David and Goliath Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants

Insightful.

Insightful.

Gladwell is a very educated author who is incredibly informative. He was able to convey so many different thoughts and statistics throughout the novel. Personally, I am not a fan of non-fiction books, and often I found it to be incredibly boring. I read this for a summer assignment before starting my course in the fall, I often had to drag myself to read this. However, this is just my opinion, if this is your chosen field of reading, I can see how it is interesting to readers.

3 Stars David and Goliath was interesting but not as captivating as some of Gladwell's other books such as Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking or The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. It is a decent book but not Gladwell's best work. Overall, it just did not feel cohesive. He did use powerful stories such as a children's cancer ward and the American civil rights movement. And the accounts were told in a compelling style, but it was a reach to tie some of the stories together. They seemed more like a series of interesting case studies than examples for an overarching theme. And it felt like Gladwell oversimplified some things in order to strengthen his point. This book also focuses more on sociology than psychology or business. That is not a bad thing; it was just different from what I was expecting. While David and Goliath did give me a different angle to consider how people view the concept of underdogs, it was not groundbreaking or tremendously memorable. There seemed to be a lack of actionable items to take away from this book. Yes, people often misjudge situations involving giants versus underdogs. Yes, those assumptions can lead to mistakes. But in life, I have found being underestimated can be a powerful asset. So whether this is really an issue depends on whether you are the underdog or the giant. RATING FACTORS: Ease of Reading: 3 Stars Writing Style: 3 Stars Entertainment Level: 3 Stars Originality: 3 Stars Attention to Details: 3 Stars Objectivity: 3 Stars

Meh

I may have been less attentive with this book and so less invested in it than with some of Gladwell's other works, but, as with his other works, this one is thoroughly researched and captivatingly written, revealing through individual narratives fascinating patterns of human behaviour and societal organisation.

Powerful stories about underdogs.

So many facts that altered my view, from David who was a talented slinger to laws being passed with the aim of increasing people's safety but ending up in causing equally more damage. You want to agree with the idea that the 'three strikes' law was a brilliant idea only to refute it later on. It's about the change in the justice system brought about a man who was empowered by his grievance after losing his daughter. Justice that cost families fathers, grandfathers and mostly equal amount of harm. In a similar situation, a mother finds the strength to walk away from the promise of power and brings herself to forgive. As a result, she is no longer haunted by the loss of her daughter but saves her sanity, family and friendships. The tables have turned. ''The principle of legitimacy is based on three things. First of all, the people who are asked to obey authority have to feel like they have a voice- that if they speak up, they will be heard. Second, the law has to be predictable. There has to be a reasonable expectation that the rules tomorrow are going to be roughly the same as the rules today. And third, the authority has to be fair. It can't treat one group differently from another.'' (208) The chapter on dyslexia was not only about facts, but M Gladwell draws you by telling you a beautifully-crafted story. ''It was the marginal and the damaged, which should remind us that there are real limits to what evil and misfortune can accomplish. If you take away the gift of reading, you create the gift of listening. If you bomb a city, you leave behind death and destruction. But you create a community of remote misses. If you take away a mother or a father, you cause suffering and despair. But one time in ten, out of that despair rises an indomitable force. '' (274-5)

I liked David and Goliath; it shows moments throughout history where the little guy beat the big guy. It has many such examples. Whether war or a young girl basketball team, you should never underestimate those with apparently lower strength. Underdogs have a more significant advantage than is often thought of. They need to be more creative, but there is always a possibility of victory for them, even if not apparent. They win more often than expected, and their creativity shows how they get there. The last few examples were about the death of a daughter in the family and the different ways of handling the situation. The second family took a more peaceful route and ended up mentally much better off than the first one. I won't say more regarding this, but I will say that it's worth a read.

"David and Goliath" by Malcolm Gladwell challenges the belief that underdogs are at a disadvantage. Gladwell argues that they often have hidden advantages that lead to success. He offers a new perspective on what advantages and disadvantages mean.

Really enjoyed my first Malcolm Gladwell book! I'll write down a few of my thoughts on it later :).

David and Goliath examines the idea that sometimes it is better to be the underdog in life. It calls upon stories of underdogs in the past, their struggles and how they overcame adversity to triumph.

It’s a simple message, but one that was repetitive for me here. The first few chapters were enjoyable, but each chapter is a new example of an underdogs struggle, and this became repetitive for me.

