Take a photo of a barcode or cover
1.64k reviews for:
David Y Goliat: Desvalidos, Inadaptados Y El Arte de Luchar Contra Gigantes / David and Goliath
Malcolm Gladwell
3.82 AVERAGE
1.64k reviews for:
David Y Goliat: Desvalidos, Inadaptados Y El Arte de Luchar Contra Gigantes / David and Goliath
Malcolm Gladwell
3.82 AVERAGE
Malcolm Gladwell always finds great and interesting stories. And, he writes them in a compelling way. While I'm a huge fan of Outliers and The Tipping Point, I found myself disagreeing with him on a few of his conclusions. I'm not convinced that the inverted U curve is really true with some of the cases he provided. While the stories told are certainly remarkable, I'm not sure they really force you to draw the conclusion that, at some point, good things in excess are bad or bad things in excess are good. He really just seems to be saying that there are exceptions to every rule.
I think I would have been more agreeable about this book had it not been for the chapter about the three-strikes law that the father helped pass in order to help ensure that what happened to his daughter never happened again. Maybe the three-strikes law was eventually abandoned because people believed it had some unintended and negative consequences, but there again, was it really because of the law or was it because the criminal population changed? Gladwell steers the reader in the direction that serves his hypothesis without presenting other analysis of the "failure" of the law.
It really made me mad that he seems to compare the grieving of the two families and try to tell readers that the father's grief was the wrong grief to have. And that the Mennonite family's grief was the right grief to have. He completely marginalized the GOOD that did come from the three strikes law. It wasn't a total failure. It worked in some ways. How could they have predicted that it would have collateral effects that the state was not willing to accept?
Gladwell says that what the father did was DETRIMENTAL to the state and cause crime to be worse than if he hadn't pushed the three-strikes law. I just find this flat out mean. If you conclude that the three-strikes law did not have the outcome intended, then there is a way to say that without saying that it was the father's fault because he chose to grieve wrong. It's not like he was the only person pushing or passing the bill. Others thought it would work too. He did a beautiful thing to bring awareness to crime. He and others had a good idea with the law, maybe it just didn't work out the exact way they wanted all of the time. How can he blame the father for that?
Another thing that angered me is that he tries to force the reader to conclude that the father's grief was "wrong" in other ways by talking about the tours he takes people on to show them where his daughter died. How does that prove that the three-strikes rule didn't work as intended? Why does Gladwell feel the need to prove that all the father's grief is wrong. "Oh hey, not only did he pass this detrimental law in the name of his daughter, but he gives these tours too. His grief is clearly wrong in all ways."
Gladwell's villianization of the father angered me so much that I discounted everything else in the book. How's that for an unintended consequence on some inverted U curve?
I strongly feel like Gladwell owes the father an apology for they way he wrote the three-strikes story.
I think I would have been more agreeable about this book had it not been for the chapter about the three-strikes law that the father helped pass in order to help ensure that what happened to his daughter never happened again. Maybe the three-strikes law was eventually abandoned because people believed it had some unintended and negative consequences, but there again, was it really because of the law or was it because the criminal population changed? Gladwell steers the reader in the direction that serves his hypothesis without presenting other analysis of the "failure" of the law.
It really made me mad that he seems to compare the grieving of the two families and try to tell readers that the father's grief was the wrong grief to have. And that the Mennonite family's grief was the right grief to have. He completely marginalized the GOOD that did come from the three strikes law. It wasn't a total failure. It worked in some ways. How could they have predicted that it would have collateral effects that the state was not willing to accept?
Gladwell says that what the father did was DETRIMENTAL to the state and cause crime to be worse than if he hadn't pushed the three-strikes law. I just find this flat out mean. If you conclude that the three-strikes law did not have the outcome intended, then there is a way to say that without saying that it was the father's fault because he chose to grieve wrong. It's not like he was the only person pushing or passing the bill. Others thought it would work too. He did a beautiful thing to bring awareness to crime. He and others had a good idea with the law, maybe it just didn't work out the exact way they wanted all of the time. How can he blame the father for that?
Another thing that angered me is that he tries to force the reader to conclude that the father's grief was "wrong" in other ways by talking about the tours he takes people on to show them where his daughter died. How does that prove that the three-strikes rule didn't work as intended? Why does Gladwell feel the need to prove that all the father's grief is wrong. "Oh hey, not only did he pass this detrimental law in the name of his daughter, but he gives these tours too. His grief is clearly wrong in all ways."
Gladwell's villianization of the father angered me so much that I discounted everything else in the book. How's that for an unintended consequence on some inverted U curve?
I strongly feel like Gladwell owes the father an apology for they way he wrote the three-strikes story.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Almost as great as Outliers. Which is saying something. I found his account of Dr. Emil Freireich and his treatments for leukemia in children to be particularly inspiring. Bravo, Gladwell.
I really enjoyed listening to this book. The author shares numerous examples where the "underdog" wins in unexpected ways. I'll never think of the David and Goliath story the same way again.
slow-paced
The first half of the book was really interesting. The latter half got a little tedious with long, drawn out stories.
Amazing book and I must say I am kinda becoming fan of Malcolm Gladwell. The books gives new perspective on seemingly disadvantageous things. The chapter on Caroline Sacks is an eye opener.
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
This was a great read at the beginning of the year. I really enjoyed each section, which made the book very easy to read and digest. The personal recounts and interviews made the book very human, though so many of the topics discussed delved into humanity in a greater sense. This book posed lots of interesting questions, but left me with the feeling that not every challenge is insurmountable.
informative
inspiring
reflective