Range: Why Generalists Triumph in A Specialized World is an outstanding book. It’s just not about why generalists triumph in a specialized world. Author David Epstein says this in the conclusion to the book.
“The question I set out to explore was how to capture and cultivate the power of breadth, diverse experience, and intra-disciplinary exploration within systems that increasingly demand hyper-specialization and would have you decide what you should be before first figuring out who you are.”
In the introduction, Epstein outlines what he calls the “Tiger Model” and the “Roger Model” of achieving career success.
The “tiger” is Tiger Woods. In the Tiger Model, you specialize early and engage in deliberate practice, honing your skills and expertise.
The Roger Model is named for Roger Federer. In the Roger Model, you delay selecting a specialty until you learn more about yourself and what you do well. You have a “sampling period” where you try many things. Then, you specialize.
The business and self-development press loves the Tiger Model. The Roger Model is out of fashion. But the Roger Model works for more people and in more situations.
I was predisposed to like the Roger Model because of what I saw at my class reunions. On the day we first met, my classmates and I had plans about what we were going to do. As far as I know, only one of us stayed with that original plan and succeeded. Everyone else wound up doing something different than what we thought we would do, way back then. The rest of us switched specialties, tried different things
Range is not about how generalists succeed. It’s about learning, choosing a life’s work, and solving difficult problems. Here’s how the book is laid out.
In the first three chapters, Epstein makes his case for the Roger Model. You’ll learn about how the Tiger Model works great if you’re talking about a “kind” learning environment. In a kind learning environment patterns repeat, feedback is rapid, and there are proven methods of training. You learn to play the violin in a kind environment.
The Roger Model is best for a “wicked” learning environment. There may or may not be rules or guideless. Results are often delayed and not easy to measure. Learning to be a good manager or parent happens in a wicked environment.
Anders Ericsson's deliberate practice is perfect for kind learning environment. In a wicked environment you must change your idea of practice and redefine feedback.
Chapters four and five are about thinking and learning. You’ll pick up a lot here about how to learn effectively. The skills will help whether you’re learning a subject, like history or the best way to structure your day.
Chapters six and seven are about development, or what happens when you move beyond learning to learning as a part of making choices for yourself. In these two chapters, you’re introduced to the concept of “match quality” and how it applies to making life choices. The ideal, in Epstein’s view, is to find something that is a perfect fit for you.
In chapters eight through twelve pull things together. You learn how take what you’ve learned and apply it to problem-solving, product development, and decision-making.
In a Nutshell
You’ll love this book if you think the world is becoming over-specialized. You’ll pick up lots of ammunition for your arguments. You’ll love this book if you want to learn and think more effectively. You’ll love this book if you feel like the advice, to specialize, practice, and never give up doesn’t work for you.
You can check out some of my highlights and notes from this book on GoodReads
Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World
4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars | 11,715 ratings
Price: 15.75
Last update: 01-10-2025
About this item
The #1 New York Times bestseller that has all America talking: as seen/heard on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Morning Joe, CBS This Morning, The Bill Simmons Podcast, Rich Roll, and more.
“The most important business—and parenting—book of the year.”—Forbes
“Urgent and important. . . an essential read for bosses, parents, coaches, and anyone who cares about improving performance.”—Daniel H. Pink
Shortlisted for the Financial Times/McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award
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.
Top reviews from the United States
Wally Bock5.0 out of 5 stars A great book about learning, choosing a life’s work, and solving difficult problems
albatross20174.0 out of 5 stars Interesting take, worth a read
Overall this was definitely worth a read, regardless of whether you agree with the author or not. Basic structure: across 12 chapters that author points to tons of examples across history and industries to argue that people who took time to explore different career paths actually ended up excelling versus specialized peers. Its especially interesting to think about given social media has ignited this rat race and hypercompetitive dynamic in which people are so eager to be climb the ladder in their respective field faster than others.
Pros:
- Tons of interesting examples, definitions and terms throughout the book that were insightful.
- Kudos to the author for going out on a limb and publishing this book; it takes guts to go against conventional thinking
Cons:
- The book could be condensed materially and still get its point across. By the last couple of chapters I already knew where the author was going with the points he made, and its a bit overkill.
- The author argues that generalists can think laterally better and can provide more creative solutions, but he doesn't really talk about the case where specialists can try to adapt a more generalist mindset and be more flexible in thought.
- The author mostly includes examples that are related to science, literature, the arts, or something in a creative domain. I thought this was ironic because this was a type of book where it would've been helpful to get a more diverse set of industries than hyperfocus on a select few (so the author could've shown more "Range" if you may).
Pros:
- Tons of interesting examples, definitions and terms throughout the book that were insightful.
