Range EXPORT Paperback

A few months ago, I saw this as-yet-unreleased title (which Amazon sooo craftily put in front of my eyeballs) and thought, "I MUST HAVE THIS BOOK. Preferably yesterday." In addition to my interest in the science of it, I badly needed the ego boost, because that generalist guy *is* me. So I pre-ordered it, which I rarely do with an author I have no experience with.The book does not disappoint. Epstein emphasizes that even though stories like those of golfer Tiger Woods and the chess-master Polgar sisters get all the attention, real life just isn't like golf or chess. Those activities happen in "kind" environments, where rules are few, goals are simple, and progress is easy to measure. Real life operates in the "wicked" domain, where rules are myriad, goals change, and there is no simple measure of progress. In complex environments, those whose brains have trained to deal with a lot of different situations -- i.e. the generalists -- perform a lot better.In addition to a recap of the science of learning and expertise, Epstein digs up valuable nuggets from the literature on improved problem-solving, the proper fit between talent and career, and optimizing education for versatility. I also loved the stories of the unsung badasses that I'd heard little of, like three-time accidental CEO Frances Hesselbein, and the "figlie del coro" multi-instrumental virtuoso women of baroque-era Venice.This is a great book and a fun, quick, well-written read. Take heart, ye restless career-hoppers, that many if not most people operating at the highest levels of human accomplishment -- rafts of Nobelists, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Roger Federer -- were generalists who got a relatively late start at their metier and achieved greatness not in spite of it, but because of it. So keep on exploring.-- Ali Binazir, M.D., M.Phil., Happiness Engineer and author of  The Tao of Dating: The Smart Woman's Guide to Being Absolutely Irresistible , the highest-rated dating book on Amazon, and  Should I Go to Medical School?: An Irreverent Guide to the Pros and Cons of a Career in Medicine

“Range” is a good title for this wide-ranging book. The subtitle is also descriptive – why generalists triumph in a specialized world. I want this to be true, not sure that it is. Everybody purports to value the generalists as leaders, innovators and visionaries, but nobody wants to hire generalists. The generalist challenge is sequencing. You need some sort of specialty to get most jobs. After you have cleared that threshold, you can spread out. Being a generalist is essential at the higher levels of leadership, but you have to get there first by a specialized route.Diverse sourcesReturning to “Range,” the author is very wide-ranging. He refers to dozens of books that I have read over the past couple years. In fact, you could read “Range” as a kid of frame for others. I wonder, however, if I would have gotten the same benefit from “Range” had I been less familiar with books like “Peak,” “Grit,” “Late Bloomers,” “Where Good Ideas Come From” or “Super Forecasters,” among others.The advantage of borrowingThe author freely borrows ideas from all those, which is part of the main theme of the book. Lot of ideas are out there. Generalists find them, compile them and put them into new context. Discovering is important; assembling is too. Generally, assemblers are responsible for more effective innovation.Innovation cannot be created directly; else it would not be innovation. Epstein encourages lateral thinking and that is best accomplished by broad knowledge and broad contacts. Recall that innovation is not the same as invention. Innovation involves using new inventions but more often by applying existing – sometimes very prosaic – factors in new ways.Foxes & hedgehogsEpstein uses the old Izaiah Berlin metaphor of hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs know one thing very deeply; foxes know lots of things but not in detail. Both sorts are necessary. Hedgehogs develop inventions and ideas. Foxes assemble. In settled or limited situations, hedgehogs do better, since they can apply bodies of knowledge and experience. This is where grit pays off. MOST of life is like this. If this was not true, there would be little use in any sort of professional expertise or practice. When board a commercial airline, we hope the pilot and crew do NOT need to innovate, that they will follow well-known and established procedures. The division of labor works and innovation can be overrated.In new or uncertain situations, however, it is the foxes that excel. Foxes beat hedgehogs consistently when trying to predict uncertain events. Epstein mentions the work of Phillip Tetlock, who did a multi-decade study of experts in political pundits. He found that the experts were no better than random chance in predicting big political events out more than a short time or innovations. In fact, the specialists were often WORST in their own specialties, and the most famous were often worst of all. (I recall this from when the Soviet Union fell. Nobody predicted this, although some have now implied that they did.) Tetlock (and Epstein) speculate that the reason is that famous pundits get famous by making radical predictions and then not backing down when they are wrong. They can also tell better stories. Those experts are hedgehogs.The foxes do much better because they are willing to listen to broad and new information and to change their minds. Theirs is a more iterative procedure, incorporating new information as available and a willingness to “flip-flop” when it makes sense.Is grit overrated?One of the things I liked a lot about the book was that it was wide ranging, but that means that the story line is something a little tangential. Epstein spends a lot of time talking about grit and persistence. He is not against it but says it may be overrated. This is especially true for young people. They have to make commitments to studies or career before they know themselves, before their personalities are formed. It might be a bad fit. Sometimes the best thing you can do is quit and move to something more appropriate.We tend to double down because of the sunk cost fallacy. The more time or money we spend on something, the less likely we are to abandon it. It is called a fallacy because that is exactly what it is. Even if you spend $1 million on something, if the payoff from additional investment does not pay off, the sunk cost does not matter.It reads more logically than it was livedHis closing advice is that you have to experiment and try lots of things. Epstein points out that the stories we tell of success and innovation tend to be more orderly than the reality. It is the narrative fallacy. It is hard to tell as story w/o a narrative, which explains it. Stories are more logical and plausible than reality.I recommend the book. It is well written and the themes appropriately diverse. My only complaint is one I have for almost all such books. They include too many personal stories. They are kind of larded into books. I cynically think they are there to make the book long and heavy enough to be taken seriously, but I suppose readers like the human stories. My problem is that lots of the authors use the same stories or at least the same people. As I wrote, I read a lot of these sorts of books and I have heard many of them before.

