Malcolm Gladwell: How David Beats Goliath | Hacker News Reader

Malcolm Gladwell: How David Beats Goliath

newyorker.com

116 pointsmlinsey36 comments

What he's talking about is changing the rules of the game so they favor you rather than your opponent.

I worked for three summers as a counselor at a military summer camp in Northern Indiana. It's a 6-week program for about 1000 teenagers, boys and girls from around the world. The kids wear uniforms 24/7, compete in sports every afternoon, march to all their meals and prepare for exacting room inspections twice a day. While this may sound like a drag, once the kids figure out the rules of the place and realize that they're treated like responsible adults, they tend to open up and thrive. Sure, you have a lot to cram into every day, but you're also given more freedom than you'd get living at home.

Anyway, on the boys side, the kids are divided up into Companies of about 60 kids. These companies compete against one another all summer long in rowing, basketball, swimming, code flags, softball, track, sailing etc. It's intense and taken very seriously. When I was a kid, I loved every minute of it. Lots of opportunities for someone with a hacker mindset to boost his team's efficiency.

During my first summer as a counselor right out of college, I was given a group of kids who'd had a different counselor every summer for the previous two years. They didn't work very hard and there was no precedent for success in the organization. They lost just about everything that summer. We had fun, but that was rough.

My second summer, I assumed my kids would do better just because I knew more about how the camp worked and would have better relationships with the returning campers. Yes, they had more success in intramurals and military competitions, but still they were middle of the pack. Fun summer, but not as fun as it could have been.

A few days after that summer, knowing I was coming back one more time, I made a list of crucial factors in having a successful company.

1. Retention: The more older boys you had, the better you were at everything. You had more kids to keep the youngins' in line, stronger boys to run the football etc.

2. Building relationships with the event officials: The sailing and rowing races were always poorly officiated. The boat that appeared to win wasn't necessarily the boat that would be given first place points after the officials looked over the protests and complaints filed by counselors. I realized the counselors who'd been there longest consistently came out ahead in these squabbles. It's harder to screw over someone you see every day.

3. A structured approach to competition. The weekly and end-of-summer awards carried mystery with them. You had a sense of who would win, but no one ever knew, because no one but the judges was actively tracking point totals. We were competing in the dark oftentimes.

So during the "offseason" I started up a message board for my kids, so they could keep in touch and sent Christmas cards to every family. I helped low income families find scholarships so they could send their kids back.

That last summer, my kids became fixtures around the naval building, helping with odd jobs, litter clean-up etc. They got to know all the directors there really well.

And I created a massive spreadsheet that let us keep a running tally of how every unit was doing day by day.

That last summer we had 13 third-summer-campers while most of the other companies had 5-6. We came out ahead in several key naval event adjudications. We knew when we needed to win and when we could afford to lose or work for a tie. My "Bad News Bears" wound up winning just about everything.

So I can relate a bit. While other units had counselors with high school sports coaching experience (and they were bringing their best athletes to the camp with them), I was able to bring more kids back, leverage their likability and keep them more informed. I changed the rules of the camp from favoring the group with the best athletes to favoring the group that worked smarter.

Fallout: My kids had a great summer. My relationships with the other counselors were pretty much destroyed as they realized we had changed the rule son them.

But the camp directors loved that I was bringing more kids back through the doors.

Indecently, you've exhibited leadership traits that surpass many CEOs'. That's what I love about the military, builds the best leaders you've ever seen.

Thanks for the story.

I went to that camp and to the Military Academy where it is located. Where the frak were you, man!? My counselors were all like bad caricatures from a Will Farrel movie.

Then again, if I hadn't been so traumatized, I wouldn't be the person I am now.

(Division 7. Cabin 54.)

EDIT: I've been thinking about this more -- figuring out "the rules of the game" and changing or subverting them is the game. Or, the metagame, at least. It's the essence of the power of evolution and of intelligence. Once you have a process that can subvert "the rules of the game" you have a transcendent process!

