I'm not sure that this is a major factor. Philosophy typically requires a lot of detailed interaction with prior work in philosophy, and it takes a lot of time to make a good case according to the standards of one's audience. For instance, Cristina Somcutean reports spending an entire month writing a 3000 word essay (https://medium.com/@cristinawrites/giving-myself-permission-to-suck-38e376992c2f) and feeling that this rate of work was necessary to craft a good argument--this is not the kind of thing that is done by the impatient!

Of course, philosophy isn't science, and presumably people who go into philosophy do better-than-random at picking the one that is better aligned with their personalities. But I suspect that "insufficient patience" isn't an important factor behind why some philosophers don't seem to do well at even understanding science.

I don't know a good way to assess whether or not it is the comparatively impatient philosophers who are also comparatively unlikely to have a sensible view of science. Regardless, most of the historical figures I referenced in my article do not seem to have been inordinately impatient overall.