It seems fashionable to denigrate Malcolm Gladwell. Academics moan; “he is conceptually loose and borrows ideas from other people”. It reminds me of Louis in Casablanca. People seem shocked to hear that gambling is going on. What were the critics expecting? Of course, Gladwell popularizes other people’s ideas. (For the record he can borrow and popularize mine anytime.) Furthermore, even when Gladwell doesn’t make perfect sense at least it reads well unlike a lot of academic work. What then can we say about David, Goliath and Malcom.
Some Assertions Are Dodgy
Of course, some of Gladwell’s assertions are debatable. Gladwell always leaves me saying “NO!” at least once per book. The good news is that he makes us think even if only to disagree. If anyone assumes everything Gladwell writes is gospel they lack critical thinking skills. This is a problem Gladwell can’t really be blamed for.
His latest book exemplifies what he is about. Fun, pithy, and occasionally questionable. For example, I think his discussion of the disadvantages of advantages is a little strong.
The man from Hollywood had too much money. That was his problem as a parent.
Gladwell 2013, page 52
Before you feel too sorry for the man from Hollywood it is worth noting that solving the problem of too much money is really very easy.
David, Goliath And Malcolm
The book’s core, discussing competition, makes points worth considering. I’d agree that we often get caught up in thinking we have to play the game presented to us.
The central story is David and Goliath. David a small, unarmored guy with a sling defeats a massive bloke in armor. Maybe David really wasn’t stronger than Goliath as Gladwell seems to imply. (Gladwell points out that projectiles are really rather effective against humans even big people). Either way, David would have been foolish to slug it out face to face with a huge man in full armour. If you find yourself playing David then Gladwell’s advice is great. Consider your advantages. Maybe your advantages are small compared to Goliath’s but there probably is something to work with. Don’t go toe to toe with someone much bigger than you.
According to Gladwell The Impressionists succeeded precisely because they didn’t play the game dictated by the Paris Salon.
If they were off by themselves and held their own show, they said, they wouldn’t be bound by the restrictive rules of the Salon… They could paint what they wanted.
Gladwell 2013, page 72
While “T.E. Lawrence could triumph because he was the farthest thing from a proper British Army officer”. (Gladwell 2013, page 36). It is better to play to your advantages than battle on someone else’s terms.
If nothing else maybe Gladwell will encourage those who read David and Goliath to think imaginatively when they find themselves cast as David.
For more on competition see here, here, and here.
Read: Malcolm Gladwell, 2013, David and Goliath, Underdogs, Misfits and The Art of Battling Giants, Little Brown and Company