- Kudos to the author for going out on a limb and publishing this book; it takes guts to go against conventional thinking
Cons:
- The book could be condensed materially and still get its point across. By the last couple of chapters I already knew where the author was going with the points he made, and its a bit overkill.
- The author argues that generalists can think laterally better and can provide more creative solutions, but he doesn't really talk about the case where specialists can try to adapt a more generalist mindset and be more flexible in thought.
- The author mostly includes examples that are related to science, literature, the arts, or something in a creative domain. I thought this was ironic because this was a type of book where it would've been helpful to get a more diverse set of industries than hyperfocus on a select few (so the author could've shown more "Range" if you may).
Todd I. Stark5.0 out of 5 stars A striking challege to powerful cultural trends
This is a beautifully written and well justified discussion of the various specific things that are not taken into account by the widespread cultural emphasis on early specialization for success and our popular model of performance in terms of domain-specific expertise.
This takes the form of a single conclusion which I would paraphrase as: "we need to be able to play and explore widely and to color outside the lines for a while in order to become very good at solving the difficult problems we later encounter. But our cultural obsession with specialization pushes counter to that."
There is a constant tension of the author's confidence in his conclusion that generalists are uniquely valuable and desperately needed and his recognition that he is fighting an almost Quixotic uphill battle against powerful cultural trends and incentives for specialization.
What he means by specialization and the factors closely tied to it:
1. Head Start: Encouraging children from an early age to narrowly pursue things they seem talented at or have an interest in.
2. Domain-Specificity: Training with heavy emphasis on the specific narrow range skills we know we will need in the target environment and assuming far transfer of skills from other activities will be limited or non-existent.
3. Disciplinary Focus: Viewing learning as consisting of accumulating facts and theories specific to a particular field or subfield of study in order to become highly skilled at working in that narrow field.
4. Persistence: The idea that we should identify a passion early and stick with it no matter what because it’s what we’re good at and enjoy and so can become successful at it if we manage to persist.
5. Fast and Efficient Short-Term Learning: The assumption that we are learning better when we feel familiar with the material quickly and that we are then learning more efficiently.
Against those powerful and popular specialization factors, Epstein presents several compelling lines of evidence:
1. Domain-Specificity varies with Kind vs. Wicked Learning: The argument for early specialization and domain-specificity is based on the observation that we need a long period of deliberate practice to accumulate the patterns and skills specific to performing in that specific activity and that practicing or exploring other activities is unlikely to do anything helpful for our performance in our specialty. Epstein counters that on closer inspection we find a crucial distinction between different kinds of domains and learning environments, where in some of them deliberate practice reliably makes us better but in others deliberate practice either helps much less or can even make us perform more poorly under some conditions. So not all domains or learning environments are equally specific and the head start is not equally helpful in all activities.
2. Creative Performance comes from early exploration and interdisciplinary learning: Given the domain-specific view of expertise we tend to assume that in order for someone to perform at a high level in any activity, since they need expertise, they need to specialize in that activity. Epstein counters that when we focus specifically on creative performance, we find that deep expertise can be invaluable but is not enough. In order to come up with truly novel solutions to problems we need to make use of analogies that cross different domains while sharing deep structural similarities. That means being familiar with a wider range of ideas and ways of thinking than just those in our specialty, and so Epstein says creative performance is found more in people with broader backgrounds. Epstein argues that outstanding creative performance also tends to be associated with early exploration of different activities more than with early specialization.
3. The Efficiency We Perceive from Narrow Immersion is Very Often Illusory: We tend to assume that when we feel more familiar with the activity or material that we are learning it. That’s part of the strong intuitive appeal for immersion in an activity comes from, it feels like we are learning more when we are more immersed. Epstein argues that the evidence from learning research show quite often exactly the opposite, that the learning we think we are doing under conditions of immersion is either much less or much shorter lived than we assume. Robert Bjork’s concept of “desirable difficulty” in learning and the evidence base behind it plays a central role in this argument. This, Epstein argues, tells us that “slow learning” which helps us make new connections between a wider range of experiences is much more conducive to learning in the long run than fast, efficient learning from immersion in a narrow subject matter.
4. Match Quality is Not Necessarily the Same as Early Passion: Part of the argument for early specialization is based on the assumption that people have certain interests and talents from early on and if they can find something that matches them well and start early, they can align their passion with a successful career in that activity. Epstein argues that what we know about lifespan development tells us that people’s passions are not so fixed or narrow and finds a number of cases of exceptionally successful people who spent their lives exploring and trying different things before finding a match that was truly satisfying and successful for them.