I have read every Gladwell book to date, and unfortunately this has been my least favorite. In this book Gladwell does what he does in all his books, he examines something that everyone knows about, but from a new perspective. His premise is that the "giants" of the world are not nearly as powerful as they may seem, nor is the underdog nearly as weak as they seem. Two areas in particular were bothersome. First, Gladwell attempts to dig a little deeper into the Biblical account of David and Goliath and see if there isn't more to the story. His reading of the text seems understandable if one approaches the text with a humanistic view of Scripture -- how could David have possibly killed the giant Philistine, if not for some strategy or tactic (eg. slingers always beat soldiers). But his conclusions are flawed, and I don't know how an honest reader could accept the Gladwell account when reading the passage. If David surprised Goliath by running at him with a sling, and only achieved victory because those with slings always beat those with swords (rock/paper/scissor analogy), then why did the Philistine army run away afterward? Wouldn't they have just said "well of course a guy with a sling is going to win that battle...let's see how he does against our horsemen." Instead, the Philistines flee. Why? Because they couldn't believe what happened. Because it was preposterous. It was, shall I say it, miraculous. Even David attributes his win to God. Why not take his word for it? Read if yourself: 1 Samuel 17:46-47 ESV "46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hand.” Second, the end of the book has a section discussing the 3-strike rule in California that I also found less than compelling. He attempts to showcase that the crime rate was going down already, and that the 3-strike rule wasn't the catalyst. But he never showcases the catalyst for the significant decline, nor does he do an adequate job, in my opinion, of showcasing the supposed increase in crime "in certain neighborhoods" that comes from too much incarceration. There is much to the argument that I am not discussing here, but suffice it to say that the gentleman at the heart of the discussion (a father in Fresno that lost his daughter due to a violent crime), has a lengthy response to those that think like Gladwell. To hear his response, google "Klaas + ruminations on prop 36" Having said this, I did find Gladwell's argument regarding the Irish Catholic revolt quite compelling. Perhaps the reason was because the British military actions were so brutal and inappropriate, but regardless, Gladwell makes a strong point for a more reasoned and softer response. In addition, Gladwell did do a good job of showcasing that forgiveness is a better response than vindictiveness. Although it seems like a side-point in the overall book discussion. All in all I still enjoyed the book. Gladwell is an excellent story-teller, and he does an exceptional job of reading his own books as well. But unfortunately this book was much less compelling.

It is definitely a perspective changer. I love Malcolm's style of writing and was hooked till the very end. This book employs a valuable lesson and reading it was an enlightening experience. If you have this urge to tell others everything you've read in this book, you're not alone. Not everyone will read this gem unfortunately but perhaps they'll watch the TED talk that Malcolm gave with the same name so you can try sending them that one!

Always a great read, always gets you thinking. Not the most rigorous scientific research, but worth it.

Very interesting but at times it feels like he is writing a lot of unnecessary info after he has already made his point

Typical Gladwell. Generally good and well researched magazine stories tied into a series with a more coherent overall theme. I preferred the first two parts of the book most while the third part seemed to fall apart/away from the overarching theme a bit.

Love Malcolm Gladwell. Just such a great pacing to his books. Want to write him a letter about the concept of something you're not naturally talented at which you struggle to master and when you do it's so much more rewarding than the thing that comes easy.

I wasn't really sure what I was going in to when I picked this up on a whim. In all honesty, I liked the cover and title - and didn't read much more about it. So the book was a suprise! I was thoroughly engaged in Gladwell's exploration on the theme of David & Goliath, in the way he sought to pull certain threads of narrative and science together to make sense of some often baffling situations, or unpick lesser known aspects of famous conflicts. The book certainly gave me much to think about - I particularly couldn't help but wonder about Gladwell's analysis of the middle-eastern conflicts of the past century - and I would recommend it for people who want a book that has a satisfying middle line between going deep and wide. It isn't filled with facts and stats to the point of eyes bleeding (yes I've read those texts...), but it isn't overly flowery in the narratives it chooses to tell either. Very informative, engaging, and a good starting off point for thinking about things in a different manner.

Boy do I love Malcolm Gladwell's books. I first read Blink and I was hooked. This book gives you a different perspective of the David and Goliath story and compares history and modern life to how being a David can be a good thing as well as much more frequent than you would believe. Using the civil rights movement, full court press, and some of the most successful career person as examples this book will make you stop and think about what being an underdog really means.

Brilliant, insightful book. Highly recommend!

I really liked this book eye openinh

This book was insightful and Gladwell's perspective made valid points. I think by noticing patterns that he points out in the book we can make some better decisions to maybe have better outcomes with ourselves.

O livro é um Gladwell clássico: pegue uma ideia que parece intuitiva e superaceita e a desconstrua usando uma mistura de anedotas e pesquisa. Quem já leu outros livros dele está acostumado com a estrutura. O problema pra mim aconteceu quando, falando sobre o processamento de linguagem no cérebro, o autor veio com aquela história de lado direito/lado esquerdo do cérebro, uma ideia que parece intuitiva e é superaceita mas é na verdade um mito. E, usando esse mito para suportar seu argumento, ele destruiu toda a minha confiança em sua expertise. Afinal, esse mito específico eu sabia e consegui identificar. Mas...e se existirem outros?