Thoughts on David & Goliath (by Malcolm Gladwell)

I guess people call it book review?? But it sounds like judging which I don't really like, so I stick with 'thoughts'. Sounds more engaging.

There are few things in Malcolm Gladwell’s thought-provoking David & Goliath that really resonate with me.

Being a bigger fish in a smaller pond

For those who haven’t read the book, it explores, through inspiring anecdotes, why what we perceive as advantages may not necessarily correspond to real-life advantages, and how disadvantages could be exploited into our best strengths. Its chapter 3 about decision-making, in particular, reminds me of the current dilemma I am in: it surrounds on a character named Caroline Sacks, who reflected on her enrolment to a prestigious university—one of those of the Ivy League, probably the equivalent of the Russel Group in U.K. Despite being a brilliant student, she found herself struggling with the course and lost a lot of confidence in pursuing the science she loves. At the end, she dropped out. Yet, as the author points out, this has less to do with reality but the perception of inability—‘relative deprivation’ as sociologist Samuel Stouffer coined the term, is where one compares reality not for what it is, but only locally. As a result, being in a competitive environment like Harvard or Cambridge, for instance, gives the impression of a moderate student looking stupid, despite being probably much better than even the best student in another university. Being a small fish in a larger pond, the author argues, may not be a good idea after all. “Parents still tell their children to go to the best schools they possibly can, on the grounds the best schools will allow them to do what the wish…We have a definition in our heads of what an advantage is—and the definition isn’t right.” as Gladwell puts it.

Next year I will be going to university, and because I am confident in my academic abilities, I would like to choose the best course, in the most astounding university in U.K. No doubt, if I could study with local fees I would go for Loughborough—it’s where people go for Sports studies. But as an international student…fees is a major concern. My mom insisted though, if the course is worth its quality, she would afford me at great length—she would pay some crazy amount of money if Cambridge accepts me. Of course, that is out of my mind, because it’s where the nerds of the nerds go, and studying a Sport degree in there just seems a bit odd. Even in a recent conversation, my mom brought out Loughborough, but after visiting Northumbria and Brighton University, I decided it would be better to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, comparing to Loughborough University. Don’t get me wrong—they are still good universities, they are in no way ‘smaller ponds’ by international standards, but the point I am making is you don’t always need to associate with the best to prove to be adequate. What I am striking in here is a cost-effective choice—not one based on popular beliefs. The thing is, being competitive and having a bit of stress is great, it pushes people to be more disciplined and hence better at something, but unless you are the best, there will be always someone who is just better than you—someone who has the talent, the time, the excellent mindset and resilience to do something repeatedly more and longer than you. Then, thriving to be the best is like engaging in a losing battle, I would say life is too short for that. Suppose my ability is guided by how I compare with others around me, why not change ourselves to acknowledge more of our advantages and be more satisfied with the positions we hold?

Desirable difficulty?

Another idea in the book is how a disadvantage or struggle forces people to compensate to be better at something else. The stories of successful dyslexics are inspiring to me. I could hardly imagine what it would be like to have troubles reading and comprehend words properly in modern times, when one’s intellect is, literally, judged by how well they learn. Those people would be blessed to be socially accepted—let alone being a lawyer, or the president of Goldman Sachs—yet those stories exist! Another interesting thing I learnt is how a surprising number of entrepreneurs, astounding scientists, England’s prime ministers and American presidents suffered a lost of a parent at a young age. We would expect these people to be devastated and traumatised by it and become drug dealers, which is also true—so, as the book points out, there’s usually two kinds of responses severe hardship produce: one destructive, but another, as I noted earlier, adaptive as someone compensates. The Schwarzenegger brothers, for instance, were raised up in the same competitive condition, constantly under pressure to satisfy parents’ expectations. Yet, one died prematurely of mental health and alcohol problems, another went to become one of the world’s best pioneer celebrity bodybuilders, a successful Hollywood actor, and the governor of California. It is so strange how two people raised in a similar childhood could turn out so differently. Geniuses seem to have something in them that deviate from so-called ‘conventional wisdoms’. (Don’t get me wrong, they are not all bad advice; they are just overrated and inaccurate.) Ironically, their eccentricity and perverse nature, emerged as mutants of what would otherwise be a smooth and fortunate life, is what make them so special and revolutionary.

