Who here hasn't rooted for the underdog? They are more lovable, relateable, and even fun to watch. Seeing an upset is almost always more fun than seeing a projected win from a powerhouse. But why do we love underdogs so much? Shouldn't we find that scary and compromising to our animalistic nature? The biggest, the baddest, and the best should win, and the underdogs are the underdogs because they are none of those things. And yet we still throw hope onto the underdog game after game because we see in them the struggle inside ourselves, the struggle against the sublime, the struggle for meaning in the void of meaningless. Isn't humanity the biggest underdog? That we should exist at all inside the practically infinite universe.
I read an interesting piece by Malcolm Gladwell (whose popularity has exploded recently, it's probably the hair) about the continuing success of underdogs. And he reduced it to a simple formula: effort > ability. His example of this is the full-court press in basketball. The Full-Court Press is when a team applies full on defense for every second of the game. If you watch a game of basketball you'll notice that after a team scores they will run back and stand under their own basket in preparation for the attack, but with a full-court press the defending starts right away. They don't just allow the offense to march unchallenged down the court, they make them work for it. This means that there is a great propensity for a mistake, which might be a turnover, which might be a basket. This allows a team of lesser capability the power to challenge a much bigger and better team. It hides their weaknesses and keeps the better team from becoming confident. And yet most teams don't employ this tactic despite its proven success.
The article was rather encouraging. It was rooted in exampled and kept stressing if you just work a bit harder you'll end up top. But although the article does a good job explaining why underdogs so often win, it doesn't explore why they garnish so much support. And how does this apply to political favoritism and society in general.
In particular I'm thinking of the case of Israel and Palestine. I remember reading a poll where two groups of participators were given the same essay about the conflict but two different maps. One map showed Israel as the underdog to the greater Middle East, and the other map showed Palestine as the underdog to the greater Israel. Both groups when asked to rate their support, chose the underdog they were displayed.
Is this a question that can be gotten to the bottom of? Why do we continually support the underdog? Is it a question of justice? But wouldn't it be more just that the best and most able win every time? And how does this come into play with our relationships? Are we attracted more to underdogesque people? Do we befriend people who we feel are constantly employing more effort? Are these terms even politically correct? Are there underdogs and topdogs among us? Which am I?
