Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David J. Epstein
🟊🟊🟊
The core argument of this book is that modern education and hiring practices emphasize early and deep specialization but that this is really a counterproductive strategy in several respects. The author threads together several sub-arguments iterating on that general theme, some of which are better than others. For example, I think the author makes a fairly convincing case that sampling various activities before choosing a vocation often leads to better job satisfaction. The author also makes a good case that certain kinds of endeavor (so-called wicked learning environments) are not well-served by specialization because they require generative problem solving, so folks entering those types of jobs would be better served by breadth than depth of learning. In those two respects it's a pretty neat book.
Where the book falls a little short is in closing portions where the author attempts to make the case that sampling and late (or never) specialization generally leads to better results in terms of intellectual outcomes. The book relies primarily (but not entirely) on case studies of various late-blooming geniuses contrasted with episodes of groupthink gone awry among specialists. He hits the high notes convincingly, but this is only half an argument. He ignores all the geniuses who nonetheless specialized early, or all the unremarkable people who specialized too late (or not at all) and never generated memorable work in any field. While late specialization seems likely to make people happier with their chosen careers, it is not at all clear (from the evidence presented) that it makes people better at them.
I don't doubt the author's premiss that, in an environment dominated by specialists, bright people who can bridge silos will bring something valuable to the table. However, that's a domain-specific strategy for individuals in a highly-specialized world, not, as the author seems to suggest, a prescription for a new general society-wide strategy. For example, he seems convinced that the reason scientific innovation is slowing is due to over-specialization, but doesn't even seriously consider that innovation may be slowing because the low-hanging fruit has been picked. In a "target-poor" environment, hyper-specialization is a logical and necessary reaction to the fact that most of the problems that can be solved by generalists have already been solved. So if we took the author seriously and trained fewer specialists (but more generalists), we might well see innovation slow even further. To be clear, I'm not sure what the correct explanation is, but I can tell you that his book didn't present enough meaningful science or other data to allow one to falsify either theory of the case (his own or the counter-narrative I just offered).
So it's an interesting book that certainly will gratify readers (like me) who had a longer than usual "sampling period," but I'd advise taking some of the broader-brush conclusions with a grain of salt.