My amazing Grandpa

This makes me think about my grandpa, who is 91, and probably one of the most extraordinary people I know personally. He was born in 1933, somewhere south in China, where the Japanese were rapidly advancing too. Desperate and malnourished, he would linger along horribly conditioned streets and scrubbed for anything edible. When he was 14, he remembered one time a parasite so long crawling out of his anus, feeling relieved yet terrified. He also witnessed corpses and killings almost on a daily basis during those war years, and like many others, there’s no stability and survival guarantee in his life.

Despite his adverse early life experiences, now at his old age, his eagerness to engage with other people is as strong as a child, and he still retains great physical strength—a very encouraging sign he is not deteriorating as fast as society expects him to. One time, he even challenged me a fist strength battle, which he lost but his displayed strength was sufficient to inspire what I needed to work on.

His lifestyle attitude couldn’t be more optimistic. He is the happiest person I know. He also has this wise philosophy, which states that opportunities descend and not be pursued but one must prepare in advance so when they finally come, one thrives. He is an atheist, who doesn’t believe in existence of a ghost, a god or a demon, but believes in the power of oneself. Another thing I like about him is his casual demeanour; he never seems to take things seriously. In one instance, my grandma threatened to divorce him, because he asked a question of what she considered to be offensive, or an implication to challenge her authority, “Could I count the number of handicrafts you prepared? I want to confirm the amount is correct.” Apparently in Chinese culture, older generations would distribute handicrafts to family members who paid tributes to a deceased relative, at a funeral, as a gesture of gratitude. My Great-Grandma passed away, so my Grandma was in charge to ensure the number of handicrafts matched the number of people who paid tributes. Grandpa offered to check, without much deeper intentions, which is why he was bewildered when my Grandma responded dramatically in great disappointment. To link that simple question to an act of mistrust, and expand that to the possibility of divorce, only attests to my Grandma’s paranoia. Any reasonable man, I thought, would fight back and confront the misunderstanding. That is why I was surprised to learn that my Grandpa, nonetheless, not only didn’t fight back, he even seek to resolve ‘his fault’ by promising to do whatever to appease his wife in this instance—even making a kettle of tea, and then literally kneeled both knees on floor to kowtow. That is humiliation to an average Chinese man’s standard; that’s what ancient empires demanded their servants to do to show respect, indicating a hierarchical relationship—but not to my Grandpa, who doesn’t seem to have any sense of moral dignity attached to himself, who doesn’t take his ego seriously. “Women are always right!” He happily proclaimed. That’s perhaps something I will always remember whenever women act out irrationally. In the meantime, my Grandpa seems to be enjoying himself, bending towards the flow allowing whatever on his way, to be what would be. It is difficult to imagine someone going through such tough childhood yet so wise in life.

Conquering fear, or conquered by fear?

As Gladwell referenced psychiatrist J. T. MacCurdy “We are also prone to be afraid of being afraid, and the conquering of fear produces exhilaration…the contrast between the previous apprehension and the present relief and the feeling of security promotes a self-confidence that is the very father and mother of courage.” Gladwell followed, “Courage is not something that you already have that makes you brave when the tough times start. Courage is what you earn when you’ve been through the tough times and you discover they aren’t so tough after all.” It’s odd for me to think this, because naturally we gravitate toward the easy things and avoid harder things, but it is the harder things which liberate us. We atrophy when we don’t explore our deeper resilient selfs. Yet, there’s also a sweet spot beyond which we are left devastated and hopeless. While tough times seem to have lighten up something very powerful in someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger and my Grandpa…others are scarred by these experiences…

Indeed, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, so it makes sense to overcome challenges gradually, but with a dramatic event happening so earlier in life, what kind of ‘mental capital’ does one have to acquire to be immune from a self-destruction? Is that an automatic epigenetic response where one channels unresolved negativity into determination to succeed, while another attempts to confront it with such great force withdrawal symptoms last for a long time?

Provided that our genetic blueprint is easily re-wired by our later experiences, before such dramatic event may happen to us, I believe it’s better for us to equip ourselves by acquiring more ‘mental capital’, so that we can maximise our chance to turn a supposedly disadvantage into opportunity.

