Plenty of experts argue that anyone who wants to develop a skill, play an instrument, or lead their field should start early, focus intensely, and rack up as many hours of deliberate practice as possible. If you dabble or delay, you’ll never catch up to the people who got a head start. But a closer look at research on the world’s top performers, from professional athletes to Nobel laureates, shows that early specialization is the exception, not the rule.
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see.
Provocative, rigorous, and engrossing, Range makes a compelling case for actively cultivating inefficiency. Failing a test is the best way to learn. Frequent quitters end up with the most fulfilling careers. The most impactful inventors cross domains rather than deepening their knowledge in a single area. As experts silo themselves further while computers master more of the skills once reserved for highly focused humans, people who think broadly and embrace diverse experiences and perspectives will increasingly thrive.
Source: Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized world by David Epstein
Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized world by David Epstein is a book about the benefits of breadth in the modern world. One of the issues raised throughout is that specialisation focuses on complicated problems, but does not necessarily help with wicked complex problems. Grit and expertise only get you so far.
Approach your own personal voyage and projects like Michelangelo approached a block of marble, willing to learn and adjust as you go, and even to abandon a previous goal and change directions entirely should the need arise. Research on creators in domains from technological innovation to comic books shows that a diverse group of specialists cannot fully replace the contributions of broad individuals. Even when you move on from an area of work or an entire domain, that experience is not wasted.
One of the benefits of breadth is the opportunity to come to a problem as an outsider, but with a range of references to draw upon.
In some ways this book reminds me of Amy Burvall’s argument to collecting the dots, as well as the art of holding on tightly and letting go lightly. However, breadth verses depth is also something of a wicked problem.
The If Books Could Kill podcast raised the problem that the breadth of research and anecdotes thrown together in these sorts of books can sometimes be problematic. Or as Tosin Adeoti raised in a review, it is hard to ‘distinguish fact from assumption’:
While I believe that there might be valuable insights in the book, most of them are embedded within contextually bare stories that are edited to fit a particular narrative. It is nearly impossible to distinguish fact from assumption. I suggest reading each chapter heading and skipping straight to the last two pages for a brief summary of the argument, thus avoiding wasting time on unnecessary fluff. Then, use those topics as a starting point for further study.
Source: Book Review By ‘Tosin Adeoti
I therefore wonder if the book is useful as a provocation as much as a manual for success. For example, Martin Weller looks past some of the over-simplified findings to reflect upon his experiences of ‘range’, whether it be offering different forms of assessment, the rewards that come from a breadth of experience and the benefits of different perspectives on a situation.
Going beyond the question of success, if the focus is on wicked problems, I feel that Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s work is a better place to start? I was also reminded of Warren Berger’s book A More Beautiful Question too in regards to engaging with the unfamiliar.