Academic Ego: The case of Sir Ronald Fisher

British statistician and geneticist Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher pioneer mostly cited as the father of modern statistical methods was involved in numerous long public disputes with others, including eugenicist Karl Pearson and his son Egon, American geneticist Sewall Wright, geophysicist and mathematician Sir Harold Jeffreys, and statistician Jerzy Neyman. He alone, almost in conflict with the rest, why? Could this be the case of the academic ego which is present today in the field of academia and which also gets personal in academic departments? This article presents the academic ego in reference to Sir Ronald Fishers’ academic life.

Earlier at my university, my friend was sharing with me about his seminar experience where the professor “tore” his paper. Asked why certain authors were cited in his paper and why not others, among several comments. This reminded me of the story of Fisher and Pearson, which many says, was a tense controversy between the two. Our discussion went further, and we later concluded that Ego is the drive of many disputes in the field of academia. Though not really against the ego, however, it is something dangerous if not balanced well.

I have witnessed disputes in university department between academics. Some departments being fractured into warring ‘clans’. Promising academic careers ended due to clashes. Students’ lives have been devastated by the inability of academics to work together. Outstanding projects ending just on paper “never to see the light of the day” because researchers could not agree on authorship. All these are clear references to egoism in us.

Sir Ronald Fisher

Ronald Aylmer Fisher was born on 17 February 1890, in East Finchley. He and his twin brother, who died in infancy were the youngest of eight children. His father, George Fisher was a member of the well-known firm of auctioneers, Robinson and Fisher. His father’s family were mostly businessmen, but his uncle, a younger brother of his father was placed high as a Cambridge Wrangler and went into the church.

During his young age, he had eyesight problem which he suffered from myopia. Despite his physical challenge, Fisher became a great mathematical statistician. He obtained a scholarship to Cambridge, which he entered in 1909. After graduating he spent a further year at Cambridge with a studentship in physics, studying statistical mechanics and quantum theory under James Jeans and the theory of errors under F. J. M. Stratton.

While at Cambridge, he came across Karl Pearson’s Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. In 1918 he published a monumental study on the correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. This was first submitted to the Royal Society but on the recommendation of the referees was withdrawn and was subsequently published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, partly at the author’s expense. This early work led to simultaneous offers in 1919 of the post of chief statistician under Karl Pearson at the Galton Laboratory and of a newly created post of the statistician at Rothamsted Experimental Station under Sir John Russell.

in spite of the reputation of the Galton Laboratory at that time, Fisher unhesitatingly accepted the Rothamsted offer, which he thought would give considerably greater opportunities for independent research. Doubtless, also the prospect of being able to pursue his genetical studies more actively at Rothamsted weighed with him. Rothamsted proved a fortunate choice. It provided an exceptionally free atmosphere for the pursuit of research and brought him into close contact with biological research workers of very varied disciplines and attainments.

We see that Fishers’ choice for the Rothamsted offer is a clear reference to the ego of two researchers at the time, Fisher, and Pearson. We are told the two were in an endless conflict, the conflict which never ended until Pearson’s death. He accepted the Rothamsted offer because he wanted independence with his research. He didn’t want to be in the same department with Pearson perhaps due to criticism coming from Pearson.

Further, we read that, although Russell appointed Fisher to re-examine modern statistical methods from the mass of data that accumulated from the Rothamsted long-term field trials, “he unkindly described Russell as too good a director to dictate to those of his staff who showed the ability for original research and the will to pursue it”. It is clear that Fisher was too much of himself and perhaps he disliked to be controlled by others. And this could be the real reason behind the refusal to work under Pearson, he simply wanted control of his own ideas and less of criticism.

Fisher is mentioned to have had notoriously contentious spirit, quick temper, which was sometimes provoked by trivialities and his tendency on occasion to be coldly rude to those whom he regarded as misguided. Just imagine in our own case when we lose our temper sometimes we end up discriminating and accusing others of our own mistakes. This could have been so in the case of Fisher, due to his “quick temper” it can be said that many innocent people in authority, minor officials, and servants, must have been found themselves blamed for faults of others, or of Fisher himself.

The originality of his work inevitably resulted in conflicts with accepted authority, and this led to many controversies, which he entered into with vigor, but often in that indignant frame of mind that leads to a partial view of the problem and leaves unanswered objections that are obvious to the impartial observer. On scientific matters, he was uncompromising and was intolerant of scientific pretentiousness in all its forms, especially the pretentiousness of mathematicians. He could be unforgivingly hostile to those who in his opinion criticized his work unjustly, particularly if he suspected they were attempting to gain credit thereby. Nevertheless, he undoubtedly enjoyed the cut and thrust of scientific controversy. His pungent verbal comments were well known; though frequently made without malice, they were nevertheless disconcerting to those of less robust temperament. The Sir Ronal Fisher himself………………….

The Ego

The ego “the self me” is something made up by the mind. It’s the sense of self, a flash of “I” or “me” that we believe in and cling to. It’s the basis of our feeling of self-importance. It’s a story, a myth of self that we keep telling ourselves. This ego generates words in us like “I am the best, there is no one except me, I am the only one who knows it all and I am I am I am I am I am I am in everything……………………………………”

While ego is in everyone, the ego in others is probably bigger than the ego in others especially those in the academic profession. In academic, like others put it, people die to see their names in print, fight for credit, awards and funding, like being called “experts”, profess whenever they get an audience, feel validated when others cite or use their research work, and preference about whom to cite and who not to cite.

Ego is said to be a natural trait that helps us get into and thrive in the competitive world, in this case, the world of academia. This is not a bad thing in itself, however, times come in academic’s life when the ego might threaten to get out of control. The runaway ego can then become an impediment to the academic’s continued growth and impact. In such a time Ego becomes the enemy of success. Hence, there is a need to balance our ego because if again you are completely without ego, the odds are that you will give up. If you have too much, then you won’t take criticism.