EDIT: Another example of what was mentioned in the article: Julis Caesar vs. Vercingetorix at Alesia. Vercingetorix commanded superior numbers situated on the huge plateau/hill-fortress of Alesia. The fortress and its terrain would give a huge advantage to the defenders who already outnumbered Caesar's legions. Common wisdom was that Alesia was simply too large to be besieged. So what does Julis Caesar do? He does exactly that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia

The roman legions there built 18 km (11 miles) of fortifications in just 3 weeks. Then they went and did it again for another set of outward-facing fortifications.

EDIT: Yet another example, this time from my own life. Foosball. I learned foosball because I wanted to show up this annoying guy I knew. So I developed the conventional foosball skills, learned to pass to my front men, stop the ball, and make a set shot. The annoying guy kept beating me, though. He'd never make a set shot! He played the game wrong, always keeping it in motion, never stopping it to do a set shot. So long as the ball kept bouncing around in the opponent's half, it would eventually go in. Eventually, the two of us became a team, and we could often stymie other players. I could use my conventional skills on defense to keep the ball out of the goal, and to pass the ball up to annoying guy. It was very hard to stop our passes because I didn't even have to pass to my teammate. All I'd have to do was get the ball to the enemy's half of the field with enough energy so that annoying guy could keep it bouncing around. We beat so many guys who were convinced they were better players than us. And they were, by those conventional measures. They had more shots, faster shots, better reflexes, better ball handling. But we would beat them.

Then I started applying this to my solo game. Basically, get the ball to the other half, and make a quick shot. taking a shot before the other guy has the time to get settled in gives you a big advantage. It doesn't look as skillful or seem as sporting, though.

Sorry, man. I never worked at Woodcraft camp. I went to upper camps during high school and that's where I worked years later. During my three summers working there, I met some great counselors, but a lot of people were just there to have fun. This gave us an advantage. After two summers of getting squashed, my kids and our staff were determined to win. And that was a lot more fun in the end, though I was receiving death threats from other people on the staff by the end of it all. That part wasn't so much fun.

The convention was that the jock-iest group of kids and counselors would win every summer. That's how it was when I was a camper and for my first two summers working there. Turning that on its head, if only for one summer, was one of my proudest moments.

This reminds me of a story I recently heard from my friend, a fitness nut. He recently coached a middle school girls soccer team for some odd reason. They weren't the best players in the world to say the least. He said that they tried all sorts of excuses to get out of playing, but he was too quick witted and the girls came to enjoy his sense of humor while simultaneously fearing mild humiliation.

He was upfront with these girls, telling them that they didn't stand a chance against the more experienced teams unless they were better conditioned. Every time any one of them failed, they all ran a punishment lap together. Every time they succeeded, they ran a victory lap together. Every time one of them couldn't keep up, they did another lap to have an opportunity to succeed together. He ran every lap with them. They spent far more time running than playing soccer; they came to enjoy it.

The team won second place in the division. A significant portion of their victories were record comebacks because the opposing teams simply couldn't keep up the momentum. They were beaten only by a team who was both well conditioned and technically strong, but it was a close match.

When I returned from Germany as an exchange student where I played soccer in the local town's team, I was amazed at how much my high school soccer team just ran around with no real purpose. In European soccer, even the professional leagues, you see players standing, jogging, or walking, and sprinting only when necessary.

Gladwell has isolated the correct reason in his stories but he doesn't present it directly. What really beats Goliath is when Goliath has to face something he isnt used to or prepared for and is put off balance. Pitino nails it when he talks about the "rush moment" or "rush state" Getting them out of their game or off balance is whats effective, outworking them is not as much.

The reason, for example, that every basketball team doesn't press is because if a team is prepared for the press and more talented than the pressing team its relatively easy to beat it. On the same note if two teams both press each other the talent rises to the top.

Look at running for example, how do you beat someone who is faster than you in a distance race? Get them to run your race, throw in surges etc... If you're faster but they have more endurance: box them in, slow the race down, make it come down to a kick where you're favored. Like the press if they simply know they're faster than you and prepared for it they should just take off from the gun but they often dont, especially against someone they've never run against before and surprise often wins out.

So while its nice to write a story about effort and it makes for a good read this article should be more about keeping an opponent off balance than it should have been about effort winning out

These lines resonated with me:

"We tell ourselves that skill is the precious resource and effort is the commodity. It’s the other way around. Effort can trump ability—legs, in Saxe’s formulation, can overpower arms—because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coordination."

