Review of 'Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World' on 'Goodreads'
3 stars
It was fine but also a bit boringly written.
Hardcover, 352 pages
English language
Published Dec. 31, 2019 by Riverhead Books.
4 stars
(5 reviews)
What's the most effective path to success in any domain? It's not what you think.
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 …
What's the most effective path to success in any domain? It's not what you think.
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.
Review of 'Range' on 'Goodreads'
5 stars
The core premise here is that innovation often comes from applying old ideas in new ways. Whether tools are physical or mental, having a variety of tools in your toolkit allows you to approach problems more different ways. Epstein uses historical examples of groundbreaking ideas born from familiar concepts in one field being transferred to another to solve a big problem, examples where hyper-focused ideologies led to disaster, and various pieces of scientific evidence to support the premise that, while we need subject matter experts, we also need well rounded thinkers who can think abstractly about problems and apply old ideas in new ways.
While he critiques the 10,000 hour rule popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, I feel the presentation of the research behind it is caught in the crossfire. Gladwell’s presentation is a problem, but at times the way he presents critiques of that presentation are overly critical of the …
The core premise here is that innovation often comes from applying old ideas in new ways. Whether tools are physical or mental, having a variety of tools in your toolkit allows you to approach problems more different ways. Epstein uses historical examples of groundbreaking ideas born from familiar concepts in one field being transferred to another to solve a big problem, examples where hyper-focused ideologies led to disaster, and various pieces of scientific evidence to support the premise that, while we need subject matter experts, we also need well rounded thinkers who can think abstractly about problems and apply old ideas in new ways.
While he critiques the 10,000 hour rule popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, I feel the presentation of the research behind it is caught in the crossfire. Gladwell’s presentation is a problem, but at times the way he presents critiques of that presentation are overly critical of the research. He could have acknowledged that in Peak, Ericsson isn’t advocating putting your kid in a room with a violin 20 hours a day. He addresses that highly specialized skills don’t transfer unless they can be integrated into your existing mental models. He emphasizes that a core element of deliberate practice is being able to maintain a high level of focus throughout, and that repetition without the focus isn’t going to be that helpful. He doesn’t advocate anything like just abandoning everything else to train one skill.
Ultimately I don’t think they’re that far apart. They’re both selling the message that you can improve at things you want to improve at, and that it’s never too late to start learning. It did sour me a little to see how he presented Anders work, but I think both works can be used to inform your efforts at self improvement. I highly encourage both.
