Introduction

In this book Malcolm Gladwell, through series of real life incidents, shows that more is not always better and less is not always bad; as paradoxical as it sounds! Through various examples from history, he demonstrates the importance of inverted U-curve while making decisions. He shows that depending on the vantage point, what we usually perceive as advantages can turn out to be disdvantages and vice-versa. This book can be found here.

Summary

Introduction

sometimes, the strength of these giants can become the source of their weakness
act of facing overwhelming odds can change people, but we often misinterpret it
key points to note in this epic fight:
- David was a slinger (artillery), whereas Goliath was an infantry. Slingers always beat infantry.
- Goliath was expecting another infantry for a hand-to-hand battle and thus was heavily armored, making him slow in his movements.
- David had no intention of doing so with no armor and so could maneuver quickly.
- power comes not only in size but also with speed and surprise
- Goliath had an assistant to hold his shield, that was mostly because to guide him as he couldn't see. (He says, "sticks" when David was carrying only one)
- Israeli army saw Goliath and jumped to conclusions about what he could do.

The advantages of disadvantages (and disadvantages of advantages)

there are certainly advantages of having material resources. But there are also equal advantages of not having those!- we have a very rigid definition of what an advantage is and thus we find a David-Goliath event to be a surprise always
the underdog and the misfits have little invested in the conventions. Thus they end up trying things that are unheard of
most parents would love to enroll their children to schools with less crowd because they are convinced that lesser students means more individual attention from the teachers.
however, many studies have found no correlation/causation between these two things!
just like children of poor struggle, the kids of the wealthy also struggle as they are spoiled by the comfort and have lost their ambition
so both the ends of the spectrum suffer and probably it's somewhat better at the middle
thus the curve of easyness of parenting as a function of the parents' wealth is an inverted U-curve!
inverted U-curves are notorious in showing to us that doing/having more not necessarily means more "output"
all positive traits and experiences have an inherent cost and at high levels these costs will outweigh their benefits
everyone of us want to compete fiercely in order to get into the finest institutions
have we ever considered that is it good for us to be small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond of our choosing!?
in the big pond, there's always a chance of experiencing "relative deprivation".
we form our impressions by comparing to folks 'in the same boat', rather than comparing globally
and our impressions are the starting point for motivation and confidence
the smarter your peers, the dumber you feel!

theory of desirable difficulty

we all want to avoid disadvantages as they can set us back. However there are a few "desirable difficulties" which bring with them their own advantages
eg: many of the successful entrepreneurs are dyslexic!
if you have to overcome a hurdle, people do it better when we increase the difficulty a bit.
however, it should be duly noted that not all difficulties are desirable!
most of us excel in the things that we are good at. Because we are good at something, we like to do it more often and the more we do the better we get. This is "capitalisation learning". This is easy
desirable difficulties on the other hand force you to compensate for what's lacking (aka "compensation learning")
thus what is learnt out of necessity is much stronger than what comes as easy
the prediction of Londoners to the WWII German bombings were completely wrong. People went with their daily business as if nothing had happened.
basically there are 3 groups of people created by these bombings:
- casualties - they are gone and can never cause panic
- near misses - the wounded or traumatized
- remote misses - these will start to feel a strange sense of invulnerability!
and we all know self-confidence is the very father and mother of courage
and in a big city like London, there were far more remote misses than near misses
too often we jump to the conclusion that there can only be one response to traumatic experience. But from the above example it's clear that there can be two!
gifted children and prodigies tend to come in highly supportive families whereas geniuses grow up in adverse conditions
courage is not acquired but earned through triumph against tough times
affective forecasting - predicting how we feel about a future event. We are pretty bad at it!
moral of the Brer rabbit stories was that even the weakest can triumph in a lopsided event if they were willing to use their wits- in other words, one gets an unexpected freedom from having nothing to lose
a trickster is not a trickster by nature, but by necessity. Necessity coming out of playing a very unfair game

the limits of power

it's been said that the revolutions are not caused by revolutionaries but by the stupidity and brutality of the governments. And what happened in Northern Ireland was just this
we often think authority to be the answer to disobedience. But at times, disobedience can itself be due to authority!
when the people in authority want the rest to behave, it first depends on how they behave
principle of legitimacy:
- people should have a feeling that their voices are being heard
- rules should be the same for all
- rules should apply to everybody the same way
those who give orders are very vulnerable of the opinions of those who are receiving their orders. Hence, legitimacy is highly needed