These sorts of populist pseudo science books invariably race along and carry you with them until you are pulled up by a ‘fact’ that you happen to know isn’t true. David Epstein’s somewhat counter intuitive notion that generalists triumph over specialists may or may have some merit. However, a key argument that the 2014 German World Cup winning squad was stacked with players who’d come late to football and were ‘typically late specialists’ simply isn’t correct. Many of them had played for their national side at Under 17, 19 and 21 level and were attached during that time to major clubs. This might not leap out at American readers but European sports fans would know Epstein’s claim doesn’t ring true. Which, of course, makes you wonder what else he glosses over or fudges. Despite having shelled out on an appealing looking book and thesis I gave up at that point- page 8!

I will give u a very brief summary of the book. So here it is.It is important to do a sampling a range of related things in your field before you choose a specialisation. It helps to develop an overall competence so that the skills learnt in other fields act as an added advantage and boost your final skill in your chosen field. Also, you will know which field suits you the best and for which you have a passion which will help you in the long term to achieve excellence on par with the best in the world.The age of sampling should be typically between 6 to 16. In these formative years you can experiment freely and as your body is flexible and ur brain plastic, you can learn many skills naturally.Thirdly, not all specialisation needs sampling and range. For eg Golf, Chess and Coding need a lot of practice and pattern recognition rather than different set of skills. So, in such fields u can simply go for a specialisation without wasting time on sampling period.

I was encouraged by the early chapters, first 80 pages or so, it kept to the point of the title and gave good examples.Unfortunately at around 100 pages or so - Chapter 5 or thereabouts - the quality of writing deteriorated significantly with normal conventions on grammar and punctuation seemingly ignored. I gave up soon after that as the writing became so disjointed and irritating.I tried dipping in to later chapters and the quality of writing had seemed to improve but there was so much rambling that by the time the point of each description had been reached I didn't care.I was disappointed since I have long been a believer in what was said in the early pages but the book just didn't do it justice.

The idea that deep and early specialisation is necessary for attainment had made its way everywhere, including the idea that enjoyment comes from mastery: exhortations to immerse ourselves in deliberate practice. Tiger mums, ping pong champions, the ever present Polgar sister story.Range is a very welcome antidote - well argued and looking at a range of research as well as illustrative stories: offsetting Tiger Woods with Federer or the German Football team, creativity in science, mastery of multiple instruments.I was fascinated to read for example how Darwin was a massive collaborator, not just the barnacle super-specialist I had assumed; or the struggles of Kepler as he reached to conceive of new possibilities.A really good book, and I hope it has the impact it deserves.

What’s the difference between Roger Federer and Tiger Woods? Epstein describes their background and training, all the way to their present-day status and concluded that Tiger Woods’ path was an ‘unwavering specialization’ whereas Federer is that of a more relaxed, wide ranging trial of other sports before he gave up the others to concentrate on tennis. Federer’s path is more common, Epstein noted, but less well-known.This book is about getting range, not depth – at least not too quickly. Citing the works of Daniel Kahneman, Philip Tetlock, and many others, Epstein proffered the view that it is better to be the fox that knows many things rather than the hedgehog who only knows one big thing.In science, Epstein, citing James Flynn, noted that, ‘students learned the facts of their specific field without understanding how science should work in order to draw true conclusions’. ‘One good tool is rarely enough’ he writes, ‘in a complex, interconnected rapidly changing world’. Epstein, however, is not against specialization, but is voicing thoughts of a wider range.