The Is Not Always Better, And Favors The Underdogs

877 Words4 Pages
In the discussions of underdogs, one controversial issue has been that being the underdog means you hold less power and rarely win. On the one hand, Gladwell argues, more is not always better, and favors the underdogs. On the other hand, In Derksen’s story on the Three strike Law contends Reynolds, who was not considered an underdog, held much power in being able to help successfully establish the law in honor of his murder daughter. Others even maintain that’s power hold no position for winning or losing, it’s how you play the game. Admiring the Derksen family who didn’t have much power or say, and were just very grateful for finding their child’s body after weeks of not knowing what had happen to her. It helped bring the family closure. My own view is when you have more you can do more. William Petit who was much like Reynolds, used his power and voice to make a change in the honor of his deceased family. Whether the change last forever or its tempary, it still can makes a different in somebody life at that moment. Gladwell critizesed Reynolds and the others who helped enforced the Three Strike Law, because of what he described as a domino effect. “They illustrate the fact that “more” is not always better; there comes a point, in fact, when the extra resources that the powerful think of as their greatest advantage only serve to make things worse.” (Gladwell 238) Gladwell is talking about the inverted-U curve, he uses it as a metaphor about setting limits. He
Get Access