Notes and picks from "Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World"

Notes and picks from book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein.

Specialized learning vs broad/wide learning

Epstein is against having 10,000-Hour Rule in a very high position. He starts with comparing Tiger Woods (who has been practicing golf heavily from early childhood) and Roger Federer (who dabbled in many different kinds of sports in his youth).

Epsteing makes a distinction between "kind" and "wicked" environments (reminds me of Cynefin framework:

• "Kind" environments are environments with clear rules, cause-and-effect etc.
  • E.g. chess, firefighters, playing violin
  • In fields like this, 10,000-Hour rule is more relevant.
  • Studying often relates to patterns & repetitive structures
• "Wicked" environments don't have so clear rules
  • Wider learning needed, very narrow expertise might event hurt the outcome

Too narrow knowledge

Epstein states that people are studying/taught too much deep separate branches of knowledge without getting a big picture.

Research of James Flynn is discussed (e.g. Flynn effect, increase in IQ test scores over the 20th century). According to Epstein, Flynn states that universities are teaching too much narrow specialization instead of giving breadth and critical thinking

“Even the best universities aren’t developing critical intelligence,” he said. “They aren’t giving students the tools to analyze the modern world, except in their area of specialization. Their education is too narrow.”

Scientific education does not automatically make us more critical or open-minded: Yale law & psychology professor Dan Kahan has shown that more scientifically-literate people are more likely to become dogmatic in politics-polarized subjects in science, see e.g. column Why we are poles apart on climate change.

Ospedale della Pietà is also discussed

• A convent, orphanage and music school in Venice.
• In the 1600s & 1700s it was famous for its all-female musical ensembles.
• Epstein states that the students were learning many different instruments in their youth instead of focusing early in one instrument.

Analogies, potentially from distant domains, can be valuable when solving difficult problems.

Daniel Kahneman's Curriculum project was also referred - beware the "inside view".

Slow learning preferred

Eptein states that learning should not be fast. Struggle to retrieve information improves learning / moves knowledge to long term memory. Learning is improved by spacing, testing and making connections.

If you want it to stick, learning should be slow and hard, not quick and easy. The professors who received positive feedback had a net negative effect on their students in the long run. In contrast, those professors who received worse feedback actually inspired better student performance later on.

Focused "head start" or "early sampling"

Epstein discusses study & career paths - whether one should "be gritty with their chosen path" or change path if finding out that selected path is not optimal.

• Epstein has concept of "match quality" - vision of the ideal career
• "Winners quit fast and often" instead of "Quitters never win"
• Knowing when to quit is important (though perseverance in difficult times is also important)
• One's personality is not fixed
  • Personality changes by time, especially between 18 & late 20's -> early guess might result in low match quality.
  • Also, personality varies by context - Instead of asking who's gritty and who is not, ask who is gritty in which situation.

Some related quotes

We find who we are by living.

We discover (our) possibilities by doing, trying out new activities, building new networks, finding new role models.

An early sampling period is better than a focused head start.

Foxes, Birds, Hedgehogs and Frogs

There are parables related to deep vs broad knowledge and experience. These two were presented:

Foxes vs Hedgehogs

• E.g. Essay by Isiah Berlin
• Title is attributed to the Ancient Greek poet Archilochus quote: "a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog one important thing"
• "Hedgehogs" would be people who view the through the lens of a single defining idea
• "Foxes" would be people drawing on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single ideac

Birds vs frogs

Comes from Dyson Freeman essay). Deep vs broad thinking - both are needed

Birds fly high in the air and survey broad vistas of mathematics out to the far horizon.They delight in concepts that unify our thinking and bring together diverse problems from different parts of the landscape.

Frogs live in the mud below and see only the flowers that grow nearby. They delight in the details of particular objects, and they solve problems one at a time.

On decision-making and communication

Carter racing case study discussed (Related to Nasa Challenger launch disaster and decisions made there)

• We don’t do good job asking “whether the data currently shown is all the data we need for making a decision or is there more data”
• Reminds me of Kahneman's concept What You See Is All There Is

"Chain of command" and "Chain of communication" should be differentiated (information should flow in many directions).

Value of wide knowledge / range

Epstein tells an example of coronary stents & cardiologists: High specialization in one area causes one to see that one thing to be “the one” for any case (seeing only a couple of pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle)

Quote from Oliver Smithies:

Take your skills to a place that's not doing the same sort of thing. Take your skills and apply them to a new problem, or take your problem and try completely new skills.

New knowledge combinations

To recap: work that builds bridges between disparate pieces of knowledge is less likely to be funded, less likely to appear in famous journals, more likely to be ignored upon publication, and then more likely in the long run to be a smash hit in the library of human knowledge. •

Related articles:

• Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators
• Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science

Advice for anyone: It's important to read “something outside your field”.

Final quotes

Compare yourself to yourself yesterday, not to younger people who aren’t you... you probably don’t even know where exactly you’re going, so feeling behind doesn’t help

 

So, about that, one sentence of advice: Don’t feel behind... research in myriad areas suggests that mental meandering and personal experimentation are sources of power, and head starts are overrated.