Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World Hardcover – Illustrated, May 28, 2019

Once I started reading the book, I had a hard time putting it down. Since the reading has sincerely resonated with me, I decided to share a review before you make any commitment. First, I hope to put together a brief summary from each chapter including key excerpts highlighted while taking notes. Then, I will share some personal thoughts and recommendations.SUMMARY[Introduction] Right in the beginning David says we are often taught that the more competitive and complicated the world gets, the more specialized we must become, and the earlier we must start to navigate it. However, while studying the topic, he noticed that accumulated experience in different domains and late specialization are worth it in the long run. The stories of Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are presented to illustrate that, although both reached the top of their domains, the approach they took growing up was completely different.[Chapter 1] Through the premise of early specialization, Laszlo Polgar pushed his daughters to their limits through rigorous chess practices from an early age. Even though they achieved outstanding results, we learn that a head start in hyperspecialized practices from day one, such as chess and golf, are exceptions. In most domains, however, “the rules of the game are often unclear or incomplete, there may or may not be repetitive patterns and they may not be obvious, and feedback is often delayed, inaccurate, or both.” In order to thrive in these domains, Christopher Connolly says that successful adapters are excellent at taking knowledge from one pursuit and applying it creatively to another, and at avoiding cognitive entrenchment.[Chapter 2] Now we take a close look at how modern societies have drawn to a more holistic context of abstract thinking. David explains that “exposure to the modern world has made us better adapted for complexity, and that has manifested as flexibility, with profound implications for the breadth of our intellectual world.” Like chess and golf masters, premodern villagers relied on things being the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. They were extremely well prepared for what they had experienced before but failed at learning without experience. David adds that “their very thinking was highly specialized in a manner that the modern world has been telling us is increasingly obsolete.”[Chapter 3] Based on examples dated back to the 1710s and recent research studies regarding the development of musicians, David shows that a “sampling period, often lightly structured with some lessons and a breadth of instruments and activities, followed only later by narrowing of focus, increased structure, and an explosion of practice volume” is the most common path to excellence. Breadth in training is key to create abstract models so that we can better apply the knowledge to situations we have never seen before.[Chapter 4] David shifts gears toward effective strategies to learn science. Although some of them seem to impair performance in the short term, they have shown to be essential for better performance later. Among the strategies, we learn the benefits of [1] spacing practices between sessions for the same material; [2] promoting students to make connections with broader concepts; [3] testing progress over time; and [4] learning under varied conditions.[Chapter 5] This chapter is about the importance of cultivating an outside perspective to look for structurally similar analogies. Using astronomer Johannes Kepler’s approach—who thought entirely outside of his domain—as an example, David explains that “deep analogical thinking is the practice of recognizing conceptual similarities in multiple domains or scenarios that may seem to have little in common on the surface.” After all, in a confused and inaccurate world, relying upon experiences from a single domain isn’t only limiting, it can be disastrous.[Chapter 6] Here we explore the virtues of late start. The unusual paths taken by Van Gogh throughout his early life paid off later, becoming one of the most well-known painters in history. As David puts, Van Gogh “tested options with maniacal intensity and got the maximum information signal about his fit as quickly as possible, and then moved to something else and repeated, until he had zigzagged his way to a place no one else had ever been, and where he alone excelled.” Allowing students to delay specialization while sampling and finding out who they are and where they fit improves match quality throughout later career decisions.[Chapter 7] Our work and life preferences don’t stay the same across time and context. David argues that “because personality changes more than we expect with time, experience, and different contexts, we are ill-equipped to make ironclad long-term goals when our past consists of little time, few experiences, and a narrow range of contexts.” Professor Ibarra’s studies are interesting. She says that, instead of a grand plan, we should focus on finding experiments that can be undertaken quickly—something she calls “test-and-learn.” She concludes by affirming “we discover the possibilities by doing, by trying new activities, building new networks, finding new roles models.”[Chapter 8] Using interesting examples, David shows how framing problems with distant analogies from random experiences outside the field can be remarkably effective to find solutions. In fact, some organizations have actually facilitated entities in any field to post their challenges and reward for outside solvers. “The larger and more easily accessible the library of human knowledge, the more chances for inquisitive patrons to make connections at the cutting edge.”[Chapter 9] To reiterate the importance of having accumulated a range of experiences, David shows that even in hyperspecialized fields breadth becomes increasingly important. Andy Ouderkirk and other researchers at 3M set out to study the commercial impact inventors made through patents. They concluded that both specialist and generalists made contributions. Whereas “specialists were adept at working for a long time on difficult technical problems, and for anticipating development obstacles, the generalists tended to get bored working in one area for too long.” Instead, generalists “added value by integrating domains, taking technology from one area and applying it in others.” More important, though, is to know that specialists and generalists thrive when working together.[Chapter 10] Here we learn how to distinguish successful from unsuccessful forecasters. In essence, the best forecasters “are high in active open-mindedness.” Moreover, David says, “they are also extremely curious, and don’t merely consider contrary ideas, they proactively cross disciplines looking for them.” They aren’t only the best forecasters as individuals, but they also have qualities that make them particularly effective collaborators. The unsuccessful ones, however, tend to know one big thing—their expertise is deep but narrow. Some have spent their careers studying a single problem, “reaching for formulaic solutions to ill-defined problems.”[Chapter 11] In a hyperspecialized world, psychologist Karl Weick says that dropping familiar tools is particularly difficult for experienced professionals who rely on overlearned behavior. Based on a handful of tragic examples, we learn that experienced groups became rigid under pressure—“it’s the very unwillingness of people to drop their tools is what turns some dramas into tragedies.” To counterbalance that, studies have shown that an effective problem-solving culture is one that balances standard practices with forces that push in the opposite direction. The trick, David says, “is expanding the organization's range by identifying the dominant culture and then diversifying it by pushing in the opposite direction.”[Chapter 12] The final chapter focuses on scientific progress through the results of free intellects working on interdisciplinary subjects. The cult of the head start, professor Arturo Casadevall argues, “is that young scientists are rushed to specialize before they learn how to think; they end up unable to produce good work themselves and unequipped to spot bad work by their colleagues.” He is indeed a big proponent of exploring innovation ecosystems that intentionally preserve range and inefficiency.”PERSONAL THOUGHTSWell, I ended preordering the book because I felt deeply compelled by the topic. Although I have taken a specialized route throughout education and the initial years of my career, I have noticed that it wasn’t a natural fit. To be more precise, I am drawn toward the diverse possibilities the world offers us to explore. The value of hyperspecialized domains is hardly questionable, despite the fact that a transdisciplinary approach toward education and research seems to be advantageous to move the needle forward for the rest of humanity.The book brings a wealth of knowledge through examples, stories, and practical applications. Moreover, David covers a vast array of topics, ranging from sports all the way to hyperspecialized scientific research. Because of that, throughout the reading, we are likely to find pieces that speak directly to us—to further reflect on the issues, and hopefully put them into practice.Take care,Haical

