RIVERHEAD Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World

good

This book has a point, but could have been half the length. It revolves around same topic without building too much on it, and some examples are consumingly long and unnecessarily detailed which even derails you from main point. I liked it, but became too repetitive after half of it.

It was exciting reading this book. the book was not very comfortable to read due to small font. I would avoid buying the mass market edition.

Good for knowledge

Aucune surprise, je m'attendais à un livre génial, et c'est ce que j'ai eu.Les premiers chapitres m'ont paru un peu long. Beaucoup d'exemples historiques et d'études scientifiques racontés en détail, je ne savais pas où l'auteur voulait en venir.Par la suite c'est bien mieux, j'imagine qu'il voulait poser des bases solides, pour faciliter la compréhension de son point de vue. Les chapitres suivants sont davantage concrets et explicites.Si vous êtes vraiment intéressé par ce concept et souhaitez l'appliquer dans votre vie, Polymath de Peter Hollins est un bon complément : il y présente un plan d'action pour arriver à devenir un Polymath soi-même, là où Range est plus axé sur les preuves scientifiques, la comparaison Spécialiste VS Généraliste.Bonne lecture !

this book should be widely read in many fields, campuses, corporate and military....seems well researched and is well written, easy to read

What a relief and mode-booster have been reading this book.I'm a generalist and now feel even more ready to keep enhancing the range!

Es un libro muy interesante. Da una nueva visión de la vida.Siempre he pensado que ser especialista en algo, era importante, pero hay mucha gente que es multidisciplinar y eso les hace buenos en algo en concreto, o en muchas cosas, al darles un amplio rango de conocimientos.Si tienes conocimientos variados, puedes dar respuesta a algo desde distintos puntos de vista.Por ejemplo, si eres arquitecto y solo sabes de arquitectura, pues estas limitado a eso. Pero si eres arquitecto y además tienes conocimientos en interiorismo, iluminación, en diseño, en matemáticas, etc... te conviertes en un arquitecto con muchas cualidades y que puede tener otros puntos de vista al conocer mas sectores, que enriquecen el principal. Lo que viene siendo, lo que antes eran los genios que eran arquitectos, filósofos, matemáticos, astrónomos ..

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.