishment, his execution will come as a surprise. The man says, “Well, clearly you can’t execute me on Friday, because if Thursday evening comes and I haven’t been executed, then I must be executed the next day and it won’t be a surprise.”
“That’s so,” replies the judge.
“And I also can’t be executed on Thursday,” says the convict. “We’ve already eliminated Friday, so if Wednesday evening comes and I’m still alive, I must be executed on the following day, and again the surprise is ruined.”
“Very true,” replies the judge.
“And that holds true for Wednesday and Tuesday as well,” muses the convict. “And even Monday! Why, any day you propose is eliminated, and I can’t be executed at all! That’s logic!”
“It is logic,” replies the judge, and has him executed on Wednesday.
Very good
This type of bogus logic, where ‘Because something can be justified numerically by a small number of preselected criteria then it must be true’ is endemic to modern western society. The worrying thing is that intelligent people with these very limited world views are able to gain wealth, status and power in this world (Like SBF). And continue to spout this kind of nonsense, believing they are justified in their beliefs.
But I guess as Paul Simon put it “a man hears what he wants to hear. And disregards the rest.”
In Bayesian statistics the prior is updated by new information. The new information in this case is that millions of people still choose Shakespeare as the GOAT – what is the chance of that? The posterior will have Shakespeare having a high probability of being the GOAT due to this fact.
It is interesting to note that SBF is completely ignorant even of the subjects he claims to know.
As my old physics master used to say, “Maths tells you the answers but not what you want to know.”
It’s an important lesson that seems to be decreasingly learned these days. And it’s not just Sam Bankman-Fried by the way, the worst excesses appear in the West’s technocratic governments and corporations, which at this stage pretty obviously like number-crunching not because it necessarily offers improvements to society, but because it enables technocrats to avoid dealing with actual human issues.
Not that I’m against rationalism and number-crunching by the way, but the people involved these days do seem to forget what it’s actually for.
The author makes some telling points, but that “we paid so much attention to the crypto craze” isn’t one of them.
Who’s “we”? If a correlation between those who “pay attention” to crypto could be made with those who are widely-read, possibly including Shakespeare, i’d be very surprised if there was any significant overlap.
Furthermore, why are “we” paying attention to SBF? The author’s point about the lack of cultural titans along the lines of Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven also seems mundane.
Modern life reduces our attention spans and for anyone engaged enough with our world to maintain a reasonable grasp of the scope of current cultural issues requires a significant expenditure of psychological capital which simply wasn’t necessary in the period 1500-1850. I don’t think we need look much further for the answer then. That’s not to say that work isn’t being produced which won’t stand the test of time. What matters, as with the aforementioned artists, is universality – the encompassing of human experience across divides and with resonance for all time. I’m convinced it’ll be happening as we speak.
But perhaps that’s just how history works. All the great works of Greek Tragedy were produced within a period of about a century. And though Shakespeare stood out, he was not alone. These peaks and troughs seem to be the normal pattern. And they seem to have little to do with population size.
We might of course wonder what the people with the genetic gifts of Shakespeare are doing with their time instead.
Did he apply his logic to the countries that will produce the best football teams or players? After all, with its small population, it’s highly unlikely that Portugal would be anywhere in the running. As for the small island of Madeira where there is barely enough flat land for a football pitch …. Just not going to happen is it.
And yet, Portugal have a team in the Rugby World Cup …
We made the Spenglerian transition from “culture” to “civilization” long ago – we just have to ride it out until our inevitable decline…..
Yeah, I mean if you believe in what Spengler said. Most people don’t.
Well, I think most of the great products of our culture in terms of architecture, art, music, literature – even science and mathematics – do belong to the past and we have entered the comfortable, technocratic, well-organized but ultimately rather barren stage of our civilization. It’s not necessarily bad – it just means we don’t really have a lot to look forward to, culturally.
I suppose a ‘cyclical’ view of history and culture could be quite comforting for some, in a way.
However, the future will always bring that which is unexpected, it’s very unlikely it will follow a pattern based on an understanding of the past; And I think most people have a deep sense that the world’s future will be volatile, hazardous and more demanding of people’s lives than it is currently. That much one could guess.
Greatness will have to be drawn out of people; whatever the form or expression that will be for individuals. For survival, and to preserve what’s truly valuable.
I thought the consensus was that Shakespeare was a publishing house or proto-studio bringing the best talent of the day together?
The SBF brat has no idea what he’s talking about, like most Demonrats.