TED Talk >> Malcolm Gladwell: The unheard story of David and Goliath
So David, in that story, is supposed to be the underdog, right? In fact, that term, David and Goliath, has entered our language as a metaphor for improbable victories by some weak party over someone far stronger. Now why do we call David an underdog? Well, we call him an underdog because he's a kid, a little kid, and Goliath is this big, strong giant. We also call him an underdog because Goliath is an experienced warrior, and David is just a shepherd. But most importantly, we call him an underdog because all he has is -- it's that Goliath is outfitted with all of this modern weaponry, this glittering coat of armor and a sword and a javelin and a spear, and all David has is this sling.
在这个故事里，大卫是弱者，对吧？ 事实上，“大卫和哥利亚”这个短语，已经被我们用来比喻出人意料的胜利，以弱胜强。那么我们称大卫是处于弱势的人呢？ 首先我们叫他弱者，因为他是个孩子，只是个小孩。而哥利亚是强壮的巨人。我们叫他弱者，还因为哥利亚可是个身经百战的战士，大卫只是个牧童罢了。但我们不看好他的最重要的原因是，哥利亚全身上下都武装着先进的武器，闪亮的铠甲、利剑、标枪和长矛，而大卫就只有一条投石绳。
Well, let's start there with the phrase "All David has is this sling," because that's the first mistake that we make. In ancient warfare, there are three kinds of warriors. There's cavalry, men on horseback and with chariots. There's heavy infantry, which are foot soldiers, armed foot soldiers with swords and shields and some kind of armor. And there's artillery, and artillery are archers, but, more importantly, slingers. And a slinger is someone who has a leather pouch with two long cords attached to it, and they put a projectile, either a rock or a lead ball, inside the pouch, and they whirl it around like this and they let one of the cords go, and the effect is to send the projectile forward towards its target.
我们再看一下这句话 “大卫就只有一个投石绳”，因为这是我们所犯的第一个错误。在古代战争中，有三种士兵。一是骑兵，它们驾战车骑在马背上。二是重步兵，就是步兵，武装上剑、盾，还有铠甲。第三则是炮兵，炮兵就是弓箭手，但更重要的，是投石兵。投石兵的武器，就是一个皮囊，两端有长绳系着，他们把投掷物，石块或铅弹放进皮囊，然后像这样挥舞着，再放掉一根绳，就可以把投掷物抛出，击中目标。
That's what David has, and it's important to understand that that sling is not a slingshot. It's not this, right? It's not a child's toy. It's in fact an incredibly devastating weapon. When David rolls it around like this, he's turning the sling around probably at six or seven revolutions per second, and that means that when the rock is released, it's going forward really fast, probably 35 meters per second. That's substantially faster than a baseball thrown by even the finest of baseball pitchers.
大卫用的就是这个，但必须强调一点，投石器并不是弹弓，不是这样的，对吧？它不是个玩具，它其实是毁灭性的武器。当大卫这样抛旋的时候，速度大约可以达到每秒六到七转。这就意味着，当石头被释放出去的时候，它的速度是非常快的，大概每秒35米。这比最好的棒球手，投出的球的速度快得多。
More than that, the stones in the Valley of Elah were not normal rocks. They were barium sulphate, which are rocks twice the density of normal stones. If you do the calculations on the ballistics, on the stopping power of the rock fired from David's sling, it's roughly equal to the stopping power of a 45 millimeter calibre handgun.
另外，以拉谷的石头，不是普通的石头，他们是硫酸钡，密度是普通石头的两倍。如果你根据弹道学的理论去计算，大卫投出的那个石头的制动能力，基本上相当于一把口径为0.45的手枪。
This is an incredibly devastating weapon. Accuracy, we know from historical records that slingers -- experienced slingers could hit and maim or even kill a target at distances of up to 200 yards. From medieval tapestries, we know that slingers were capable of hitting birds in flight. They were incredibly accurate. When David lines up -- and he's not 200 yards away from Goliath, he's quite close to Goliath -- when he lines up and fires that thing at Goliath, he has every intention and every expectation of being able to hit Goliath at his most vulnerable spot between his eyes. If you go back over the history of ancient warfare, you will find time and time again that slingers were the decisive factor against infantry in one kind of battle or another.
