The story of David against Goliath has offered an inexhaustible pool of profound truths and lessons in different things across time and history.
But unlike most people, my favorite part of the story —and the part I am concerned with as a betting man— is the buildup to the battle with Goliath.
David arrives the battlefield to drop off lunch for his older brothers who are fighting in the war —supposedly.
He realizes there’s no fighting going on because the terms of this particular battle was unique: A champion from each side in a single combat in the valley below. Winner-takes-all style. 1v1. Except there was no ‘1’ from his country.
He attempts to investigate why no one’s stepping up to become the ‘1’. Eliab, his older brother, shuts him down and absolutely rags on him.
Undeterred, David arrogantly decides he would go against the giant, despite not being as skilled a soldier as his brother —or indeed— the other soldiers in Israel’s military.
An arrogant decision that implied a sense of superiority to others who, despite being qualified, couldn’t rise to the occasion.
***
To fix any problem, there must first be an established consensus on some level that there indeed is a problem.
But even then, it is safer to generally assume that most things are the way they are for good reasons. The same holds true for even humans —we can often conclude that behind the unpleasant sides of people is a (rational or irrational) reason for who they have become.
Knowing this, it makes sense why people who try to change “things” are frowned upon. Because it either demonstrates arrogant hubris or naïvety of why things are the way they are.
And indeed, correctly so. The very act of attempting to fix or improve anything, embodies the assumptions that you are smarter than others who tried and failed, better than those who ignored it and let it be, or simply presumptuous to even consider that an improvement is necessary at all.
The stakes are high, because, depending on the complexity or difficulty of the task; you are implicitly betting on the narrow odd that you are qualified enough to do what could never have been done by others, in that particular context.
It is why innovators are often perceived as gutsy and arrogant. It is near impossible to get around to doing anything significant without some level of arrogance. Undertaking any type of risk is a fundamental act of arrogance and rebellion at once. How dare you think you’re special enough to beat the odds where others fail?
***
Another lesson: the willingness to do anything bold or solve problems is hardly dependent on expertise or qualification. Au contraire, I submit that most people hide under the pretext of expertise and qualifications to justify inaction and stagnation.
There is an interesting correlation between revolutions and the young people in a system. Perhaps because they have not been completely beaten into the submission that tied down the older era from seeking change. Or, because their blissful ignorance and naivety affords them the arrogance to assume things can be changed, and should be changed.
Victory goes to the man who takes a chance in the arena. Most high achievers are rarely the most credentialed in their various fields. One would hardly even describe them as the top subject experts in their domains. Yet they achieve so much.
Despite having a good ROI, expertise and over-qualification rarely make outsized returns in rewards. Because the laws of outsized rewards dictates allocations based on relevant problems solved, or opportunities created.
Hyper-focusing on expertise can lead to a certain type of bloat that inhibits taking any sort of action, because you know too much. Which, in turn, cripples the logic for risks. You are overly exposed to everything that could go wrong, the ramifications of risks, and fixated on why things would not work.
So you never try.
In a way, most people are “experts” when it comes to their lives. When faced with challenges and the opportunity to attempt anything different; they compulsively obsess over everything that would go wrong, and why their effort would not work.
When you understand this, then it makes sense why most people are stuck for most of their lives —never making progress or taking chances to do anything remotely different from their safe routine.
Like in the case of the vastly experienced soldiers in the Israeli army; they had enough expertise to know they each stood little to no chance against the giant in single combat.
Everyone had good reason for not taking a chance on what needed to be done. Nobody wanted to die. At least, not when it could be avoided. It would have been practically suicide to go against Goliath. Despite the rewards on the table.
But it was different with David. Why? Beginner’s eye. It is why beginners are the most likely to do what experts are afraid of: either from the arrogance of thinking they’re special, or because they have not yet been blindsided by the heap of possible limitations.
This might be a good case for why most industries are disrupted by new entrants with fresh eyes not yet worn out from accepting the de facto limitations.
***
Solving problems require a deeper level of motivation beyond potential rewards. And this is precisely why it is considered arrogance to even try. Think about it: why bother pursuing anything if, despite the huge potential for returns, there’s a good chance you also fail and lose everything in the process?
Put differently, why spend 5 years building a company that could become worth a billion dollars someday, if you’re 90% much more likely to fail in the process, wasting 5 years and your financial sacrifice?
See the arrogance of trying anything worthwhile? It is the Illusory Superiority bias. To believe you are truly more special —or luckier— than others.
