What is Reddit's opinion of Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Please do yourself a favor and read this book. I guarantee it will change your perspective about being a generalist.

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=range&qid=1564934069&s=gateway&sr=8-2

The days of being a narrow specialist are past. The future is in being a generalist -- competence or even specialization in a wide range of areas. David Epstein's Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World is worth the read. For instance, consider why companies are how preferring a team of full stack engineers over separate back end and front end specialists. It's all about flexibility and adaptability in a fast changing landscape. A key feature of being a generalist is effectively using experience and concepts from learning past competencies to quickly learn new competencies.

The phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" is more typically used as a derogatory term, referring to someone who's dabbled in a bunch of things but never gained competence at any of them. You never really want to be described as a "jack of all trades."

The sentence, "Jack of all trades, but no master," followed by something about focusing on language stood out to me. That sentence is, language-wise, really awkward. The first half is like a title or adjective phrase, but the contrasting self half is incomplete or something. "... no master trade?" "... no master skill?" "... no master*y*?"

Anyway, there's a difference between a so-called jack of all trades, a generalist, and a specialist. A specialist is, of course, someone who's highly skilled in some particular domain.

Many people are unaware that the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" has mostly been used throughout its history with negative connotation. It's usedd to refer to a person who's dabbled at a bunch of things but never gained real competence at anything -- someone who has no real skills. Think of someone who's started to take guitar lessons but stops practicing, does a few programming tutorials but never advances beyond that, or take some college classes and drop out. This is someone with no follow through. They end up just being novices at a bunch of things but not having even basic competence at anything. This is where many people find themselves, and they often overestimate their skills.

A generalist is someone who's competent or skilled in a variety of areas. In today's fast paced technology driven world, you should strive to be a generalist so that you can be adaptable and flexible to whatever circumstances you find yourself in. I recommend reading David Epstein's Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. It's not something you can become overnight. A generalist is somewhat of a specialist in multiple domains.

So you should try to honestly evaluate what skills you do have and what you might be able to start specializing in quickly.

Definitely persuasive, but it shows that there's probably a local maximum of productivity that can be achieved by moving people out of school earlier and more specialized in their jobs. If we were engaged in a gradient descent hill-climbing algo optimizing for productivity, we might go along with his prescriptions.

However, I have a pretty firm belief that a broader range of generalist knowledge, when combined in unique combinations and permutations, often results in more new things created than hyper-specialization will. This line of thinking is represented in the book Range (https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484). I think university/general education helps us make a small selection of connections that have incredibly high ROI. Following the hill-climbing-algo example, generalist permutations of knowledge have the same effect as "random restart", which gives us a higher chance of finding a GLOBAL Maximum in productivity.

Buku ini menjelaskan bagaimana jack of all trades bisa sukses.

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

Definisi kaya kamu apa? Definisi jack of all trades kamu apa?

Contohnya, saya jack of all trades dalam software engineering, tapi bukan jack all of all trades dalam soal profesi.

That's because what employees need is range from their employees. The world is full of wicked problems and having employees with a diverse background and a range of skills makes solving these problems so much more doable.

Using the ideas from the book of Range, OW would be seen as a Kind World problem (ie. success and failure are well defined, as are how to achieve them), similar to games like Chess and Tennis, so grinding and hyperfocus is probably the most effective way of getting good. It's unlikely other types of activities to contribute much (minus some outside the box strategies, but even then, it's probably going to be other FPS or team-focused games and not biology books or retail experience).

Interesting Idea. I think the best way to start a book club would be just to start sharing ideas from some of the books that you've read related to polymathy.

I'll contribute one to the list. I can recommend: Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. Epstein offers a good comparative analysis between specialization v generalization in the context of professional career paths. Epstein is a sports writer himself, so naturally he's drawn to examines athletes - which is why one of the first people he examines in his research is Tiger Woods. He also explores musicians, chess players, and a few other professions to see how they measure in what he calls kind/wicked learning environments. Basically the more repetitive, familiar, and predictable your career path is, the better you're off specializing, vs the more "wicked" your career path is the more you'll benefit from a diverse range of skillsets.

Its actually a really good read, would recommend to you guys. If you're still unsure, always be sure to take a look at amazon reviews. lol people literally summarize the entire book in those things, you'll get all the cliff notes you need from there.