“The response, in every field, to a ballooning library of human knowledge and an interconnected world has been to exalt increasingly narrow focus… Both training and professional incentives are aligning to accelerate specialization, creating intellectual archipelagos.”In Range, David Epstein examines the advantages of having a range of experiences, a broader perspective, an interdisciplinary approach, and the value of flexible thinking and reasoning in a world full complexity and uncertainty where precise, deterministic solutions are unknowable.SAMPLING PERIOD. The book starts by contrasting Tiger Woods, who began golfing at age two, and Roger Federer, who dabbled in a lot of activities before taking up competitive tennis. “As complexity increases—as technology spins the world into vaster webs of interconnected systems in which each individual only sees a small part—we also need more Rogers: people who start broad and embrace diverse experiences and perspectives while they progress.”“The sampling period is not incidental to the development of great performers—something to be excised in the interest of a head start—it is integral.” Yo-Yo Ma “started on violin, moved to piano, and then to the cello because he didn’t really like the first two instruments.”“Teaching kids to read a little early is not a lasting advantage. Teaching them how to hunt for and connect contextual clues to understand what they read can be… The trouble is that a head start comes fast, but deep learning is slow. ‘The slowest growth,’ the researchers wrote, occurs ‘for the most complex skills.’”MATCH QUALITY. Northwestern University economist Ofer Malmud studied match quality, “a term economists use to describe the degree of fit between the work someone does and who they are—their abilities and proclivities… For the period he studied, English and Welsh students had to specialize before college so that they could apply to specific, narrow programs… In Scotland… students were actually required to study different fields for their first two years of college… It should come as no surprise that more students in Scotland ultimately majored in subjects that did not exist in their high schools, like engineering.” Graduates in England and Wales were more likely to switch careers.“Instead of asking whether someone is gritty, we should ask when they are. ‘If you get someone into a context that suits them,” Orgas said, ‘they’ll more likely work hard and it will look like grit from the outside.” This reminds me of psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow.“All of the strengths-finder stuff, it gives people license to pigeonhole themselves or others in ways that just don’t take into account how much we grow and evolve and blossom and discover the new things.”KIND OR WICKED? Epstein explains the difference between “kind” learning environments, where patterns repeat predictably, and “wicked” learning environments.“In kind environments, where the goal is to re-create prior performance with as little deviation as possible, teams of specialists work superbly… Facing kind problems, narrow specialization can be remarkably efficient.”“In wicked domains, the rules of the game are often unclear or incomplete, there may or may not be repetitive patterns and they may not be obvious, and feedback is often delayed, inaccurate, or both. In the most devilishly wicked learning environments, experience will reinforce the exact wrong lesson.”“Our ability to think relationally… analogical thinking… allows humans to reason through problems they have never seen in unfamiliar contexts. It also allows us to understand that which we cannot see at all… It is a powerful tool for solving wicked problems.”“Facing uncertain environments and wicked problems, breadth of experience is invaluable… In a wicked world, relying on experience from a single domain is not only limiting, it can be disastrous.”HEDGEHOGS AND FOXES. “The narrow-view hedgehogs, who ‘know one big thing,’ and the integrator foxes, who ‘know many little things’” are good metaphors. “Beneath complexity, hedgehogs tend to see simple, deterministic rules of cause and effect framed by their area of expertise, like repeating patterns on a chessboard. Foxes see complexity in what others mistake for simple cause and effect. They understand that most cause-and-effect relationships are probabilistic, not deterministic. There are unknowns, and luck, and even when history apparently repeats, it does not do so precisely. They recognize that they are operating in the very definition of a wicked learning environment, where it can be very hard to learn from either wins or losses.”DEFINING A PROBLEM TOO NARROWLY. “Seeing small pieces of a larger jigsaw puzzle in isolation, no matter how hi-def the picture, in insufficient to grapple with humanity’s greatest challenges.”ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. Epstein explains how “incongruence” shifts the culture from mindlessly following standard procedures to encouraging critical thinking and good judgment. The book includes a life-or-death example of this sort of nimble thinking involving a team of U.S. Air Force pararescue jumpers.The book also includes a very interesting post-mortem analysis of the NASA Challenger shuttle catastrophe. “Physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman was one of the members of the commission that investigated the Challenger and in one hearing he admonished a NASA manager for repeating that Boisjoly’s data did not prove his point. ‘When you don’t have any data,’ Feynman said, ‘you have to use reason.’”Psychologist and organizational behavior expert Karl Weick coined the term “dropping one’s tools” as a metaphor for “unlearning, for adaptation, for flexibility.”“These are, by definition, wicked situations. Wildland firefighters and space shuttle engineers do not have the liberty to train for their most challenging moments by trial and error. A team or organization that is both reliable and flexible, according to Weick, is like a jazz group. There are fundamentals—scales and chords—that every member must overlearn, but those are just tools for sensemaking in a dynamic environment. There are no tools that cannot be dropped, reimagined, or repurposed in order to navigate an unfamiliar challenge. Even the most scared tools. Even the tools so taken for granted they become invisible. It is, of course, easier said than done. Especially when the tool is the very core of an organization’s culture.”RESEARCH AND INNOVATION. Epstein quotes Arturo Casadevall, chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. “If you write an interdisciplinary grant proposal, it goes to people who are really, really specialized in A or B, and maybe if you’re lucky they have the capacity to see the connections at the interface of A and B… Everyone acknowledges that great progress is made at the interface, but who is there to defend the interface?”The book includes a great example of how knowledge from an unlikely field—concrete mixing—helped to solve a problem that petrochemical engineers working on the Exxon Valdez oil spill were unable to solve within their own domain.“The challenge we all face is how to maintain the benefits of breadth, diverse experience, interdisciplinary thinking, and delayed concentration into a world that increasingly incentivizes, even demands, hyperspecialization.”This book came highly recommended and it did not disappoint. It nicely complements books I’ve read about complexity and efficiency.

