book.chapter The upside of hardships

Common wisdom often has hidden drawbacks. For instance, the rise of automobiles facilitated urban sprawl and pollution, while agricultural advances like fertilizers and pesticides eventually harmed the environment. Antibiotics, though life-saving, have led to the emergence of resistant superbugs due to overuse. These examples show how focusing on immediate benefits can lead to widespread negative consequences. A broader perspective that considers systemic impacts and long-term effects is crucial to avoid such pitfalls and make more informed decisions that benefit everyone. Outsiders lack insider knowledge Political scientist Ivan Arreguin-Toft's analysis of wars over the past two centuries reveals that while larger armies win 71.5% of the time using conventional tactics, smaller forces increase their victory chances to 63.6% by employing guerrilla strategies. T.E. Lawrence, or "Lawrence of Arabia," exemplifies this during World War I, leading Arab tribesmen against the well-equipped Turkish army. His surprise attack from the east on Aqaba, after a grueling 600-mile desert trek, resulted in a decisive victory with minimal casualties. Malcolm Gladwell notes that while material resources offer advantages, qualities like mobility and audacity can be crucial for underdog victories. This principle extends beyond warfare to other competitive fields, such as sports. Vivek Ranadive, a computer engineer with no basketball experience, coached his daughter's junior league team using a full-court press strategy. This aggressive tactic led his team to the national championships, although they eventually lost when forced to change their defense. Both cases highlight that inherent advantages can be overestimated, and that qualities like effort, innovation, and determination are equally important for success. Underdogs often compensate for a lack of resources with creativity and hard work, proving that natural benefits are not the sole determinants of outcomes. Smaller classes benefit students Politicians frequently highlight the benefits of reducing class sizes, arguing that smaller classes lead to better education. However, research indicates that there is an optimal class size for learning, beyond which educational outcomes begin to decline despite increased teacher attention. Economist Jesse Levin's study on Dutch students revealed that overly small classes can inhibit students from participating openly, leading to a decrease in the diversity of thought and a reluctance to critically challenge teachings. This environment diminishes peer learning as teacher-led instruction becomes more dominant. High school teachers have observed that small classes often lack the necessary number of students to foster vigorous discussions and the dynamic energy that benefits debates. This leads to an inverted-U relationship between class size and academic achievement, where personalized attention initially boosts scores as class sizes decrease, but further reductions beyond an optimal point negatively affect performance due to limited diversity and reduced engagement in activities. The inverted-U pattern is not unique to education; it is also evident in the context of raising children, where financial resources follow a similar pattern. Insufficient funds can make parenting challenging due to the need to work multiple jobs, leaving less time for parenting. Conversely, while an increase in financial resources can improve parenting up to a certain point, beyond that, excessive wealth can make it difficult to teach children independence and a strong work ethic, as they may get anything they desire without effort. This phenomenon illustrates how advantages can turn into disadvantages beyond optimal levels, highlighting the importance of recognizing the limits of what is often assumed to be beneficial, such as smaller class sizes or more money. Ivy League over unknown college Imagine you were a painter living in France 150 years ago with no internet to get your work discovered. This was the challenge faced by Claude Monet and a small group looking to break from the establishment style. The best paintings were displayed at the Salon, considered the premier exhibition hall where over a million flocked for a six-week season and the best works received medals and exposure. The Impressionists, who painted everyday life rather than classical literature scenes, tried getting into the Salon but were rejected repeatedly. They concluded they'd be better off starting their own exhibition despite the Salon's importance. They made the right choice - their alternative display eventually caught on and generated awareness. Today the Impressionists are considered an important art movement. This dynamic plays out when choosing a university - are you better off a large fish in a small pond or a small fish in a large pond? Ivy Leagues trumpet rankings and imply higher earnings, which may or may not be true. But their programs are very challenging - if you go, you increase the chances of failing to keep up and dropping out. Studies show over half of Ivy League science students drop their major within two years despite it being a valuable degree. Most end up in arts - a reason for the scientist shortage. This "relative deprivation" causes unintended consequences like affirmative action students admitted to harder programs being more likely to drop out. Though done with good intentions and elite schools offer help others don't, the blessings of elite institutions are mixed, with downsides rarely mentioned. Parents still say go to the best school possible, assuming better opportunities, when that definition of advantage isn't right. It means we underestimate how much freedom disadvantage can have - the Little Pond maximizes chances to do what you want.