>There is a book called Range by David Epstein

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

He does a pretty thorough job of explaining the research in an entertaining way. It starts with a comparison between Tiger woods, who is the quintessential hyper specialized human being, and Roger Federer who was forced to play other sports besides tennis until he was about 17.

Give it a read, it might change your world view on what is important to learn. It certainly helped change mine.

I just finished reading a book called, "Range" by David Epstein for this very reason. I can't recommend it enough, for both individual self-esteem and societal import.

From reading the book Range, there was a quote about experts in complex fields that really stuck with me. "Experts are incredibly good at predicting the past."

That is how I feel about Peter. If the past holds true, yeah China will seize to exist as a country. Yeah Russia, Germany, and most of the EU is doomed to at best an economy like Japan's. Yeah we are going to experience worse global warming.

However if there is some element(s) that exist now that didn't in the past, these could change the results of this complex system.

> I don't agree with his projections all the time, and I think he's sort of a geographic determinist

This is the best take on Peter Zeihan actually.

After reading the book Range (a book on problem solving), one of the things that it talks about is experts in complex real world fields. Experts are really really really good at predicting the past. Their predictions aren't great if there is something different in the future that messes with their predictions.

I think Peter Zeihan is great and a lot of his underlying facts are true and should be considered, but all his predictions are based on history. That doesn't mean he is wrong, but it also doesn't mean that his predictions are destined to be true.

I'm going to be really interested in China trying to break history. I don't see how that nation will survive their demographic collapse (it takes 20 years to grow a 20 year old) and having way more boys than girls and how easy it is to disrupt their oil imports and the world aging as a whole so their exports have less demand and global warming sinking some of their best cities and having a shit ton of bad loans.

>Argue what is the other way around?

It's easier to teach engineering skills than problem-solving skills.

​

>sites like LeetCode, Codewars, Hackerrank and others kinda demonstrate that practising problem-solving skills for an interview is even easier than “just memorising a bunch of facts”

These don't teach broad problem-solving skills. This kind of practice is just memorizing of a solution to a given problem, not creative, abstract problem-solving. The book Range goes into this, dividing mechanic-based learning (rote practice of a specific thing, like a golf swing) that can only be very narrowly applied and more creative learning/problem solving that may take more time but is able to be applied over a great range of situations or problems. In the literature, I think this is described as kind world vs. cruel world problems.

​

>Which is pretty fine if you take like 6 months to evaluate someone.

This can be picked up in the course of a standard 2-4 round interview.

​

>So what it seems like to me, is that you are forcing your view for a specific situation on a complete different situation. Which makes little to no sense to me.

I'm applying my views on finding talent to this method of finding talent, which I think is an antipattern. That's all.

​

>Although I do appreciate hearing about people taking mentorship and training very seriously like you, because that’s probably the only way to get great talent and develop it.

I appreciate your appreciation :) While mentorship is not for everyone, and that's okay, I think that having people interested in mentorship on your team or in your org is a major force multiplier.

1. I’m a big fan of the Getting Things Done philosophy. Check it out, read the book, prioritize you work and life, schedule things out, and start crushing it. I’ve also had a Zero Inbox for years and it keeps me from constantly thinking that I’m missing something.

2. There’s a great YouTube channel called Impact Theory that might interest you. It’s a series of interviews with people that have found success, and they share how they’ve gotten to where they are. Watch a few episodes and you’ll notice some patterns that you’ll want to adopt.

3. Check out Range by David Epstein.

Great book, shows that breadth of experience is a great thing.

1. We went the route of raising money and hiring folks, software development company.

Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world.

Link to Amazon, but check it out from your public library before purchasing.

Great book about having knowledge and experience a foot wide but a mile deep might not be the best way to succeed.

I don't think so. There's something to be said about the deep knowledge that a specialist brings to the table, but I think in today's fast paced world, being a generalist and being competent in a wide range of subjects brings more value. (See Range)

Si bien esta bueno profundizar un poco en la version facil de los temas que vas a ver en la universidad en su version dificil, esta tambien bueno tener una base solida de conocimientos generales como base antes de especializarse.