这可是置人于死地的武器。精确度，我们从历史记录上可以看出，投石手——经验丰富的投石手，可以击中、射伤，甚至射死远达200码外的人。从中世纪的一些挂毯上，我们得知，投石手能击中空中飞翔的鸟儿。他们的精准度相当高。大卫抡绳子时，离哥利亚还不到200码，离得很近。当他抡起绳子朝哥利亚投石时，他已经打算好了，就是要击中哥利亚最脆弱的部位，也就是他的眉心。如果回顾古代战争史，你会经常发现，投石手是抗击步兵的决定性的因素，不管是什么战争。
Question
- What does Gladwell intend to show by explaining how a sling works?
> What people assume is a weakness is actually a big advantage. - What would have happened if David had used a sword ?
> He would have probably even defeated. - Why is David considered an underdog?
> He is younger, smaller, and less experienced in battle than Goliath. - What was Gladwell thinking about David?
> He has an advantage because he's using a deadly weapon. - Why did Gladwell focus on the phrase "all David has is this sling"?
> It represents a core assumption that David is an underdog
So what's Goliath? He's heavy infantry, and his expectation when he challenges the Israelites to a duel is that he's going to be fighting another heavy infantryman. When he says, "Come to me that I might feed your flesh to the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field," the key phrase is "Come to me." Come up to me because we're going to fight, hand to hand, like this. Saul has the same expectation. David says, "I want to fight Goliath," and Saul tries to give him his armor, because Saul is thinking, "Oh, when you say 'fight Goliath,' you mean 'fight him in hand-to-hand combat,' infantry on infantry."
那哥利亚属于什么类别呢？他是重步兵。他向以色列士兵要求决斗时，预想的对手是另一名重步兵。当他说，“过来吧，我要把你的肉献给天上的鸟儿和地里的野兽”，他的关键词是“过来吧”。快过来，我们单挑，面对面，就像这样。索尔也是同样的想法。大卫说，“让我来和哥利亚决斗”。索尔试图给他穿上铠甲，因为索尔想，“噢，你说你要去‘和他决斗’，就是指‘面对面地徒手决战’，步兵对步兵的决斗。”
But David has absolutely no expectation. He's not going to fight him that way. Why would he? He's a shepherd. He's spent his entire career using a sling to defend his flock against lions and wolves. That's where his strength lies. So here he is, this shepherd, experienced in the use of a devastating weapon, up against this lumbering giant weighed down by a hundred pounds of armor and these incredibly heavy weapons that are useful only in short-range combat. Goliath is a sitting duck. He doesn't have a chance. So why do we keep calling David an underdog, and why do we keep referring to his victory as improbable?
但大卫当然不是这样想的，他不打算和格利亚那样决斗。为什么要这样呢，他是个牧童，他一直以来都是用投石器保护自己的羊群，驱赶狮子和狼群。这也是他的优势所在。所以他是一个，经验丰富的牧羊人，能使用致命的武器，击败沉重的巨人，哪怕巨人穿上百斤重甲，手持重型武器，而这些重装备却只在近距搏斗中有优势。哥利亚基本就是个弱鸡，他没有机会出手。那么为什么我们总觉得大卫是弱者，还觉得他的胜利难以置信呢？
Question
- According to Gladwell, why isn't David an underdog?
> He uses his strengths to his advantage. - What would have happened if David had taken the armor from King Saul?
> It would have taken away his strategic advantage. - How does Gladwell's interpretation of the story differ from the traditional understanding?
> Goliath's weapons and armor make him more vulnerable than David.
Listen and repeat
- David is considered an underdog because he appears less powerful than Goliath.
- Goliath is weighed down by his weapons and armor, which makes him easy to hit with a sling.
