Books like David and Goliath

David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell, published October 1, 2013, is Gladwell’s latest expedition into his highly successful brand of investigative journalism. Gladwell’s theme this time around is that the mighty don’t always win. This is a very fun read, and I especially like Gladwell’s style. However, I don’t think this is quite as strong a work as his previous books, The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers.Gladwell opens the book with the Biblical story of David and Goliath. This, of course, is the story of how a young, shepherd boy, who armed with only a sling, manages to defeat the mightiest soldier in the Philistine army, Goliath, a heavily armored giant. Gladwell argues that the specialized soldiers who were proficient with a sling were particularly deadly because of the force the slings would impart, the accuracy of those who used them, the slingers maneuverability, and the distance from which they could strike. All of these gave David a huge advantage over the slow and clumsy Goliath. So what is presented as an unfair battle, was indeed unfair, but not in the way one normally assumes.After using the story of David and Goliath as his jumping off point, Gladwell then tells the story of Vivek Ranadive’, who, having never coached or played basketball, decided to coach his daughter’s basketball team. The team was made up of a variety of players, most of whom were not basketball players. He decided on two principles. First, he would never raise his voice and second he would persuade the girls to play his way using reason and common sense. As far as basketball went, the main strategy he used was a full-court press on the other team through the entire game. Once the girls bought into his plan, they became quite successful even though they usually played much more talented opponents. Within this chapter, he then examines how often a weaker opponent has defeated a much larger opponent in warfare. Based on a study of wars over the last 200 years done by Ivan Arreguin-Toft, the much larger force only won about 71.5% of the time. This means the far weaker (at least in strength of numbers) won nearly a third of the time. Gladwell’s specific example of this was Lawrence of Arabia’s campaign against the Turks in WWI. He then illustrates this again with the story of Fordham’s unlikely victory over UMass in basketball in 1971. The coach of Fordham was none other than Digger Phelps. However, nearly no one, Phelps or otherwise, continued to use this idea, with one exception, a guard on the UMass team who didn’t play in the game, who absorbed the lesson. His name was Rick Pitino. He has used the full-court press over the years.Gladwell’s next chapter is about classroom size. Is it true that the smaller a classroom is, the better the students do? The answer? Yes, to a point. Gladwell researches various studies on the effect classroom size has and argues that for most, classroom size (holding other variables such as teacher effectiveness constant) has no particular impact on student performance. As an interlude, Gladwell then tells the story of the rise to success of one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. This person offers a paradox that wealth has caused. His own children do not have to struggle like he did and also don’t appreciate the value of money. This is a common problem for the wealthy who are often the very people who can afford to attend schools with small class sizes. Since, in essence, their children don’t have to struggle, they don’t excel. This leads to Gladwell’s primary point in this book. It is the application of what is basically an inverted-U. In terms of wealth, people who have too little struggle to be good parents because they often have to work more than one job and are rarely home. But as the wealth increases, the people become better and better parents. However, at a certain point, the parenting ability levels off and actually decreases the wealthier one is. Gladwell will apply this inverted-U throughout this book, starting with class sizes. A small class offers too little privacy for the students and too many opportunities for one individual, the teacher or otherwise, to dominate or disrupt the class. A class that is too large offers too little intimacy. The students become just numbers and feel unimportant. So, is there a happy medium for class sizes in this inverted-U? Based on Gladwell’s discussion with teachers, it seems to be around 18-22.His next chapter opens with the story of the Impressionists and how they had to find their own outlet to display their artwork as much of it was not accepted by the Salon in Paris., the most important art show in the world in the mid- to late 1800s. The bulk of the chapter is the story of Caroline Sacks, a superior student in science who strived to go to an elite university to become a scientist. She ended up at Brown University, where she struggled. In comparing herself to her fellow students, she suffered from “relative deprivation.” She felt unsuccessful and a failure compared to her classmates. However, compared to the general population, she was still extremely superior. It was just that she was comparing herself to the crème of the crop, and in that group, she wasn’t at the top. By the end of her sophomore year she dropped out of science. Gladwell then asks the question about what would have happened had she gone to the University of Maryland instead? He spends a large portion of the rest of the chapter analyzing the best students at second-tier universities and comparing them to the students at first-tier universities. He finds that those that are the best at the second-tier often do better after college that the good students at first-tier. He offers some quite surprising numbers that going to a first-tier institution may not always be the best option.The next section of the book deals mainly with the disability of dyslexia. Gladwell offers two main stories on how people became successful because of it. One, a lawyer, learned to listen extremely well and remember what he heard. The other, a doctor, learned to keep pushing and eventually developed a treatment for childhood leukemia. There are several other stories told in this section. However, Gladwell offers only anecdotes and no research. These people are exceptions. They are the few who were able to go beyond their dyslexia and use their other abilities to succeed.Chapter Six mainly focuses on Wyatt Walker, a civil rights pioneer along with Martin Luther King, Jr. Where King’s strategy was based on Ghandi and turning the other cheek, Walker was more confrontational. He used that to provoke and then publicize the response racist parties undertook in reaction to his provocations.Then he tells the story of Rosemary Lawlor, a Catholic living in Belfast, Northern Ireland during the Troubles. This chapter is mainly about the legitimacy of authority. He illustrates this with an analogy in a classroom and how a teacher disciplines students and when and for what reasons. This “principle of legitimacy” relies on three things: 1) people who are asked to obey an authority have to feel like they have a voice and that they’ll be heard, 2) the law has to be predictable, and 3) the law has to be fair. Gladwell argues that what the British did in Northern Ireland violated these principles and caused the Catholics to rise against them. Gladwell offers several other examples in fighting crime and how different options had different effects. The next chapter continues this somewhat in looking at the origins and effectiveness of the Three Strikes Law in California. This allows Gladwell to return to the inverted-U curve in discussing the effectiveness of this law. The law is effective to a point and then the costs outweigh any benefit the law provides as opposed to the previous laws. Gladwell finishes his book with a French community that successfully stood up to the Germans in WWII and protected their Jewish population.Overall, I did enjoy the book. I really like Gladwell’s style of writing. However, I didn’t think this book was as effective as his previous works. Some of his stories didn’t seem quite as relevant to his point, although they were good stories. For me, the most interesting theory he explained is how many of these topics seem to follow the inverted-U curve. That, to me, was the most interesting information I learned.