3 ms·

You really sliced up that quote to make Hamming look like a hypocrite. The missing middle: "Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and

You really sliced up that quote to make Hamming look like a hypocrite. The missing middle: "Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage." Emphasis mine. I think this is self criticism on Hamming's part, not a dig at Clogston.

btilly 5y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. I have no idea what motivation it takes to take someone's words, twist them to make the person look as bad as possible, and then try to unfairly smear them.
wott 5y ago
It still makes little sense. He says that one success brought that guy courage. However, in the same "point", he says that it is courage which brings success. Applied to that case, it means that the guy already had courage that Hamming couldn't see but Pierce could see. Well, then it is not a success that brought him courage.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  > He says that one success brought that guy courage. He did say that. > However, in the same "point", he says that it is courage which brings success. He did not say that. Instead he said that courage is one of the characteristics of successful scientists.
derbOac 5y ago
I guess so, but to me it's irrelevant? My point is there's many situations where JR Pierce wouldn't have been in charge, and Hamming would have. Phrase it as you will -- that Hamming wasn't in charge, or JR Pierce was, but the point is the same. I agree Hamming was being self-deprecating but it seems strange to jump from the observation that he would have fired the guy, but that somehow it's Glogston's attributes that saved him? To me it seems hypocritical and not at all twisting what he said.
- travisjungroth 5y ago
  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.

btilly 5y ago

Thank you for pointing that out. I have no idea what motivation it takes to take someone's words, twist them to make the person look as bad as possible, and then try to unfairly smear them.

wott 5y ago

It still makes little sense. He says that one success brought that guy courage. However, in the same "point", he says that it is courage which brings success. Applied to that case, it means that the guy already had courage that Hamming couldn't see but Pierce could see. Well, then it is not a success that brought him courage.

Kbelicius 5y ago
> He says that one success brought that guy courage. He did say that. > However, in the same "point", he says that it is courage which brings success. He did not say that. Instead he said that courage is one of the characteristics of successful scientists.

derbOac 5y ago

I guess so, but to me it's irrelevant? My point is there's many situations where JR Pierce wouldn't have been in charge, and Hamming would have. Phrase it as you will -- that Hamming wasn't in charge, or JR Pierce was, but the point is the same. I agree Hamming was being self-deprecating but it seems strange to jump from the observation that he would have fired the guy, but that somehow it's Glogston's attributes that saved him? To me it seems hypocritical and not at all twisting what he said.

travisjungroth 5y ago
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.