UC - Origins of A Poor Definition

There isn’t much in life more fundamental than the definitions we apply in our language. Definitions supply meaning and represent a collective understanding of the world around us.

In short: the words we use matter.

The official origin of the word “underdog” seems to be debatable, but there is good evidence that we can trace its roots to dogfighting back in the mid-to-late 19th century. (TK -Underdogs win in Wharton Study – Reviewed research - Fortune Article) In the 1800’s, the use of the word Underdog was very literal. In a dog fight, it was the dog that lost, likely dead or submitted under another dog. That’s a sobering image. Although it lacks some relevance in modern American society. (Notwithstanding a certain former NFL quarterback’s dogfighting woes of the mid 2000’s. – TK Reference)

Speaking of civilized societies, our division of labor has improved over time, too. These days, we have specialists in charge of establishing, building and refining parts of our society in the most detailed ways. That includes creating and maintaining dictionaries and defining the words we use. These specialists are called lexicographers. In most instances, they do a respectable job of making sense and clarifying the words we use with nuance and style. Certainly, the word underdog has made progress in its original meaning. It’s transformed from its early literal meaning to something more nuanced, metaphorical, or idiomatic. However, the lexicographers have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to developing a lucid and relevant definition for the word “underdog” today.

When I suggest that underdog definitions are outdated or inadequate, here are a few examples from popular dictionaries to highlight what I mean:

“Underdog:”

• “A loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest.” – Merriam Webster
• “A competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest.” – Google
• “In a competition, the person or team considered to be the weakest and the least likely to win.” – Cambridge Dictionary
• “A victim of injustice or persecution.” – Merriam Webster
• “A person who is expected to lose in a contest or conflict.” – Dictionary.com
• “A person who has little status in society.” – Google
• “A person of group of people with less power, money, etc. than the rest of society.” – Cambridge Dictionary

Additionally, here are a few synonyms for the word underdog which include the following:

loser, victim, failure, non-starter, unsuccessful person.

There’s a good reason for the stagnation of the underdog definition. Linguists refer to the weakening of a word’s meaning over time with a technical term known as “semantic bleaching.” When words become overused or used in ways that no longer do them justice, they are said to have been ‘bleached.’ (TK - semantic bleaching article reference) The word underdog falls squarely into that category.

For anyone who considers themselves an underdog, a poor definition makes it difficult to want to associate yourself (publicly, anyway) with the concept. We may avoid associating ourselves with being an underdog because a) we can’t seem to agree on a decent definition, b) existing definitions don’t quite capture the essence of how underdogs really feel, or c) because there’s no specificity in the definition for what makes someone an underdog in the first place.

Beyond the problem of subjectivity, there are two other fundamental issues with existing underdog themes that keep popping up in current definitions. These include the ideas that underdogs are “losers” or “expected losers,” or that they are “victims.” We’ll talk about the victim distinction in greater detail in Chapter TK.

For now, let’s start with the persistent and pervasive problem of associating underdogs with being losers or expected losers. In both the way we use the word and in different definitions, the word “loser” is often pulling double duty. It is used to mean two very different things. First, it’s used to mean that underdogs are expected to lose. That’s intended to mean a literal loser in any competitive arena. The second way the word “loser” is used is in a more colloquial sense. In this context, it refers to someone who is incompetent or unable to succeed. (TK – check MW Definition). Utilizing a word in two ways with two distinct meanings to make an argument is what’s known as equivocation.

We can do better than equivocate for underdogs.

In the real world, the first way underdog is defined is as being an expected loser or loser is in a contest. This would be a literal loser of that thing. Being referred to as a loser in this context seems to be begging the question:

• If the underlying premise is that an underdog is worthy and capable of competing, then how can they simultaneously be expected to lose?

That seems paradoxical to me. On one hand, the opponent is considered worthy to compete. On the other hand, we expect them to lose to their competitor. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that construct. It reminds me of the “Schrodinger’s Cat” thought experiment. You know, the one where the cat in the box is purported to be both dead and alive at the same time. (TK reference) Surely, characterizing Underdogs is not as complex as quantum mechanics?

But I have more questions:

• If underdogs have such little chance of winning, wouldn’t you just choose a more worthy opponent or forego the whole damn competition?
• What’s the point of competing if the outcome is all but a foregone conclusion?

If the odds are stacked against one side, surely the advantaged opponent will win. If so, I suppose underdogs should just pack it up and take it to the house. This seems like very odd behavior for us to partake in, yet people talk about underdogs in this way every day. This acceptance has become normalized.

The other way underdog is used is to refer to being a loser in a colloquial sense. It is someone who has accepted defeat or is simply unsuccessful. I’m not sure where to even start with this characterization of underdogs.

Let’s be clear – underdogs are not losers in this or any other sense of the word. There are numerous studies performed in the last couple of decades which effectively clarify the difference between underdogs and losers. There are two concepts that are posited to help clarify these differences. These ideas are referred to as “avoidance” or “seeking.”  We would call individuals in those two areas “avoiders” or “seekers,” respectively. (TK – The Underdog Advantage, they reference other studies – see those)

Avoiders: They avoid putting in work, doing hard things or for that matter – nearly anything that is either useful or productive. They often feign a lot of “effort” in various activities but have nothing to show for it. Losers remind me of telephone scammers – if they’d put as much effort into doing something legal and useful as they do try to rip us off, I think they’d be amazed at what they could accomplish. But I digress.

Seekers: Are seekers of challenge. They use effort and the utility of their experiences as tools to make things happen and to get shit done. They ferret out and go after life’s toughest challenges, despite the adversity they’ve already had to overcome. They are relentless and willing to persevere through life’s difficulties, likely because they’ve been through harder things. I think of it like the idea that steel sharpens steel. Underdogs can do hard things because they’ve overcome hard things already. New difficulties only provide renewed opportunity to show your confidence and poise to effectively navigate them.  (TK – Research “The Underdog Advantage – seekers, avoiders idea)

Or to summarize the idea concisely: Avoiders are to Losers, as Seekers are to Underdogs.

Society bears most of the responsibility for the slow degradation of our current underdog definitions. However, regardless of how we got to this point, it’s time that we outlined a new, worthy, and empowered definition. Underdogs have enough on their plate already.