Is the book worth reading?

For me, the most fun part of the book is how Gladwell manages to keep readers engaged with personal stories, from previous historical figures to modern day humans. Sometimes I cared less the justifications, or explanations given by author to demonstrate his points, although they definitely are interesting and worth-pondering, simply because the stories themselves are more interesting in comparison. Most are refreshing and relatable, even though I may not be as familiar with the subject. For instance, in the first chapter Gladwell introduces an eccentric character who leads remarkable results with a basketball team who barely knows proper basketball. Intrigued, I am quite amused to learn…actually, it makes some sense when I applied it to football too, in my own imagination. I won’t spoil the beans, though the lesson behind is that: when the weaker side refuses to fight the traditional way stronger side wants, the weaker side actually has more odds winning.

I also found it reader-friendly when Gladwell provides a coherent story and its subsequent lesson in great detail. Of course, I can’t rule out the fact he is cherry-picking somewhat, but as someone who doesn’t do any research and only seeks to be stimulated, his filtered perspective is excellent: I get all the fun bits and less the confusing aspects; usually the fun bits are in details—perhaps it is also why he likes using long quotes from other people. Moreover, this style allows readers to glimpse into other people’s raw perspectives and make up our own minds. Usually, I believe, readers would understand why Gladwell present them specifically, however lengthy and baffling they may seem initially, and agree with him.

I wouldn’t scale it 0-10 recommending the book. It depends on how you read it, really. If you are being a scientist, trying to scrutinise and judge how worth-while it is, you probably have a less pleasant experience. I wouldn’t recommend treating it as an academic book—or a bible, either, or else you might probably ended up fantasising too much on the inspirational stories to solve your problems. (Please! Embrace your fortunate!)But I believe if we read it like a story and think along the way, most would benefit from Gladwell’s work. There’s a lot of inconvenient truths for sure, but that’s what makes it entertaining.

Treat it like a gem

Perhaps, if there’s one thing that stays true in Gladwell’s books (I read Talking to Strangers, most of Outliers and The Tipping Point, and bits of Blink), is that this world we are living is quite unexpected. In that regard, I would say his books—actually all books—could be taken as a gem. Wiggling reflects a different side of it, but how we wiggle matters. Some seen one side literally, some seen more versions of it, some see through it. The gem itself is solid, but how it is interpreted matters. Of course, if I have to extend this analogy further backwards, it would be that the gem is moulded by more bigger gems, involving even more interpretations…you see, it is how ideas spread, how ideas mutate. Ultimately, reading whatever and getting out what from it… is reflective of who we are.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s style…

Speaking of the gem analogy, it also reminds me a scene in Netflix show Sense8’s season 2 first episode. An art professor was publicly exposed of having gay sex in his lecture class. The student turned the theatre screen into a naked picture of two men. Looking disturbed at first, Mr. Fuentes quickly regained his compassion, and engaged with the student:

Student: Is this art, Mr. Fuentes?

(Pause)

Mr. Fuentes: Is it art, Mr. Valles? What do you think? Why don’t you tell us what you see?

Student: ( Quickly glanced sideways) Looks like shit-packer porn.

Mr. Fuentes: Shit-packer porn…that is very interesting. Cause this is where the relationship between subject and object reverses. The proverbial shoe shifting to the other foot. And what was seen…now reveals the seer. Because the eye of the beholder find not just beauty where they want, but also shallowness, ugliness, confusion, prejudice, which is to say the beholder will always see what they want to see suggesting that what you, Mr. Valles, want to see, is in fact shit-packer porn…

(Laughters. A student behind taps a hand on Valles’s shoulder.)

(Mr. Fuentes continued)

…Whereas someone else, someone with a set of eyes capable of seeing beyond societal conventions, beyond their defining biases…such a beholder might see an image of…two men caught in an act of pleasure. Erotic to be sure, but also…vulnerable, neither aware of the camera. Both of them connected to the moment, to each other. To love… art, is love made public.

Sense8 is great. …the relationship between subject and object reverses…what was seen now reveals the seer… it is no surprise that the directors are the same minds who also created the Matrix series, by the way…