Estoy justo leyendo Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World (no lo encontre en español) y se tiene un punto importante... especializarse sirve en un campo estatico, pero, cuando las cosas cambian, enfoques o como resolver problemas de otros campos pueden mejorar como te vas a desempeñar como profesional, en un mundo menos ideal que lo que te enseñaron. Y las cosas han cambiado mucho en los ultimos años, y van a seguir cambiando, y mas rapido, casi sin importar en que carrera te metas.

Tengo la idea que la division por orientaciones en lo preuniversitario no es algo tan comun, aunque no sabria decir cuantos ni cuales paises siguen uno u otro enfoque. Y tendria como ventaja no solo un conocimiento mas cabal lo que son todas las alternativas que se te abren, y poder cambiar de carrera sin tener que recursar parte del liceo, al menos para ese 32% de las carreras donde si importa la orientacion.

Range by David Epstein

He outlines the reasons why fast tracking in life constrains you and why most high achievers have a meandering course gathering experiences.

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/ref=nodl_

It helps a lot to know your path, but have her read this book:

https://smile.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

Talks a lot about career hoppers and people that ended up in great spots despite bouncing around.

With all that said, I do think a more direct path makes for a much easier life.

A good generalist is really just a specialist in many, varied areas. For example, John von Neumann considered himself a generalist, and he's probably the greatest generalist of all time. He made important discoveries and contributions in statistics, logic, geometry, game theory, quantum physics, fluid dynamics, computing, programming, economics and so on.

Someone who's just dabbled at a bunch of different things but isn't good at any of them is what's called a jack of all trades (what was once a derogatory term). They aren't a generalist because they aren't good at anything.

Ideally, early in your career, you specialize in something. As you become more experienced, you pick up more expertise and specializations and morph into a generalist. But a lot of people don't have the mental plasticity and focus to become a generalist, so they stick to the few things they know well and remain specialists.

Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World is a good book on the topic.

To that, I'd add that learning other skills can feed back into music in unexpected and novel ways that make you stand out and excel. Maybe you work as a lab researcher and find a way to convert micrometeorite data into musical sequences. Or your day job as a project manager makes you really good at organizing sound assets. There are some really compelling data-backed anecdotes about this in the book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, by David Epstein: https://smile.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

> Learn some real instruments, if you have the money buy some actual hardware

I can't overemphasize the importance and fluidity of being able to play stuff in realtime, OVER just step-sequencing. It speeds up much what of you do by a massive factor, increasing your potency for translating ideas from your head — if you can lay down a syncopated melodic bassline in the time it takes to hear it, not only does your human input translate those personal aspects (which would otherwise be lost), you spend a lot less time moving around notes with your keyboard, mouse, etc. You can always quantize/refine after, but it's that initial capture that makes the difference.

LPT: for "actual hardware", if space and budget are limited, the Arturia KeyStep https://www.arturia.com/keystep/overview and its relatives (KeyStep Pro, BeatStep line) are surprisingly potent. I'm amazed to this day how the velocity response of the KeyStep, and the aftertouch sensitivity BEATS OUT many bigger keys.

Also, don't settle for traditional pitchbend + modwheel. Treat yourself to an Expressive E Touché (if you don't have hardware controller needs, the SE model is cheaper). Makes filter sweeps, wild wobbles, and soforth a LOT more fun to gesture in. If I had to start all over again, I'd begin here. https://www.expressivee.com/1-touche

Definitely persuasive, but it shows that there's probably a local maximum of productivity that can be achieved by moving people out of school earlier and more specialized in their jobs. If we were engaged in a gradient descent hill-climbing algo optimizing for productivity, we might go along with his prescriptions.

However, I have a pretty firm belief that a broader range of generalist knowledge, when combined in unique combinations and permutations, often results in more new things created than hyper-specialization will. This line of thinking is represented in the book Range (https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484). I think university/general education helps us make a small selection of connections that have incredibly high ROI. Following the hill-climbing-algo example, generalist permutations of knowledge have the same effect as "random restart", which gives us a higher chance of finding a GLOBAL Maximum in productivity.

>There are many people who are totally unwilling to take on the amount of student debt going to college requires, especially when they know they may not be going into a lucrative career.

The median wage premium has only been going up from 1970 to 2012 (when this study was done). You've been fed lies all your life that college isn't worth it. Even the median teacher makes more than the median plumber.

