In his book David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell talks in detail about how often the idea of 
being an underdog and winning the battle is seen as a sort of miracle; it isn't until we dive into the story that we soon realize that the underdog had every chance of winning all along. Two of the stories featured in Gladwell's book present good examples of underdog triumph, and the interpretation he offers on one of them may even present a challenge to the traditional definition of an underdog.
First, Gladwell dives into the biblical story of David and Goliath. Many of us are familiar with the legendary tale: on the one hand, we have a larger-than-life foe, Goliath; a giant to most people, and an invincible warrior. On the other hand, we have a small shepherd boy, David, armed only with a sling, the wits of a warrior and the faith of his God. David goes to meet the giant on the battlefield, his sling loaded with a stone. He is able to defeat the giant with one shot, hitting Goliath between the eyes and bringing him to the ground, unconscious. David takes up Goliath's own sword and uses it to cut off Goliath's head, winning the war for the Israelites. The Philistines are driven out of Israel, David eventually becomes King, and the legend of the underdog is immortalized for all time...end of story...right? Not quite. Gladwell offers an alternative interpretation that challenges the traditional depiction of David as the underdog and Goliath as the powerful foe.
In his book, Gladwell digs deeper into the true meaning of the story of David and Goliath. Malcolm points out that there were three kinds of warriors in ancient warfare: cavalry (men on horseback or in chariots), heavy infantry (heavily armed warriors on foot) and artillery (archers and slingers). In a war between cavalry and heavy infantry, cavalry was sure to win the war; in a battle between heavy infantry and artillery, the advantage was with artillery—no doubt about it. David was artillery, and he had already proven that he was a good shot with a sling by killing a wolf and a lion to protect his sheep.
Goliath, on the other hand, was heavy infantry and perhaps not a great warrior after all. He was a slow-moving giant—a "sitting duck" for a slinger. Goliath was expecting someone to battle on his own terms: up close and in hand-to-hand combat. Instead, he found himself facing a fast-moving slinger, armed with a powerful weapon and tremendous skill. Moreover, it turns out that there is extensive speculation within the medical community that says Goliath may have suffered from a form of gigantism, a condition that affects the pituitary gland and causes overproduction of the human growth hormone. Among the common symptoms of gigantism is unnatural growth and visual impairment. These symptoms could explain Goliath's behavior that day. According to the legend, he was guided to the battlefield by an attendant. In those times, warriors of his stature did not have guides; but Goliath did. Experts concur that it was probably because his condition prevented him from making his own way. Goliath's impaired vision could have been described by his slow reaction to David's approach and his comment to David, "Am I a dog that you should come to me with sticks?" David carried only one stick, but Goliath saw two. It's possible that Goliath never had a chance against David.
This is where the story gets interesting: obviously David knew what he was going up against. He knew that his advantage would be the one thing that no one anticipated: his skill with the sling. At the same time, Goliath was expecting a conventional warrior; he got a shepherd whose unconventional skill was his competitive advantage. Paradoxically, if the speculations are true, the source of Goliath's apparent strength was also the source of his greatest weakness.
To avail the beneficial drug dosage you should notify your physician about cheap viagra canada your body's allergic tendency to the drug ingredients and a history of kidney dysfunction, liver disorder, thyroid defect and pain in muscles should be discussed and decided upon between you and your health-care professional in order to find the most suitable treatment. Don't just take a prospect with your birds overall health by administering manual therapy to the spine. generic cialis online This purchase cheap cialis popular brand from Pfizer takes effect more or less within 30 minutes. You might be one among such men and looking for a way to get rid of this frustrating erection problem, you should read the article and know more about this miraculous medicine: What are Kamagra wholesale tadalafil tablets.
In Gladwell's second example, he presents the story of 16th century France, and the battle between traditional and Impressionist artwork. Between 1748 and 1890, there was a famous art exhibition in France called the Salon. Anybody who was anybody would be sure to have their painting exhibited in the Salon. Most paintings during this time period were done in the classic style: big churches, soldiers, kings and queens. Works of art done by Impressionists were rarely accepted by the Salon, and those that did gain acceptance were poorly placed. Impressionists were radicals in their time, violating the conventional rules of academic painting, and the Salon opposed their work. In fact, only the works of two Impressionists were ever accepted to the Salon, and their paintings were placed in a very inconspicuous place within the Salon.
Taking matters into their own hands and shunning the conventional art community, the Impressionists decided to open their own independent exhibition in 1874. They didn't gain much attention the first year of the exhibition, but then something happened. The Impressionist's rebellion and independence began to pay off and their work started to gain ground. Their art was recognized and the rest is history. In the end, the Impressionist exhibition was held eight times between 1874 and 1886, with increasing public acceptance and support.
You are probably asking yourself, "Where is this going and how does it affect me?" The answer is simple: Gladwell's interpretation of David and Goliath shows us that whatever battle you are facing or challenge you are afraid of undertaking may not be as bad or dangerous if you have a David complex. In other words, before you go to war with what may seem a Goliath, make sure you have a plan—perhaps an unconventional or unanticipated one—that will give you the upper hand and allow you to win against all odds. From the triumph of the Impressionists, Gladwell offers a correlating lesson: if you are different, you need to make a lot of noise outside the mainstream. Don't be afraid to be different and to challenge the status quo. Let your differences be your advantage over conventional thinking. You might surprise yourself with the outcome.
There are many other examples of underdogs and improbable winners in Malcolm Gladwell's book. If you get a chance, pick up a copy. I truly believe that it will change the way you "go to war" against a giant.
How many times have you felt like David going against a Goliath?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks