It wasn't Clogston's attributes that saved him from getting fired. Hamming squarely credits that to Pierce being smart and not firing him.
The overall context of this paragraph is the importance of courage. Taking your quoted paragraph as 0 here are the leading sentences of paragraph -2 and +1.
> One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them.
> One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage.
Paragraph -1 is about a person that wasn't obviously impressive.
> ... It was pretty clear to me that this man didn't know much mathematics and he wasn't really articulate.
But he persisted anyway
> He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department..
Leading to success
> ..but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field.
And outward changes
> Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways.
Then we get to paragraph 0, a similar story
> And I can cite another person in the same way.
Hamming doubted him
> I didn't think he had much...Well I would have fired the fellow
He had one success
> Clogston finally did the Clogston cable.
Leading to more success
> After that there was a steady stream of good ideas.
Because of an increase in his courage and outward changes
> One success brought him confidence and courage.
I'm not saying this is an airtight argument. I just think you've mischaracterized it. Hamming is saying that he doubted these people who went on to be successful. It's implied and sometimes explicitly stated that others doubted them, too. But, they had the courage to continue and this is an important attribute for scientists.
It's not a systemic way of looking at things. This advice is for people who want to work within a system, not change it. I mean, from somewhere else in the page:
> I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly.
You might not like what he has said, but it seems pretty consistent.
The overall context of this paragraph is the importance of courage. Taking your quoted paragraph as 0 here are the leading sentences of paragraph -2 and +1.
> One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them.
> One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage.
Paragraph -1 is about a person that wasn't obviously impressive.
> ... It was pretty clear to me that this man didn't know much mathematics and he wasn't really articulate.
But he persisted anyway
> He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department..
Leading to success
> ..but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field.
And outward changes
> Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways.
Then we get to paragraph 0, a similar story
> And I can cite another person in the same way.
Hamming doubted him
> I didn't think he had much...Well I would have fired the fellow
He had one success
> Clogston finally did the Clogston cable.
Leading to more success
> After that there was a steady stream of good ideas.
Because of an increase in his courage and outward changes
> One success brought him confidence and courage.
I'm not saying this is an airtight argument. I just think you've mischaracterized it. Hamming is saying that he doubted these people who went on to be successful. It's implied and sometimes explicitly stated that others doubted them, too. But, they had the courage to continue and this is an important attribute for scientists.
It's not a systemic way of looking at things. This advice is for people who want to work within a system, not change it. I mean, from somewhere else in the page:
> I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly.
You might not like what he has said, but it seems pretty consistent.