>More importantly, you can directly trace the rise in college costs to when the Clinton administration guaranteed any student who wanted a loan would receive one. Colleges don't need to charge 60,000 per semester for an english degree, but they can because the government is essentially bankrolling it.

So I agree that government backed loans is the main reason college prices are going up. The college wage premium has far far out grown the price of college. Remember, increasing your salary by 10% in exchange for doubling your tuition is worth it. And you're mistake about the cost of college. It's more like 10k per semester at a public uni or 22k per semester at a private uni.

>It's also the case that guaranteed student loans have allowed employers to require degrees for things that don't need them.

Another myth. Don't you think employers would have started figuring out how to tap into high school students that are basically just as good as college graduates and pay them much less for the same work?

I get it. When you are in school, it doesn't feel like math and reading are going to help you in your career. However in this wicked world, it turns out all these classes make us much better problem solvers and that is what people do at their jobs. They solve problems.

Range by David Epstein. It’s really good

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

I did not read this but here is interesting title book: https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

so maybe nowadays maybe it is better to be fullstacker than specialising.

For all those who feel identified, please read the book range

The answer always - "it depends".

But the history and evolution shows us, that in changing (and especially quickly changing environments) generalists survive, while specialists may die out.

The other question though, that they "survive", but not "thrive". Specialists with very specific advanced skills may thrive in very specialized environments. But as soon (if) this environment changes, these specialists may die out (in society it means their skills will be obsolete).

The example from your industry. In 1960-90s the credit manager was a highly paid and stable career, it required some very specific skills. in 00-10s these managers were replaced by scoring systems (with lots of business intelligence and machine learning under the hood). Those managers, who had other skills - migrated to other banking roles. Those who had not - retired or moved to sales.

Same with clerks and their management in customer facing offices/branches. I remember hundreds of bank branches in large cities. This profession is dying out because of digital and neo-banks. So these guys, who thought about careers in this field (and branch manager was a very good role for several hundred years, stable and good compensation) - need to find another career or profession.

Scott Adams has some interesting ideas about this in this book "How to fail...".

Range is also very interesting read

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1633863194&sr=1-1

As of now (at this moment) you can easily switch industries, if you're a data guy (BI, ML, Data engineering, Data architecture). In future, probably, when this stuff will be more automated the value of product/function knowledge will be more important.

But again, all of above are just educated guesses, noone knows you and your situation better than you and noone has a crystal ball.

For example, Paul Heyne in his seminal introduction to Economics "Economic way of thinking" has different point of view, that "Our society/economy is so rich because it is _specialized_. "

Read this book
https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

Well, these sound like anecdotes supporting generalization, instead of specialization.

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

I'm a generalist SWE with a bachelor's and a few graduate ML courses (no master's). I like applied research and have picked up a few patents over the years (but no publications). Always made a great salary and had interesting co-workers, although the work is not always super exciting. I know a lot of frustrated PhDs/academics, it never seemed worth it to me, and I don't like pretending that I'm brilliant.

I would say to start thinking in terms of careers rather than jobs. A career is a long-lived occupation that involve things like long-term goals, advancement, and personal development. A career is not just a string of jobs but some kind of progression. In this regard, modern careers require a high degree of adaptability and a range of competences -- the opposite of being super niche. (I recommend reading David Epstein's book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World).

What kind of career should you pursue? I don't think anyone here can answer that. Should you not pursue a career just because it's competitive or hard to break into? No, not necessarily. Careers are these long-ranging things. You should have a series of progressively more advanced career related goals that you're trying to achieve. Sometimes you don't hit them and you need to turn to plan B or revise your goals.

I switched career paths. I have both undergrad and grad degrees in a humanities field. Adjunct taught humanities classes for half a decade. Adjuncts were paid $3k/class back then, and I taught 3 or 4 classes a year. I was pretty poor and my prospects of getting a full time tenured professorships were looking dim. So, I taught myself how to program, planning to leave academia. I picked up some adjunct teaching in a CS department as I learned and soon I was teaching full time in a range of core CS courses. From here I asked some companies whether I could get some industry experience and got back a bunch of offers. I picked the cybersecurity one. I don't have any CS or STEM degrees. I don't have any certifications. I didn't know much about cybersecurity when I landed that job. I have leveraged and made use of all the skills and knowledge I've picked up along the way, and that stood out to a hiring manager at this company.

