#cookebooks: Range, by David Epstein - selective, high-handed quasi-science and extreme levels of waffle

Recommended by Katie Kaspari , Laura Jeffords Greenberg , Jake Jones , Mark Dodd , Daniel Heymann

Score

2/5.

What's the premise?

The 10,000 hours rule (Dweck, Syed, Gladwell, every other writer banging on about growth-mindedness) works for "kind" learning environments where the rules are clearly defined and the consequences of choices are immediate - like sport. In "wicked" learning environments, where there are no built in rules and recurring patterns to rely on, breadth of experience is a significant advantage.

What did I learn from it that I can apply now?

• Reading widely and outside of your domain is essential to doing your current job better. (And, similarly, we should aim to source perspectives on challenges we are facing from outside our specialism - because our specialism may be blinding us to novel solutions.)
• The "kind" vs "wicked" learning environment distinction throws an interesting light on the difference between private practice and in-house skill sets. Lawyering in PP is closer to a "kind" domain (within the definition stated within the book) than IH, given that the boundaries of the role are far clearer; and it therefore makes sense for participants to optimise accordingly by picking one thing to be good at, early, and then doing that forever (a la Tiger Woods). The question is: how likely is it that the average trainee will pick the right thing after a mere two years of on-the-job training? I would say "not very".
• If David Epstein is right, then for IH recruitment - into the "wicked" environment (again, within the definition used in the book) - we should be actively looking for Roger Federers: people who try every sport before picking the one they like most. And we should also be actively encouraging radical career leaps - across roles and industries - for our young team members, so that they have a better chance of finding the thing(s) they're really good at.

Should you read it?

If you're someone who is a specialist, this book might offer you a thought-provoking alternative perspective.

If you're someone who feels you are yet to nail down the one thing that you're really good at, you might find solace in this book (and particularly in the story of Vincent Van Gogh, who scrabbled around in various jobs for years before an explosion of creativity dominated the last three years of his life).

If you're already a generalist, this book is a soothing (smug?) tale which will confirm that you were right all along, and are perfectly poised to own the future.

Would I read it again?

Hell no. I have a high tolerance for business book bullshit, and Range tested my limits to the max. I started and finished other books while reading it to give myself a break from its selective, high-handed quasi-science and extreme levels of waffle.

How extreme? Well, loads of business books involve a core premise with a load of waffle wrapped around it. Maybe customer insight data says that people in airports don't buy thin books. But, Lord have mercy, the waffly bits of this book are endless. It is at least 200 pages too long. I am as up as the next guy for a roundtrip around a 17th century Venetian orphanage full of multi-instrumentalist women that inspired Vivaldi. But one that is 10 pages long and that repeats the core premise you have already successfully landed? Not so much.