Malcolm Gladwell was not satisfied with oversimplified retelling of the David and Goliath story. When Malcolm sizes up this story he calculates David's victory was a highly probable one due to a tragic flaw coincident with Goliath's size. This flaw was not an obvious one nor was it simply that bigger moves slower in real time. Its revelation requires asking critical questions such as; Why does Goliath ask David to "come at me?" Why does Goliath speak of sticks when David has one? And why does Goliath have an attendant for a one-on-one battle?
Once we realize there is a perfectly logical explanation that fits those questions we begin to see how perceived advantages may be limitations. This is a call to be more discerning about our own perceived advantages/disadvantages. Moreover we can extend the allegorical one-on-one conflict to other types of opponents (actual armies, disability, misfortune, and oppression).
Sports are replete with David versus Goliath type conflicts. The key is to realize that power can come in forms other than size (e.g. breaking customary rules of engagement, speed and surprise in place of strength). A person that has never coached basketball could notice assumptions made about advantages and disadvantages in game strategy. For instance consider how the full court press defense is typically employed by someone who is familiar with the game.
Conventional strategy might use the full court press for just for few minutes of game. A surprising strategy would be to always attack the inbound pass. Who does that? Perhaps a team does it when it lacks height or outside shooting superiority. Maybe a team that has built up its stamina employs a full court press for an entire game.
Being an underdog gives you freedom to try things (such as the whole game full court press defense) but usually teams will not do it because it is hard work. Ironically players have to be bad enough at offense to be convinced they need to play that way. If they think they have a chance playing the easier way they will abandon the more demanding full court press style.
Malcolm has made the 10,000 hour rule for success famous in his previous bestseller Outliers. In David and Goliath he continues with a fair amount of mathematics and uses graphs such as an 'Inverted U' to describe the relationship of academic achievement to class size. He bemoans data that shows "to this day 77 percent of Americans think it makes more sense to use taxpayer money to lower class size than to raise teacher salaries."
Most intriguing are the examples he used to explain the sociological term "relative deprivation" and the psychological term "desirable difficulties." In our achievement culture we need to reconsider how having resources and belonging to elite institutions may limit our options (relative deprivation). We can also be misled about perceived disadvantages. Malcolm notes that an extraordinarily high number of successful entrepreneurs are dyslexic and do well on the cognitive reflection test (desirable difficulty helps on this test).
Lastly he enumerates three "Principle of legitimacy;" 1. All participants have a voice 2. Rules are consistent, same thing applies day to day and 3. All are treated equally under the rules in fairness. Malcolm cites Joanna Jaffe's J-RIP as a breakthrough because it countered how the powerful were viewed by the oppressed. The juvenile robbery intervention program (J-RIP) established legitimacy for police as caring members that serve and protect their community.
David and Goliath provides a good quantity of mathematical and scientific evidence to uncover false advantages. This book also delves into the psychological and sociological factors that may unmask disadvantages. Perhaps the author's background suggests both a science and an "Art of Battling Giants."