I found Range to be an eye and mind opening book especially for those of us that were constantly tempted to follow an ever narrowing attitude towards knowledge, learning, perception as well as research. The book was written in a clear and accurate way that allows for knowledge to easily flow in while also offering a very pleasant read. The book is also very practical as it deals with many things we do every day throughout our life, and it helped me challenge my way of thinking on one hand while it also provided me with a new thinking and acting tool for right now and for the future. I recommend this book to all of us that were always fund of objectivity and didn’t have an accurate and practicable definition for it. Staying objective is difficult and this book is a very good companion for that task…

子供の頃から一つのことに集中させるという教育に、具体的に反論している本。なるほどと思える部分が多く、面白かった。

Very practical book, lot of examples and contextual examples to help understand how generalists can thrive in the world of specialists. Must read

Often seen as an insult, this book goes a long way into supporting the idea that specialisation is rarely the best thing for people.Being a teacher, more so being a high school teacher / secondary school teacher, students are often directed into specialisation into a university course without really knowing what the course is about or if they truly enjoy the subject. Students drop out or change courses due to being bored or realising that they aren't really willing to be accountants, computer programmers, doctors, or whatever for the rest of their lives.People who change jobs often are often seen as unhireable or risky simply because they change jobs often, when in fact their experiences should be looked at and how their resume ties together. People who change jobs, or fields, are often more adept at noticing issues or problems with things than people who specialise in one field for their whole life or only ever know one way to do something.Taking time to sit down with a group of people who don't work in the same field as you also means you get different opinions and ideas rather than working with people who all share the same focus.In some jobs though, specialising is important - you do want a doctor who has done the same operation numerous times, or if you are betting your life on someone who play golf, then you want to make sure that person has years of experience of doing that same repeated motion over and over and over.This book fully supports my own personal belief that range, combining knowledge and experience from multiple fields and late specialization is a better focus than early specialization."A jack of all trades, a master of none, is often better than a master of one."

Superb book if you are keen to know why the big picture matters!