***
Another important lesson would be: focus on your prospects, ignore the noise. Put differently: ignore the people you’re not serving; focus on the people who need your service.
David ignored his obnoxious brother and went straight to the king. Your gambit would always be silly to the people who do not need it, but an absolute lifesaver to the people who do. David’s perceived arrogance was disgusting to other soldiers, but refreshing to Saul, who needed it as a solution to his problem.
A drowning person could care less about what type of rope was extended in rescue. He would grab it for a lifeline. The experts are likely to make a lot of noise about the quality of rope and if it should even be used…all from the safety of their boat.
But the drowning person would not care, they want to be rescued by any means possible.
Your job is to find the right people who will reward you and be benefited by the outcome of your bold arrogance.
Find your King Saul, ignore the Eliab.
***
Obsess over problems, not incentives. David’s priority was to eliminate the cussing giant defying his nation. He didn’t care about what incentives or rewards lay in store. His motivation was patriotism —which was eventually generously rewarded. It is well known that making money is a by product of solving problems. We do not solve problems because we want money (that is a poor incentive); we solve problems because we deeply care about them or the challenge they present. If you solve those challenges well enough, the market is compelled to reward you as a side-effect, not as a trophy for participation.
On the other hand, if rewards are your primary incentive, like the Israeli army, you might never be able to undertake the risks to confront certain giants. It is why a big picture is important. It is not enough to know you wish to come out at the other end of your venture a million dollars richer —other people want the same too, but they never commit what is necessary— because you can only stay inspired by externalities for so long. Find your big picture from within. Why do you wish to change things? Why undertake this gamble, and why now?
Go down the valley. Your problems are not as big as you imagine. You exaggerate its size because you’re stuck at the other side of the valley.
Put differently, when you hit rock bottom there is no further depth left to sink to. Embrace your pain till there is nothing left to do but heal. Go down the valley and face the giant.
At the bottom of the valley, you learn how much your picture of the giant was exaggerated. Sooner or later, even giants fall.
***
On a counter-note to this essay; sometimes, it turns out there’s a good reason why things are the way they are, and not the way you think they should be. Before setting out to change them into what you think should be, first find out why it is the way it is: then proceed from there.
Otherwise, you might attempt to solve, only to end up walking right back to the situation you met.
I would also add that occasionally the opposite is also true: that sometimes there is no reason why things are the way they are. And they have been that way because everyone assumed there was a good reason why they were the way they are.
Even though extremely unlikely, you might be the first person to try changing what is. Luckily, it works, and you reap the benefits.
An hypothetical example of this would be customers queued up at a self-checkout station with two computers. Everyone is standing in line for Computer A, while Computer B is empty, because every subsequent person who joins the Computer A simply assumes that Computer B must be broken since nobody is lined up behind. Nobody confirms this. Because nobody wants to risk their social acceptance and look like the smartass who assumed others were not smart enough to confirm that the other computer was truly broken.
Whereas it is exactly what would have been needed to unlock the discovery —the arrogance to assume others are likely not smart enough to undertake the action you are.
In early school, I struggled with answering questions, not because I didn’t know the answers, but because I wasn’t confident enough to say them. I assumed if the answer I thought was correct, then others would be scrambling to say it already. If they were not saying it, that would mean whatever answer I had in my head was wrong.
I refused to accept the possibility that in those specific moments I was probably smarter than everyone in the room. And it would be arrogant of me to provide answers others weren’t saying. Because then I’d be making the huge assumption that others didn’t know it. Often, it turned out to be true. They didn’t say the answers because they really didn’t know the answers. And if I had engaged the arrogance, I would have been right.
The courage to try anything significantly different from the status quo is an expression of a unique type of arrogance. The type that gets things done —or tries to.
This arrogance is beaten out of us because society thrives on compliance. The person who breaks out risks being punished if they fail.
Remember the classic Gandhi quote:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
This essay started out as a case for innovative arrogance, but has become an even bigger case for courage. Could that be because the courage to try anything is inextricably linked to the arrogance to assume that you should?
Trying to do anything different checks off three fundamental assumptions that can be interpreted as arrogance in themselves: First, that you are the right person to do it; Second, that you are doing the right thing; Third, that this is the right time.
Regards of how this varies with different subjective contexts; the underlying assumptions are definitive of the effort to try.
To go from zero to one: first find your conviction and be confident in your ability to figure it out. Find the right problems to solve. They will be marked by difficulty and an even bigger potential for reward. Then get to work.
