{"product":{"product_id":"0735214484","title":"Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World","price":"13.99","image_url":"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41c2PR2VIyL._SL500_.jpg","url":"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735214484"},"comments":[{"body":"Please do yourself a favor and read this book. I guarantee it will change your perspective about being a generalist.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=range\u0026amp;qid=1564934069\u0026amp;s=gateway\u0026amp;sr=8-2","subreddit_name":"webdev","author":"becauseSonance"},{"body":"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](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/) 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. \r\n\r\nThe 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.\"","subreddit_name":"cybersecurity","author":"ilovemacandcheese"},{"body":"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*?*\"* \r\n\r\nAnyway, 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. \r\n\r\nMany 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. \r\n\r\nA 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](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484). It's not something you can become overnight. A generalist is somewhat of a specialist in multiple domains. \r\n\r\nSo you should try to honestly evaluate what skills you do have and what you might be able to start specializing in quickly.","subreddit_name":"povertyfinance","author":"ilovemacandcheese"},{"body":"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. \r\n\r\n  \r\nHowever, 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.","subreddit_name":"Destiny","author":"CaptDraco"},{"body":"Buku ini menjelaskan bagaimana jack of all trades bisa sukses.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484\r\n\r\nDefinisi kaya kamu apa?\r\nDefinisi jack of all trades kamu apa?\r\n\r\nContohnya, saya jack of all trades dalam software engineering, tapi bukan jack all of all trades dalam soal profesi.","subreddit_name":"indonesia","author":"TKI_Kesasar"},{"body":"That's because what employees need is [range](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484) 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.","subreddit_name":"Destiny","author":"whales171"},{"body":"Using the ideas from the book of [Range](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484), 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).","subreddit_name":"Competitiveoverwatch","author":"VerticalEvent"},{"body":"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. \r\n\r\nI'll contribute one to the list. I can recommend: [Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World]( https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484).\r\nEpstein 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. \r\n\r\nIts 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.","subreddit_name":"Polymath","author":"rundigital"},{"body":"\u0026gt;There is a book called Range by David Epstein\r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484\r\n\r\nHe 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.\r\n\r\nGive it a read, it might change your world view on what is important to learn. It certainly helped change mine.","subreddit_name":"gifs","author":"Excedrinpm"},{"body":"I just finished reading a book called, [\"Range\" by David Epstein](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484) for this very reason.  I can't recommend it enough, for both individual self-esteem and societal import.","subreddit_name":"AskReddit","author":"wynden"},{"body":"From reading the book [Range](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484), there was a quote about experts in complex fields that really stuck with me. \"Experts are incredibly good at predicting the past.\" \r\n\r\nThat 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.  \r\n\r\nHowever if there is some element(s) that exist now that didn't in the past, these could change the results of this complex system.","subreddit_name":"neoliberal","author":"whales171"},{"body":"\u0026gt; I don't agree with his projections all the time, and I think he's sort of a geographic determinist\r\n\r\nThis is the best take on Peter Zeihan actually. \r\n\r\nAfter reading the book [Range](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484) (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.\r\n\r\nI 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. \r\n\r\nI'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.","subreddit_name":"Destiny","author":"whales171"},{"body":"\u0026gt;Argue what is the other way around?\r\n\r\nIt's easier to teach engineering skills than problem-solving skills.\r\n\r\n\u0026amp;#x200B;\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;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”\r\n\r\nThese 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](https://smile.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484) 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.\r\n\r\n\u0026amp;#x200B;\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Which is pretty fine if you take like 6 months to evaluate someone. \r\n\r\nThis can be picked up in the course of a standard 2-4 round interview.\r\n\r\n\u0026amp;#x200B;\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;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.\r\n\r\nI'm applying my views on finding talent to this method of finding talent, which I think is an antipattern. That's all.\r\n\r\n\u0026amp;#x200B;\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;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.\r\n\r\nI 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.","subreddit_name":"learnpython","author":"AchillesDev"},{"body":"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. \r\n\r\n2. 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. \r\n\r\n3. Check out [Range](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484/ref=nodl_) by David Epstein. \r\n\r\nGreat book, shows that breadth of experience is a great thing.  \r\n\r\n4. We went the route of raising money and hiring folks, software development company.","subreddit_name":"digitalnomad","author":"appreciative-alpaca"},{"body":"[Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world.](https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484)\r\n\r\nLink to Amazon, but check it out from your public library before purchasing.\r\n\r\nGreat book about having knowledge and experience a foot wide but a mile deep might not be the best way to succeed.","subreddit_name":"datascience","author":"MattDamonsTaco"}]}