Great Gladwell article up over at The New Yorker about David vs. Goliath. Gladwell articles follow a particular pattern that goes like this:
Example A: (The pressing basketball team as David)
Thesis: (David can’t fight Goliath by his own rules)
Example B: (Lawrence of Arabia as David)
Thesis elaboration
Example A cont: (History of basketball team)
Example C: (Doug Lenat and wargaming)
Thesis elaboration
Example B cont
Example C cont
Example A cont
Thesis conclusion
You can learn a lot by studying Gladwell – he’s full of interesting ideas, and is a phenomenal popularizer of science, which means that scientists who’ve made careers on one particular topic always bitch that he’s simplifying the area, but hey: duh! That’s what science popularization is: synthesis and summary.
This article interests me for two reasons: first, it’s partly about basketball. But second, it brings out an obvious and contemporary issue – when people can’t win using the rules they’re given, they change the rules. If you’re a small group of rich religious lunatics who hates the United States, do you quietly stew in your rage, since your couple of thousand members can never challenge the US’s military strength? Obviously not. You blow up civilians and then hide amongst civilians. You don’t present a target for the superior forces to destroy. Which complicates the hell out of the situation, but most people are willing to complicate the situation rather than be annihilated.
This rule-changing strategy has been true throughout history. It’s why the United States exists in the first place: during the American Revolution the British were always complaining about how the Americans didn’t line up their inferior forces to be slaughtered in standard infantry battles like they were supposed to. When you were in Elementary school you’d hear about how the small, plucky Americans beat back the immoral English power. Well, how do you think that happened?
This is something to keep in mind in other domains, too. I keep getting into arguments with Republicans and Libertarians about social services. Yes, it’s annoying that you hard-working and successful folks are paying for shitbags to be shitbags. But guess what? If people are desperate and hungry and poor they are often not content to huddle in their hovels trying not to bother their social betters. No, they change the rules, one way or another. They pervert the system to seize what can be seized. They adapt. So you can be a hardass if you want, and stand on principle, but nobody else feels much obligation to your principles. That’s something we’d all do well to keep in mind.