Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm talking about the original Gladwell article. In the original article, Gladwell points out that there are rules that competitors limit themselves to despite the fact that they aren't explicitly laid out. The coaches of other teams were upset at this particular team because, as they put it, it's unfair to keep using a full court press against 12 year old girls.

The other example Gladwell referenced was of a naval simulation primarily played by people well versed in military strategy. While most players used traditional strategies seen throughout history, one player found that the optimal strategy was something that would never work in real life, but was totally feasible within the rules of the game. The other players cried foul because he went against the "spirit" of the game, despite not breaking any rules.

Again, the point of the article: The best way to win is to not limit yourself by rules that don't exist.

[edit] I realize we're talking about two different things. I don't really have an opinion either way in regards to running the full court press more often at other levels of competitive basketball. I still think people are missing the point of the original article, and Gladwell isn't helping himself by going on about the full court press thing.



I don't understand why Gladwell seems to be the only person that gets a free pass to make totally illogical arguments, but have hundreds of smart people say "oh, well sure, the argument sucks, but you're missing the point".


There are two ways you can interpret this:

- rules that competitors limit themselves to despite the fact that they aren't explicitly laid out

- don't train to defend against the suboptimal strategy

While the correct answer may be the first, logic suggests it's the latter, as it's much simpler.

I think that in jumping from his evidence to his conclusion he missed the point.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: