Chapter 1 - "Underdog" - An Enhanced Definition

Uneven Bars

A six-year-old orphan forever changed the landscape of US gymnastics and became the pride of a nation, but her early life didn’t have all the glitz and glamour it appears to have today. She spent time during her childhood in foster care because her mother couldn’t care for her or her three siblings. Eventually she was adopted by her maternal grandparents, which provided a dramatic cultural and geographical shift, as they moved from the Midwest to Texas. Finally, she might have caught a break.

As she began to settle into her new home and get comfortable, she was exposed to the world of gymnastics. Early on it was clear that she had a knack for the sport and enjoyed it. She spent the next few years practicing and improving her skills at a local training center. At the age of eight, she caught the eye of a professional gymnastics coach, and they began their long-term relationship training together.

By the time she was fifteen, the young woman made the decision to opt out of public school and be homeschooled. She wanted to be able to focus even more time on her blossoming gymnastics career. She recognized that her natural talent and refined skills separated her from her peers. Even at her young age, she knew she was good enough to compete with the best in her sport and had the potential to put herself on a unique trajectory.

That young woman would go on to become a member of Team USA, a two-time Olympian, and five-time World Championship competitor. Her personal accomplishments on the mat could easily be compared to the medal count of most countries. These include four Olympic gold, one silver, and two bronze medals between the 2016 and 2020 Olympics. On the World Championship stage, she racked up an unbelievable nineteen gold, three silver, and three bronze medals. She’s earned sponsorships from top brands and traveled the world, and she wrote a book, has a movie about her life, and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Biden. She is an all-around badass human being. You’ll likely recognize that young gymnast from Texas: her name is Simone Biles. Simone is an underdog by any measure. However, that’s only the story we see on the surface.

It seems as if being orphaned as a child would be enough disadvantage for any one person. Unfortunately, right around the time her skills and talents were paving the path for her professional success, storm clouds appeared on the horizon for her again. This time she and her peers would be betrayed and sexually abused by a trusted coach.

Most of us can only imagine the pain that comes from the kind of trauma and suffering that Simone endured. For others, you may have firsthand experience with this or other kinds of trauma in your own life. As heartbreaking and grotesque as it is to imagine for many of us, this obvious disadvantage became a part of her life. It is something that shaped who she is as a human being and is something she no doubt works diligently to overcome.

Yet, interestingly, these terrible experiences don’t define who Simone has become. They haven’t held her back or kept her from making progress in her personal and professional life.

So how did Simone manage to make it through such neglect, abuse, and disadvantage to obtain and maintain success? What makes her story so unique? Well, eventually she declared, “I’m not afraid to tell my story anymore” in a social media post. That just about sums it up.

In essence, she figured out how to attract and keep great people around her. She taught herself how to talk to the media and share her story, and her performance on the mat always delivers. She is an inspiration to anyone watching—and there are a lot of people watching.

Simone managed to overcome her disadvantages and outperform through the power of sharing her story, developing lasting relationships and consistently distinguishing her performance.

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.

The official origin of the word “underdog” seems to be debatable, but there is good evidence that we can trace its roots to dogf ighting back in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. In the 1800s, the use of the word was very literal. In a dog fight, it referred to the dog that lost, likely dead or submitted underneath 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-2000s6).

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 of and clarifying the words we use. Certainly, the word underdog has made progress since its original meaning. It has transformed from its early literal meaning to something more nuanced, metaphorical, or idiomatic. However, lexicographers have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to developing a lucid and relevant definition for the word today.

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

• “A loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest.”7

• “ A competitor thought to have little chance of winning a f ight or contest.”8

• “In a competition, the person or team considered to be the weakest and the least likely to win.”9 

• “ A person who is expected to lose in a contest or conflict.”10

• “A person who has little status in society.”11

• “ A person or group of people with less power, money, etc. than the rest of society.”12

Additionally, here are a few synonyms for the word: loser, victim, failure, nonstarter, unsuccessful person.

There’s a good reason for the stagnation of definitions. Linguists refer to the weakening of a word’s meaning over time with the technical term “semantic bleaching.” When words become overused or used in ways that no longer do them justice, they are said to have been “bleached”.13 The word underdog falls squarely into that category.

For anyone who may consider 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 the idea because (a) we can’t seem to agree on a decent definition, (b) existing definitions don’t quite capture the essence of how we really feel, or (c) there’s no specificity in the definition in terms of 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 they are “losers” or “expected losers” or that they are “victims.” We’ll talk about the victim distinction in greater detail in chapter three.

For now, let’s start with the persistent and pervasive problem of associating the disadvantaged with losers or expected losers. Both in 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 those who are underdogs are expected to lose or lose consistently. 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.14 Utilizing a word in two ways with two distinct meanings to make an argument is what is known as equivocation.

We can do better than equivocate for underdogs.

In the real world, the first way they are defined is as being an expected loser or loser in a contest. This would be a literal loser of that thing. Being referred to as a loser in this context seems to beg the following question: If the underlying premise is that they’re 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 of competing. On the other hand, we expect them to lose to their competitor. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that concept. 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. Surely, characterizing them is not as complex as quantum theory.

