Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World Hardcover – Illustrated, 28 May 2019

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.

We have all heard about the 10,000 hour rule: that to become an expert, it takes this much repetition and practice. So it seems to make sense that the best way to achieve that expertise is to get a good head start: start young, and to focus. Epstein picks apart that advice here. He has two main arguments, illustrated with copious anecdotes, about why range, or breadth of practice, is just as necessary as depth.First: 10,000 hours is a long time, requiring a lot of dedicated work. So, you need to be engaged with the topic: if you have not instantly picked your specific area (chess, golf, piano, whatever), you should spend some time surveying the field to discover what you want to do. Epstein give examples of world class sports people who engaged in several different sports initially, and world class musicians who played several instruments at first, before they focussed on one. These people at least had a field, and were just deciding which particular subgenre was for them. He also gives examples of people who tried a much broader range of occupations before discovering their vocation: flitting from job to job, never succeeding, giving up and moving on, until finally they found their life’s work; van Gogh is the best known example given here.Second: the fields where 10,000 hours of focussed practice works are relatively simple: the practitioner gets immediate feedback on how successful they are, and the topic is constrained, so it is clear where to focus the effort and expertise. However, many disciplines today involve wicked problems: there are no immediate or clear markers of success, the boundary of the problem is ill-defined, and expertise can become constraining, limiting the solution approaches considered. In these circumstances, breadth of experience is an advantage.Some depth is also needed, of course: too much breadth, and you end up knowing nothing about everything, as opposed to too much depth, where you know everything about nothing. So what are needed are T-shaped people: depth in some area, but breadth across areas, too. I am interesting in interdisciplinary working, and also use this metaphor of T-shaped expertise: in successful interdisciplinary teams, the ‘arms’ of the T join up to bridge between the different areas of expertise.The book is engagingly written, with many fascinating examples, and covers a broad range of ideas, from the Flynn effect of increasing IQ, to where outsiders have provided insight, to why too much grit may not be a good idea. This latter example discusses a problem with many suggested techniques for success: survivor bias. ‘All CEOs do X’, trumpet these works, implying that if you simply also do X, you too can become a CEO. But to evaluate this claim, you also need to know how many unsuccessful people also do X. After all, presumably all CEOs brush their teeth, eat food, and wear clothes, yet these are not the (sole) reasons for their success. In the case of grit, the successful people studied have indeed grittily persevered, yet Epstein provides examples of others who instead gave up, yet also succeeded, just in something different that fits them better.And, of course, this book itself also suffers somewhat from survivor bias: showing successful people who nevertheless flitted from job to job before their final success again does not imply that flitting from job to job will result in success. However, there is much interesting material here, and certainly it paints an interestingly different picture from the more mainstream view of the need for specialisation.

More corporations and employers should read this, to better understand the full meaning of the word “diversity” as it applies to their workforce.Also inspiring in its encouragement of each of us to explore our interests, goals, and curious thoughts, without giving weight to the predetermined expectations of others.

When Range hit the bookshelves in 2019, I couldn't wait to read it. Working with a self-avowed generalist from 2002 to 2007, we secured numerous technical government contracts for our small business. An English grad and a mid-life MBA. Generalists working together in fields dominated by big names in radio, construction, and military contracts. It was exciting.Excitedly, I devoured page after page of Epstein's material. He really hit a stride with this book. Neither of the other two titles I've read by Epstein resonated with me like this one. In true confession, I had to stop reading about a third of the way into my reading. Like some cosmic brain transfer, I was finding the content of his book sounding very much like the book I was writing.Sadly, I had set Range down and until I published my book. I wanted to finish my book without the influence of Epstein as I could see we were headed in the same direction. Once I published my book, I went on to finish Range. Weird to recognise parallel thought development so aligned with one's own thinking. I shared the same experience when I read Dan Pink's A Whole New Mind.I laughed at seeing principles I’ve identified being portrayed in Epstein’s own language and style. In fact, I loved it. I was also inspired by Epstein’s references and the near-total absence of regurgitated material on his subject. So many of these type books have been written that I often feel they are just expanding on previous iterations of an idea. What a joy it was to not find that in Range. Of course that is apart from the eerily similar references I deployed in my book.By itself, I give this the top rating. I loved it. Perhaps a part of that high praise could be that he and I are on the same wavelength. My copy of Range is far too heavily flagged with great bits to comment on specifics, but I would like to share my favourite quote:An enthusiastic, even childish, playful streak is a recurring theme in research on creative thinkers. (p 273)Thanks David!