Range is an appeal to encourage exploration in our lives from early on and for experimenting and experiencing broadly in our learning, even though it may seem to be inefficient or slow. Epstein does not deny the immense value of long deliberate specialized practice in “kind” domains or the value of having deep specialized experience in some areas, but he has also made a passionate and well-argued case for making better use of a completely different dimension of performance. A dimension rooted in longer term developmental outcomes, more exploratory or playful learning, and an ongoing search for ever better matches between our interests and abilities and our activities.
This takes the form of a single conclusion which I would paraphrase as: "we need to be able to play and explore widely and to color outside the lines for a while in order to become very good at solving the difficult problems we later encounter. But our cultural obsession with specialization pushes counter to that."
There is a constant tension of the author's confidence in his conclusion that generalists are uniquely valuable and desperately needed and his recognition that he is fighting an almost Quixotic uphill battle against powerful cultural trends and incentives for specialization.
What he means by specialization and the factors closely tied to it:
1. Head Start: Encouraging children from an early age to narrowly pursue things they seem talented at or have an interest in.
2. Domain-Specificity: Training with heavy emphasis on the specific narrow range skills we know we will need in the target environment and assuming far transfer of skills from other activities will be limited or non-existent.
3. Disciplinary Focus: Viewing learning as consisting of accumulating facts and theories specific to a particular field or subfield of study in order to become highly skilled at working in that narrow field.
4. Persistence: The idea that we should identify a passion early and stick with it no matter what because it’s what we’re good at and enjoy and so can become successful at it if we manage to persist.
5. Fast and Efficient Short-Term Learning: The assumption that we are learning better when we feel familiar with the material quickly and that we are then learning more efficiently.
Against those powerful and popular specialization factors, Epstein presents several compelling lines of evidence:
1. Domain-Specificity varies with Kind vs. Wicked Learning: The argument for early specialization and domain-specificity is based on the observation that we need a long period of deliberate practice to accumulate the patterns and skills specific to performing in that specific activity and that practicing or exploring other activities is unlikely to do anything helpful for our performance in our specialty. Epstein counters that on closer inspection we find a crucial distinction between different kinds of domains and learning environments, where in some of them deliberate practice reliably makes us better but in others deliberate practice either helps much less or can even make us perform more poorly under some conditions. So not all domains or learning environments are equally specific and the head start is not equally helpful in all activities.
2. Creative Performance comes from early exploration and interdisciplinary learning: Given the domain-specific view of expertise we tend to assume that in order for someone to perform at a high level in any activity, since they need expertise, they need to specialize in that activity. Epstein counters that when we focus specifically on creative performance, we find that deep expertise can be invaluable but is not enough. In order to come up with truly novel solutions to problems we need to make use of analogies that cross different domains while sharing deep structural similarities. That means being familiar with a wider range of ideas and ways of thinking than just those in our specialty, and so Epstein says creative performance is found more in people with broader backgrounds. Epstein argues that outstanding creative performance also tends to be associated with early exploration of different activities more than with early specialization.
3. The Efficiency We Perceive from Narrow Immersion is Very Often Illusory: We tend to assume that when we feel more familiar with the activity or material that we are learning it. That’s part of the strong intuitive appeal for immersion in an activity comes from, it feels like we are learning more when we are more immersed. Epstein argues that the evidence from learning research show quite often exactly the opposite, that the learning we think we are doing under conditions of immersion is either much less or much shorter lived than we assume. Robert Bjork’s concept of “desirable difficulty” in learning and the evidence base behind it plays a central role in this argument. This, Epstein argues, tells us that “slow learning” which helps us make new connections between a wider range of experiences is much more conducive to learning in the long run than fast, efficient learning from immersion in a narrow subject matter.
4. Match Quality is Not Necessarily the Same as Early Passion: Part of the argument for early specialization is based on the assumption that people have certain interests and talents from early on and if they can find something that matches them well and start early, they can align their passion with a successful career in that activity. Epstein argues that what we know about lifespan development tells us that people’s passions are not so fixed or narrow and finds a number of cases of exceptionally successful people who spent their lives exploring and trying different things before finding a match that was truly satisfying and successful for them.
Range is an appeal to encourage exploration in our lives from early on and for experimenting and experiencing broadly in our learning, even though it may seem to be inefficient or slow. Epstein does not deny the immense value of long deliberate specialized practice in “kind” domains or the value of having deep specialized experience in some areas, but he has also made a passionate and well-argued case for making better use of a completely different dimension of performance. A dimension rooted in longer term developmental outcomes, more exploratory or playful learning, and an ongoing search for ever better matches between our interests and abilities and our activities.
Prof5.0 out of 5 stars Informative and interesting
I've read this book multiple times and assigned it in my college classes. It's informative, accurate, thought provoking, and interesting. It's a fantastic book.