But I have more questions:

• If underdogs have such little chance of winning, wouldn’t you simply 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 they should pack up their things and take it to the house. This seems like very odd behavior for us to partake in, yet people talk about underdogs flippantly like this 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.

Let’s be clear: being disadvantaged does not make one a loser in this or any other sense of the word. There are numerous studies performed in the last couple of decades that 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.15

Avoiders avoid putting in work, doing hard things, or, for that matter, nearly anything that is either useful or productive. These folks refuse to do what’s necessary to overcome their disadvantage. They often feign a lot of “effort” in various activities but never have much 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 into trying to rip us off, they might be amazed at what they could accomplish. But I digress.

Additionally, Dr. Luana Marques, a Harvard psychology expert, points out three specific ways that people hold themselves back from succeeding in what she has framed as forms of “psychological avoidance”:

 • Retreating—falling into habits or behaviors that help one avoid achievement, like drinking, failing to shore up skills, or making excuses

• Reacting—following your knee-jerk response instead of letting the facts and reality of your circumstances set in so you can effectively deal with them

• Remaining—staying in an uncomfortable or unhealthy situation, relationship, or a job that is detrimental to your well-being, often downplaying its impact on you

Then there are Seekers: those who seek novelty and challenge. They use effort and the utility of their experiences as tools to make things happen and 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.” These are the contenders—those who can do hard things because they’ve overcome hard things already. New difficulties only provide renewed opportunity to demonstrate their confidence and poise to effectively navigate whatever obstacle lay in their way.

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 poor current definitions. However, regardless of how we got to this point, it’s time that we outlined a new, worthy, and empowered definition. The disadvantaged have enough on their plate already. "

Underdog Redefined

The word underdog and its promotion have become common in western culture, but the underlying story arc has lasting historical use and appeal the world over. However, in the US, the frequency and misuse of the word underdog has done more than merely foster the inaccurate associations we discussed in the last section. It lacks a meaningful standard by which we can measure progress. In addition, we have definitions that forego accountability, lack empowerment, and leave little to aspire to.

The last section outlined the need to upgrade the generally accepted definitions. Essentially, we have two choices: we can sit and wait for society to glacially evolve the current definition into a more befitting one, or we can come up with our own meaningful definition today. Since shifting the winds of social change may take another 170 years, to make progress in our lifetimes, we are going to have to chart a new course.

One final thing before we establish a new working definition. Attempting to uproot and redefine a socially accepted construct may inadvertently draw some unintended controversy, especially in the delicate social media climate we live in today. That is not the goal of this new characterization. Crafting a meaningful, empowered definition is meant to help real people work through their historical disadvantage. There’s no expectation that everyone will agree with this new definition, although we all need something to aspire to and to lean on.

Now, with all of that caveated, here’s an improved definition that more accurately defines what it means to really be an underdog today:

Underdog: A person who proactively engages with the world to overcome personal disadvantage and leverages unique experiences, innate talents, learned profi ciencies, and their authentic story to transform themselves into a credible contender.

There should be practical utility in a strong, multipart defi nition like the one we outlined above. It should act as a guide to keep you focused on the road ahead and the disparate areas required to achieve your goals. It needs to inspire you, to be aspirational in its reach, capable of reminding you of the path you’re on whenever you think about its meaning. It should be a defi nition worthy of the moniker underdog.

Throughout the book we’re going to examine each area in much more detail, but for now, let’s take a high-level look at the individual pieces that make up our new definition:

• Proactive Engagement

Not waiting for something to happen to you, but making things happen for you. Actively seeking out the best experiences the world has to off er and interacting with others of your own free will.

• Personal Disadvantage

Disadvantage relates to your unique experience relative to the experience or advantage of others. It’s a willingness to move beyond past disadvantageous events by displaying a refusal to allow historical events to defi ne, control, or dictate what’s possible for your life.

• Leverage Experiences

Be willing to use the lessons learned from your past experiences to help you more eff ectively maneuver and overcome future challenges.

• Innate Talents

We all have natural, inherent abilities that help distinguish ourselves from others. The obligation of underdogs is to develop, use, and showcase their specifi c talents to the world.

• Learn New Things

Another way to conceptualize this is by combining your formal and informal education. At times learning comes to us in the form of experiences, while at other times it needs to be sought after in the form of more formal education and development. We all require continuous improvement and learning.

• Authentic Story

You have one story that is uniquely yours. Tell it straight. Don’t exaggerate it for eff ect or diminish it to safeguard the sensibilities of others. Share your unique truth with the world, which is the core element of your future success.

• Transformation

Becoming an underdog doesn’t happen by accident. You must participate in your own evolution that is impactful for you and visible to others.

• Credible Contender

There is no guarantee of a win in any area of life. The best anyone can aspire to is the opportunity to train and prepare themselves to compete when a favorable circumstance presents itself. Being in contention requires realistic expectations that (a) not everyone will win every time, and (b) you don’t need to “win” to get everything you want out of life. You do, however, need to be able and willing to compete against other worthy rivals.

Well, that is a lot to unpack! But I know you’re up to the challenge.

This new definition is meant to serve you going forward. It should provide you with the inspiration you need to go after what you want. It should also remind you of the unique perspective you carry and the underlying strength you have within you to accomplish anything you set your mind to.