I would argue that this holds for many endeavors and should be kept in mind when facing daunting situations.

It's best to tell yourself that the precious resource is effort, but in truth, you need skill and effort.

Did you read the article?

The primary example in the article is that of a team with no skill destroying all of their opponents (some of whom had a lot of skill) through good strategy and effort.

In other words, Gladwell offers a compelling counter-example to the belief that skill is a requirement.

EDIT: All of their oponents save one. They fielded a four person basketball team that day.

Well, did you read his comment?

He is also saying the same thing that effort can trump skill.

Yep, and my point stands. No amount of effort allows you to start, say, github.com if you don't also have skill. Now, you can say that you can acquire skill from effort, and that's certainly true, but someone else who puts in the same effort as you but who has more talent will still do better.

In other words, don't let there be somebody out there that puts in the same effort.

In truth, it is far better to tell yourself that you are succeeding because of your effort than because of your talent: http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

You can get skill from effort, but not the other way around.

Your tone almost makes it sound like you disagree with me, even though my comment agrees with yours.

I'm well aware of the research that shows that people who believe effort is more important than talent are more successful than those who think the opposite. People like to pretend the research show that the effort-believers are right. That hasn't been shown.

If you control for IQ, the hard workers win. This is not controversial. The recent research was carefully presented to give the impression that it said more than it did.

Despite what effort-believer think, IQ is highly correlated with success.

However, we can apprehend the world rationally and still believe in hard work. I work extremely hard. My IQ isn't going up, but I can control my effort.

From the article: "Lenat did not give Eurisko any advice or steer the program in any particular strategic direction."

I think this is misleading given other sources, e.g. "In the morning Lenat would cull the designs and help it along. He credits about 60 percent of the results to himself, and about 40 percent to EURISKO." from http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Chapter_5.html

'“A two-to-one ratio is understandable, but a ratio of four to one?” Ranadivé shook his head.'

This is very hard to judge without other witnesses to the game. Ranadivé had his girls playing an extremely aggressive brand of defense, which could very easily lead to them committing four times as many fouls, especially if the other team was just sitting back in their defense waiting for his girls to bring the ball up the court.

There is some question, also, as to whether the objective of kids' sports at young ages of competition is to win games, or to develop appropriate skills for higher levels of competition. My son is in his first year of baseball, and I over heard some parents and coaches discussing whether to send a kid from third to home even when the shortstop is holding the ball at the edge of the infield. On one hand, there is a good chance he will not make an accurate throw followed by an accurate catch and tag by the catcher. But that is not good teaching for the next level (Little League) because it will probably be an easy out.

What this article describes is mostly Boydian martial philosophy. Though clausewitz, sun tzu and Genghis Kahn comes into play also.

John Boyd was a US air force colonel who essentially reinvented modern warfare. Instead of attacks based on massive force, his philosophy was based on controlling the flow and tempo of battle. Controlling your adversaries ability to understand and react to the ever changing world - eventually folding himself inside out as the basketball coach did.

Similarly the wargame scenario is classic boyd too. Change the game, keep adversary off balance, you win.

Everyone should absolutely read "A discourse on winning and losing.". Everything the current dotcom wunderkids/bloggers are saying on blogs is covered in more detail and more clearly in boyd's writings.

Probably the best book on the subject currently. Not an easy read though. http://www.amazon.com/Science-Strategy-War-Strategic-History...

There is a good collection of free material here on Boyd and maneuver warfare at http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/strategy-and-force-employment/boyd-...

A good one page business summary is at http://ceo-notes.us/boydcycles2.htm

For some background on the Osinga book see http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5555.html and the thesis at http://chicagoboyz.net/blogfiles/OsingaBoydThesis.pdf that was revised into the book.

Boyd didn't invent these concepts--which were certainly part of the principles of blitzkrieg warfare used by the Germans in WW2 and by many others--but he codified them.

It is true boyd didn't invent any of this (excepting Energy Maneuverability theory), he just codified it brought vast amounts of knowledge together in the same place and made it accessible. Something that hadn't been done before.

d-n-i is chuck spinney's site, I can spend hours reading stuff on there. He's one of the fighter mafia who brought you the f-16, the A-10 and the f-15.

