

Malcolm Gladwell: How David Beats Goliath - mlinsey
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell

======
brandnewlow
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.

~~~
stcredzero
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.

~~~
brandnewlow
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.

------
snprbob86
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.

~~~
ph0rque
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.

------
brm
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

------
naish
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.

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

~~~
colins_pride
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.

~~~
ellyagg
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.

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

------
abecedarius
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>

------
jimbokun
'“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.

------
spitfire
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...](http://www.amazon.com/Science-Strategy-War-Strategic-
History/dp/0415459524/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241492256&sr=8-1)

~~~
skmurphy
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-...](http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/strategy-and-force-
employment/boyd-and-military-strategy/)

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.

~~~
spitfire
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.

------
10ren
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".

------
xiaoma
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...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694714.shtml)

------
noaharc
I think he's a better storyteller than thinker.

~~~
rdr
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.

~~~
lacker
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.

~~~
JoelSutherland
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>

~~~
jimbokun
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.

------
kgreene
This is how I play tennis.

