Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World Paperback – April 27, 2021

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

This is a great book to give perspective of how having varied experiences could actually be beneficial as opposed to usual thinking of specialization. The author narrates good stories but it is with lot of repetition, the stories being dragged beyond the key takeaway or totally getting into super details - albeit the author is able to hold the interest. It definitely instills a lot of hope as well and opens views to how someone can pivot even late in their age.

David Epstein's book, RANGE, was a very enjoyable read. I enjoyed the stories included in the book as well as the numerous examples researched by Epstein to make his point "...why generalists triumph in a specialized world."The book was especially fascinating for me as a "Generalist" in my career. Even though I pursued some specialties in my 50+ year career, I found that as I had more and different career experiences I was a better manager and leader. Epstein's book helped me see why that was the case.Of note, my favorite chapter was Chapter 11, Learning to Drop Your Familiar Tools. Epstein began this chapter with stories from the Harvard Business School Carter Racing Team Case Study which was built around the Challenger Shuttle Disaster. Epstein showed that the "specialists" tended to be weak in asking for information outside of their expertise which in turn may have lead to the Challenger Disaster. Just this one chapter alone made the book a worthwhile read.I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this book to the aspiring technical manager as well as the parent raising their child. There are so many ideas included to help one realize that wide exposure to different experiences is so much better than being a singular "expert."

This is a beautifully written and well justified discussion of the various specific things that are not taken into account by the widespread cultural emphasis on early specialization for success and our popular model of performance in terms of domain-specific expertise.This takes the form of a single conclusion which I would paraphrase as: "we need to be able to play and explore widely and to color outside the lines for a while in order to become very good at solving the difficult problems we later encounter. But our cultural obsession with specialization pushes counter to that."There is a constant tension of the author's confidence in his conclusion that generalists are uniquely valuable and desperately needed and his recognition that he is fighting an almost Quixotic uphill battle against powerful cultural trends and incentives for specialization.What he means by specialization and the factors closely tied to it:1. Head Start: Encouraging children from an early age to narrowly pursue things they seem talented at or have an interest in.2. Domain-Specificity: Training with heavy emphasis on the specific narrow range skills we know we will need in the target environment and assuming far transfer of skills from other activities will be limited or non-existent.3. Disciplinary Focus: Viewing learning as consisting of accumulating facts and theories specific to a particular field or subfield of study in order to become highly skilled at working in that narrow field.4. Persistence: The idea that we should identify a passion early and stick with it no matter what because it’s what we’re good at and enjoy and so can become successful at it if we manage to persist.5. Fast and Efficient Short-Term Learning: The assumption that we are learning better when we feel familiar with the material quickly and that we are then learning more efficiently.Against those powerful and popular specialization factors, Epstein presents several compelling lines of evidence:1. Domain-Specificity varies with Kind vs. Wicked Learning: The argument for early specialization and domain-specificity is based on the observation that we need a long period of deliberate practice to accumulate the patterns and skills specific to performing in that specific activity and that practicing or exploring other activities is unlikely to do anything helpful for our performance in our specialty. Epstein counters that on closer inspection we find a crucial distinction between different kinds of domains and learning environments, where in some of them deliberate practice reliably makes us better but in others deliberate practice either helps much less or can even make us perform more poorly under some conditions. So not all domains or learning environments are equally specific and the head start is not equally helpful in all activities.2. Creative Performance comes from early exploration and interdisciplinary learning: Given the domain-specific view of expertise we tend to assume that in order for someone to perform at a high level in any activity, since they need expertise, they need to specialize in that activity. Epstein counters that when we focus specifically on creative performance, we find that deep expertise can be invaluable but is not enough. In order to come up with truly novel solutions to problems we need to make use of analogies that cross different domains while sharing deep structural similarities. That means being familiar with a wider range of ideas and ways of thinking than just those in our specialty, and so Epstein says creative performance is found more in people with broader backgrounds. Epstein argues that outstanding creative performance also tends to be associated with early exploration of different activities more than with early specialization.3. The Efficiency We Perceive from Narrow Immersion is Very Often Illusory: We tend to assume that when we feel more familiar with the activity or material that we are learning it. That’s part of the strong intuitive appeal for immersion in an activity comes from, it feels like we are learning more when we are more immersed. Epstein argues that the evidence from learning research show quite often exactly the opposite, that the learning we think we are doing under conditions of immersion is either much less or much shorter lived than we assume. Robert Bjork’s concept of “desirable difficulty” in learning and the evidence base behind it plays a central role in this argument. This, Epstein argues, tells us that “slow learning” which helps us make new connections between a wider range of experiences is much more conducive to learning in the long run than fast, efficient learning from immersion in a narrow subject matter.4. Match Quality is Not Necessarily the Same as Early Passion: Part of the argument for early specialization is based on the assumption that people have certain interests and talents from early on and if they can find something that matches them well and start early, they can align their passion with a successful career in that activity. Epstein argues that what we know about lifespan development tells us that people’s passions are not so fixed or narrow and finds a number of cases of exceptionally successful people who spent their lives exploring and trying different things before finding a match that was truly satisfying and successful for them.Range is an appeal to encourage exploration in our lives from early on and for experimenting and experiencing broadly in our learning, even though it may seem to be inefficient or slow. Epstein does not deny the immense value of long deliberate specialized practice in “kind” domains or the value of having deep specialized experience in some areas, but he has also made a passionate and well-argued case for making better use of a completely different dimension of performance. A dimension rooted in longer term developmental outcomes, more exploratory or playful learning, and an ongoing search for ever better matches between our interests and abilities and our activities.