That ceo notes website is horrible though. As are most "business" reinterpretations of boyd's work it gets it all wrong. The OODA cycle is not a loop. It's very easy to demonstrate this - Have you ever thought "I'm missing something here."? if you have you've gone through observe-orient-decide and decided to go back to observe or orient.

When possible it's usually best to go straight to the source for information rather than some 3rd rate "brief" version. Avoid pseudo-intellectual bloggers/business guru's whenever possible.

Loopholes. You can win by finding loopholes. Children's stories are full of it - it's a basic part of being human. But no one likes a cheater.

But it might be worth it, for what you win - if the end justifies the means. It can also introduce a new, and better, concept of what the rules should be. I'm a big fan of winning through superior understanding, instead of superior resources. Brains not brawn.

Fantastic article. I didn't pick up that military strategy from watching "Laurence of Arabia".

A very similar story is that of college football coach Mike Leach and his extremely unorthodox, extremely successful program.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694...

I think he's a better storyteller than thinker.

But, man, what a story! I totally want to watch those girls play, and I hate spectator sports.

Interesting statistics, though, and certainly a nice bit of motivation for those of us arming for our own battles with Goliaths in the near future (which, I would think, would be pretty much everyone here with a startup).

could you please provide some examples of logical flaws or careless conclusions that the author has made in this particular story? i just read the article, but sorry i still don't quite understand what you mean by that assertion.

One example is he could have asked any college or NBA coach why more teams don't run the press when they're down. You're likely to give up easy layups, for one. Instead he concludes it's because of social reasons forbidding it.

Right. A weak team that presses a strong team in college will lose by a devastating amount.

Exactly. Reading this article, I kept thinking of the 2000 NCAA tournament, where Florida was pressing hard and winning, and seeming unstoppable. Until MSU stopped them pretty emphatically.

There are also great statistics on offensive/devensive efficiency rates given how quickly a team shoots in the shot clock: http://82games.com

The reason there isn't much pressing in the NBA is because of the ball handling ability of an NBA point guard. Teams press at the end of a game to either manage the clock when ahead or as a desperate move when behind. Otherwise, NBA players are good enough to ensure easy baskets against a press.

A great article about the Stat Movement in the NBA was written by Michael Lewis a few weeks back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

I just love this image of Battier defending Bryant:

http://www.nba.com/media/lakers/0903mailbag_battierkobe.jpg

Getting a "hand in the face" of a shooter is rarely more literal than that. It must drive Kobe nuts (though he would never admit it).

Will be interesting to see if Battier can disrupt Kobe in the upcoming series.

Yeah, that is a flaw in the article. Possibly because it can't work against a coach who halfway understands his or her job. No chance of that in the pro leagues. But in the world of middle-school girls' basketball?

Ranadivé might have hit on a strategy that works brilliantly... for middle school... if your goal is to place highly, and not to actually be champions. But that does underscore the point of the article, which is to understand the game that you are playing, your strengths, and your goals.

It's a strategy that probably also works brilliantly for helping the kids you coach have a lot more fun than they'd have if they got beaten soundly in every game they played.

He did interview a college coach: Rick Pitino. From what is said in the article, the press worked there, too.

What I found interesting, is that he did not include Rick Pitino's pro coaching career.

I dug this up googling 'Pitino Knicks full court press':

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/14/sports/pro-basketball-piti...

"Virtually everything that could go wrong for New York today did go wrong. The Knicks were outrebounded, 55-34. They shot 38.5 percent from the field. Johnny Newman, their second-leading playoff scorer, shot 0 for 8 from the field and did not score. And Chicago had little trouble dissecting New York's full-court press."

This correlates with the other comment about the press not working in the NBA because the point guards are too good. The press did work for awhile for Pitino when he coached the Knicks, but evidently the other teams eventually developed counter measures that worked. He also coached the Celtics with an overall losing record. I'm not sure how much he pressed with the Celtics.

I suppose the overall moral is that unconventional tactics work for awhile, but if the opponent is also willing to innovate eventually skill, strength and other traits will prevail. The full court press is predicated on out working your opponents, but no one in the history of the NBA worked harder than Michael Jordan, who had some talent and skill to go with it.

He's an armchair psychologist. You get what you get.

This is how I play tennis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com