the flawed genius of William Playfair [book review]

David Bellhouse has written a new book on the history of statistics, focussing on William Playfair this time (following his fantastic book on Abraham de Moivre). The Flawed Genius of William Playfair (The Story of the Father of Statistical Graphics) got published a few months ago by the University of Toronto Press.

“[Playfair] was an ideas man whose ideas often did not come to fruition; or, when they did, they withered or exploded.” [p.121]

The impressions I retained from reading this detailed account of a perfect unknown (for me) are of a rather unpleasant, unappealing, unsuccessful, fame-seeking, inefficient, short-sighted, self-aggrandising,  bigoted, dishonest, man, running from debtors for most of his life, with jail episodes for bankruptcy, while trying to make a living from all sorts of doomed enterprises, short-lived blackmailing attempts, and mediocre books that did not sell to many. Similar to David Bellhouse’s colleague earlier wondering at the appeal of exposing such a rogue character, I am left with this lingering interrogation after finishing the book…

“[Richard] Price liked what Playfair had written. He found [in 1786] Playfair to be “agreeable” and “useful”.” [p.64]

Not that I did not enjoy reading it!, as it gives a most interesting of the era between the 18th and the 19th Centuries, in particular in its detailed narration of the first months of the French Revolution of 1789, and of the impact of the Industrial Revolution on economics and politics as the birth of capitalism. The book abounds in crossing lots of historical characters, like Richard Price (Bayes’s friend who published his most famous paper), Adam Smith (whose book Playfair reprinted with poor additions), Edward Gibbons (whose book along with Smith’s inspired the title of his Inquiry Into the Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations), Thomas Malthus (competing for an annotated edition of Smith’s book), not to mention the political class of Britain at the time. David Bellhouse’s book demonstrates academic and historical excellence, constantly being very detailed, with a wealth of references, documents, and definite support for or against the rumours that accompany the life and deeds of Playfair. (Frankly, rarely a name has been that inappropriate!) This includes for instance the pictures pointing out to his first (?) forged signature [p.140] and the evacuation of the myth of Playfair as a spy for the British Crown—which the Wikipedia page happily reproduces, pointing out the need for an in-depth revision of said page. Similarly, the book delivered a convincing discussion of arguments for and mostly against Playfair “being the key player in the British operation to forge [French] assignats” towards destroying its economy. A lot of the book is touching upon the then novel issue of paper money, which Playfair only and negatively considered through his own (and catastrophic) experiences. At times, the book is almost too scholarly as it makes reading less fluid than was the case his Abraham de Moivre for instance. (And obviously less than in the contemporary Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel!)

It may be that my very relative lack of enthusiasm stems from the realisation that the story of Playfair is overall rather little connected with statistical inference, if not with descriptive statistics (albeit with a complete disregard for the quality and sources of his data), as when  publishing a Statistical Breviary on descriptive statistics for a series of countries (and surprisingly sold on Amazon!).  Or Statistical Account of the United States of America. And of course for his innovative graphical representations like the one represented on the cover of the book or the pie chart. I feel that the book is much more engaged in Playfair’s contributions to the then nascent science of economics, as for instant about the shallow and mostly misguided views of his’ on banking and running the economy, while conducting his personal finance and investments so disastrously that it negatively advertised against confidence in such views.

On a very personal level, I noticed that some graphs were provided by my friend and statistics historian Stephen Stigler [who also wrote a review of the book] while an analysis of the poor French involved in a coding scam of Playfair about Napoléon’s escape from Elba was by Christian Genest (whom I first met at a statistics conference dinner on the Lac de Neufchâtel in 1986).

[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version will eventually appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE. As appropriate for a book about Chance!]

 

computational statistics position at U of Toronto

Another Canadian assistant professor opening in computational statistics, with a call for candidates from the University of Toronto, with deadline 20 November 2023:

Candidates must have earned a PhD degree in Statistics or a related area by the time of appointment, or shortly thereafter, with a demonstrated record of excellence in research and teaching. Experience working with, teaching, or mentoring diverse groups or diverse students is preferred. We seek exceptional candidates whose research and teaching interests complement and strengthen our existing departmental research strengths. Evidence of excellence in teaching will be provided through teaching accomplishments, the teaching dossier including a strong teaching statement, sample course materials, and teaching evaluations, as well as strong letters of reference. Candidates are also expected to show evidence of a commitment to equity, diversity, inclusion, and the promotion of a respectful and collegial learning and working environment demonstrated through the application materials.

AIxcuse me?!

Don Fraser (1925-2020)

I just received the very sad news that Don Fraser, emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, passed away this Monday, 21 December 2020. He was a giant of the field, with a unique ability for abstract modelling and he certainly pushed fiducial statistics much further than Fisher ever did. He also developed a theory of structural  inference that came close to objective Bayesian statistics, although he remained quite critical of the Bayesian approach (always in a most gentle manner, as he was a very nice man!). And most significantly contributed to high order asymptotics, to the critical analysis of ancilarity and sufficiency principles, and more beyond. (Statistical Science published a conversation with Don, in 2004, providing more personal views on his career till then.) I met with Don and Nancy rather regularly over the years, as they often attended and talked at (objective) Bayesian meetings, from the 1999 edition in Granada, to the last one in Warwick in 2019. I also remember a most enjoyable barbecue together, along with Ivar Ekeland and his family, during JSM 2018, on Jericho Park Beach, with a magnificent sunset over the Burrard Inlet. Farewell, Don!

remembering Joyce Fienberg through Steve’s words

I just learned the horrific news that Joyce Fienberg was one of the eleven people murdered yesterday morning at the Tree of Life synagogue. I had been vaguely afraid this could be the case since hearing about the shooting there, just because it was not far from the University of Pittsburgh, and CMU, but then a friend emailed me she indeed was one of the victims. When her husband Steve was on sabbatical in Paris, we met a few times for memorable dinners. I think the last time I saw her was a few years ago in a Paris hotel where Joyce, Steve and I had breakfast together to take advantage of one of their short trips to Paris. In remembrance of this wonderful woman who got assassinated by an anti-Semitic extremist, here is how Steve described their encounter in his Statistical Science interview:

I had met my wife Joyce at the University of Toronto when we were both undergraduates. I was actually working in the fall of 1963 in the registrar’s office, and on the first day the office opened to enroll people, Joyce came through. And one of the benefits about working in the registrar’s office, besides earning some spending money, was meeting all these beautiful women students passing through. That first day I made a note to ask Joyce out on a date. The next day she came through again, this time bringing through another young woman who turned out to be the daughter of friends of her parents. And I thought this was a little suspicious, but auspicious in the sense that maybe I would succeed in getting a date when I asked her. And the next day, she came through again! This time with her cousin! Then I knew that this was really going to work out. And it did. We got engaged at the end of the summer of 1964 after I graduated, but we weren’t married when I went away to graduate school. In fact, yesterday I was talking to one of the students at the University of Connecticut who was a little concerned about graduate school; it was wearing her down, and I told her I almost left after the first semester because I wasn’t sure if I was going to make a go of it, in part because I was lonely. But I did survive, and Joyce came at the end of the first year; we got married right after classes ended, and we’ve been together ever since.