David & Goliath - Malcolm Gladwell
3-Sentence Summary:
Being in the perceived position of ‘underdog’ often comes with advantages, including being forced to compensate for a disability or lack of skill (e.g. there is a relatively high proportion of CEOs who are dyslexic), having to adapt after surviving potentially harmful events (e.g. war survivors), and having the freedom to use unconventional tactics (since you’ve got nothing to lose).
The use of power by the powerful often follows a U-shaped curve, where more use eventually leads to diminishing returns, and ultimately if pushed too far, can result in the loss of power completely, when people becoming unwilling to follow the demands of the powerful.
The powerful are never as powerful as they seem, since they're open to the vulnerability of overusing and losing that power, and the weak are never as weak as they seem, since they have unseen advantages, if they can find a way to use them.
Notes:
We often think about the disadvantages of being an underdog, but often the underdog has hidden advantages, including being underestimated and being forced to become resourceful.
Often, when the underdog resorts to unconventional tactics, they will win. e.g. Underpowered militaries win wars more often than not. However, this is only true when they fight unconventionally. e.g. Using a full-court press in basketball can be shown to be an effective tactic for less skilled teams.
However, these strategies are often difficult, effortful, and require an element of desperation, which means they usually don't usually end up being sustainable.
The concept of a U-shaped curve describes how too much of a good thing is better, but only up to a point, after which more does not equal better, and more again starts to become disadvantageous. e.g. Size is usually an advantage, but Goliath (from the David and Goliath Story) was too big, causing him to be immobile, slow, and potentially even subject to disability caused by his giantism. e.g. Having enough money to provide for your children is a good thing, but having too much money can ultimately lead to difficulties with discipline and lack of constraints.
It is often better to be the big fish in a small point than a small fish in a big pond. e.g. Impressionist painters couldn't get a look-in in traditional galleries, so started their own, where they were the stars, and people flocked to see them. Even those their fans were fewer, there were fewer 'fish'. e.g. The best students in mediocre universities outperform good students at elite universities.
In any hierarchy of people, there will inevitably be those who rank at the bottom of that hierarchy. It is better for everyone if that bottom group have things that they excel at outside of the hierarchy. e.g. Athletes at elite universities don't suffer from being at the bottom of the class, since they have sport to rely on for self-esteem. Hence, universities don't mind letting some athletes in based on sporting achievement rather than academics.
Some disadvantages, such as dyslexia, can result in advantages, through forcing the development of other useful skills and traits. e.g. Many CEOs are dyslexic, which is perhaps linked to the personality trait of disagreeableness that they've potentially acquired through learning how to be more indifferent to what others think.
However, the same potential disadvantage can adversely affect one group and benefit another. e.g. Whilst Dyslexia is prevalent in CEOs, it is also prevalent in criminals. e.g. War can kill or traumatise people who are directly affected, but strengthens the survivors, or 'close misses'. e.g. A lot of both geniuses (and criminals) have suffered from losing a parent during childhood.
In addition to the advantages of compensating for a disability (e.g. dyslexics), and experiencing potentially catastrophic events as near misses, a further advantage for underdogs is the ability to be a trickster, which comes with having the freedom to break the rules because you have nothing to lose. e.g. Faking credentials for a job interview. e.g. Protestors agitating the police and setting up photos to be posted to the press.
For people to follow authority, they have to feel: 1. that they will be heard if they speak up. 2. that the rules will be predictable and consistently imposed, and 3. that one group won't be treated differently to the others (there is an element of fairness).
The use of power follows a U-shaped curve, where more use leads to diminishing returns, and ultimately if pushed too far, can result in the loss of power. Enforcing punishment is useful until it's done so much that it has a major effect on the population affected or until people begin to dislike the enforcer. e.g. Use of police force in high-crime neighbourhoods decreases crime up to a certain point, up until a point of overuse, where the people turn against the police and perform more crime.
The powerful are never as powerful as they seem, since they're open to the vulnerability of overusing and losing that power, and the weak are never as weak as they seem, since they have unseen advantages if they can find a way to use them.
If you enjoyed this summary, you’ll probably enjoy the full book. Get it here: LINK TO BOOK (AMAZON)
Or get it for free on audiobook when you sign up for an Audible account: LINK TO AUDIOBOOK (AMAZON)
(This website uses amazon referral links as part of the Amazon Associates program.)