Say you're really good at beatboxing and you have a little success doing it and people start to know who you are. But you want to switch to cybersecurity. You don't have to throw away all the skills and knowledge you used in your beatboxing career. You have to leverage those transferable skills. If you want to make tons of money as a cybersecurity researcher, you need to build your brand. People need to know who you are and what you've done. Well perhaps you had some experience marketing yourself as a beatboxer, making videos or streaming your beatboxing and stuff. That's all useful to do as a cybersecurity researcher too in terms of building a personal brand. Not every skill is going to transfer over and you'll need to gain new skills. But you have to be adaptable. (Also this analogy is weird because you probably have to standout a whole lot more and have a lot more luck as a beatboxer/entertainer to make a successful career than in cybersecurity. So, beatboxing/entertainment is probably the one with lower probability of success even if you are good.)

Simply being reliable and hardworking is not enough to make a career out of because there's nothing about that to advance, there's no progression to be made, and careers are about progression. You have to become competent at something, which you can develop into expertise. And in this fast-paced modern world, you need to develop multiple competencies and be ready to have specialized skills in many different areas to be adaptable to changing needs and demands.

>Except you're pretty much never gonna use an Odin in ranked.

Strange I pretty clearly said that. I also explained why that's not in itself a bad thing.

>But for the majority of players it would he like spending a bunch of time practicing half court shots for the rare occasion you might actually have to shoot one.

NBA and college basketball players do practice those. They also practice a lot of trick shots, deep 3 point shots, and many things they rarely ever use in a real game. They also often practiced or played other sports that were unrelated to their main game. Watch top tier 3 point shooters like Stephen Curry hit half court shots in shoot around before the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_5ma9DRZiA

It doesn't mean you practice exclusively that all the time, but incorporating "noise" into your routine has been shown to improve overall performance. If you say practice 85-95% the things you will do exactly in the match and say 5-15% random fluff it can still improve your performance because it's training your brain how to handle edge cases.

There's actually a lot of neuroscience work in done into studying this. If you want a good easy read on the subject the book "Range: Why Generalist Triumph in a Specialized world" goes over a lot of it.

https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484

I've taught college courses for 15 years. I've taught in both humanities departments and engineering departments. Here's a different perspective.

Don't specialize early on. Don't pick your major based on perceived career path. The majority of college graduates don't work in the field they majored in. Most Bachelor's degree programs are not designed to be career training.

Bachelor's programs originated in the liberal arts -- science, art, and humanities -- educational philosophy. The idea is to gain a broad, generalized education focusing on critical thinking skills -- that's why most programs have general education requirements, forcing you to take classes outside of your major. To get the most out of college, don't try to min-max for your intended career. Use your time to become a good critical thinker, a good writer, a good communicator, and make connections.

You'll have a lot of time to specialize in something later on. I recommend reading David Epstein's book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World ( https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484 ). Companies don't usually hire new graduates as specialists anyway. They're looking for well rounded people brimming with potential.

Decades ago, a person could specialize in one narrow field and spend their entire career there. However, technology has speed the pace of development exponentially. Stuff changes much faster and further today than in the last century. This means that you likely won't be able to spend your entire working life in one career. The major and career path that you study for in school may not even be viable once you graduate -- ask current petroleum engineering students. So you need to be adaptable and flexible, with generalized skills. Those are the hardest to learn. Hard skills, technical skills, and job specific skills are the easiest to learn.

Pick your major based on what you're most interested in. In the long run, your choice of major isn't what matters. Focus on leveling up your soft skills. Learn about stuff outside of your major.

I have only humanities degrees. These days I teach computer science at university and I work on the side as a cybersecurity researcher.

You don't want to be a jack of all trades and master of none. People seem to forget or not know about original negative connotation of the term. The phrase was used as a derogatory comment for people who dabbled in a broad range of subjects but only had superficial knowledge in each. Although, perhaps the phrase does describe you if you know a bunch of buzzwords but don't actually know anything about the topics beyond that.

A jack of all trades is different than a generalist. A generalist is someone who's become competent or even a specialist in several subjects. You absolutely want to become a generalist. David Epstein's book, Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, is a good read about this: https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484