Mastering ‘real world’ decisions requires breadth, not depth

In my?New Years’ Resolution post , I started listing out the books I would read in 2023, with the aim of reaching 52 (one a week) before the year is out.

I also committed to doing a short write-up after each book, whilst still fresh in my mind, to give myself something to reflect on at the end of the year (instead of reading and forgetting 52 books!). I also hope it might help other people who want to understand more about what’s in these books before committing to reading (spoiler alert!).

For each book I will aim to cover:

• My short?review?of the book
• One?takeaway?from the book I’d like to remember
• One?lesson?the process taught me this week

I am also posting these articles on my old Substack blog,?Prospection , where you can subscribe for updates if you’re enjoying following along! I’ll be writing more than just book summaries there once I get back into the swing of things.

Book #04:?Range ?- David Epstein

Type       Non-Fiction
Genre?     Business/Training/Coaching
Format?    Kindle
Pages?     290
Completed? 29 Jan 2023
My Rating? ****        

My fourth book, seeing out January, is another corker. Range is about generalists, the pitfalls associated with hyper-specialisation and the importance of ‘analogous thinking’. I loved how this book has changed my perceptions on deep expertise and how broader thinking is just as, if not more, important when encountering real world problems, rather than narrow, theoretical ones.

I really enjoyed this book, and because it was similar to my previous book,?Black Box Thinking , it reinforced some of the same principles and even cited a lot of the same scientific studies. I’ve given it 4-stars because, despite being incredibly thought provoking and inspiring, it again got slightly repetitive and lost a bit of it’s focus in the final quarter, but managed to redeem itself with a strong and punchy conclusion.

A few of my favourite points from the book:

• Typically, domain experts are bad at predicting and forecasting (especially when under the pressure of the public eye). We should bring in diverse views of the world when thinking about the future
• Instead of predicting the future and forecasting, we should get the broad strategy right. It's more likely to represent the?real?future and less likely to be biased to specific technical approaches
• Our inspiration should come from as diverse sources as possible and we should challenge ourselves. We should aim to be the engine for thought, and not add in opinions
• Using analogies to fuel creativity is important, and the more abstract the better

Takeaway #04: Structural similarities and analogous thinking

Much like?Black Box Thinking , Range offers a treasure trove of facts and references that could satiate even the most curious minds. I’ve added a few of the my favourites further below.

The two things that really stuck with me from reading this book were “The Ambiguous Sorting Task” and the extent to which distant analogies can aid problem-solving.

Structural similarities

“Successful problem solvers are more able to?determine the?deep structure?of a problem before they proceed to match a strategy to it.”

It is probably not surprising to state that it is better to fully understand a problem before you decide how to tackle it. But the framing of how to think about this by Epstein was new to me.

One of the characteristics of good problem solvers is the ability to distinguish structural similarities from superficial similarities. The?Ambiguous Sorting Task ?experiment is responsible for surfacing this distinction.

In the task, participants were asked to group cards that describe real-world phenomena. There are lots of possible ‘correct’ answers but many of the subjects were only able to see the domain-related groups, as opposed to the more subtle structurally-related groups.

For example, if asked to group the following topics/systems:

1. Economic bubbles
2. Bicycle chains
3. Sweating
4. A thermostat
5. Global warming
6. Allergic reactions

You might first be inclined to group the economics topics (1), the biology topics (3, 6) the engineering topics (2, 4) and the natural world topics (5) together. Perhaps you’d even group 3, 4 and 5 together citing that they are all about energy and heat. These domain-specific groupings are all valid, however, there is another possible grouping that follows?structural similarities:

• Economic bubbles and global warming are both examples of?positive feedback loops
• A thermostat and sweating are both examples of?negative feedback loops
• Allergic reactions are an example of a ‘common cause’ system?(one factor causes multiple effects)
• Bicycle chains are an example of a ‘causal chain’?(one causal factor X leads to an effect Y which in turns cause effect Z and so on)

These subtleties will not be new to many of us, but I found that just defining the different approaches clearly is very useful, and I will certainly be challenging myself to recognise these types of similarities in the future.

Analogous thinking

Going further, Epstein also describes how analogies can be vital in stretching both our problem solving capability and our creativity.

One study showed that business students would generate more strategically sound ideas (when asked to generate solutions for a fictitious business) if they were prompted to think about an analogous, existing, business at the outset. Furthermore, they produced still better answers when given more distant analogies to consider (e.g. businesses in a completely different domain).

This shows how understanding the structural similarities of a problem (not limiting ourselves to the same domain) and recognising distant but related topics (with the same structure) can allow us to generate more innovative strategies.

A final thought

Additionally, the biggest theme from the final few sections of the book hit home how advantageous it can be to source perspectives from diverse domains, backgrounds and cultures, so I’d like to ensure I do as much of that as possible, both through my 2023 reading list.

So far, I have read three non-fiction books and a sci-fi novel. My next four books will be spread across fiction and non-fiction more evenly and I will aim to read things recommended to me that I wouldn’t normally read. Hopefully, this ethos will allow me to benefit from the ‘winding road’ of opinions, skills and thought that can be so advantageous when tackling nuanced decision making.

Lesson #04: Kindles are great for focus, but could do with better design

This is the first book I have read on a kindle (I went for a second-hand Kindle Paperwhite from eBay and it seems to be doing the job).?

Things I’ve enjoyed:

• No bookmarks/folders corners/random pieces of paper needed to keep my page
• Highlighting things I want to remember and having them in a nice list (especially for writing a summary afterward!)
• Lightweight book that can be held with one hand
• No need to keep the book prized open (hands free reading is possible)
• Backlight for reading after dark in bed when your partner is already asleep (because she doesn’t have a reading quota to hit!)
• The ‘time left in book’ function to judge how to space out my daily reading time
• Font, sizing and spacing options tailored to my liking

Things that need solving:

• I think I read slower with a Kindle because I don’t have a visual cue of the milestones in the book (just a page number or reading time target)
• The kindle is light but I still find myself using my little finger to support the weight - maybe I should experiment with a popsocket?
• The physical ‘screen off’ button is on?the bottom of the device, meaning it is impractical to lean the device’s weight on a table or other surface, because when you do this, you inadvertently power down the screen. I have no idea why the button isn’t at the top - the only side that never comes into contact with a surface or your hands…!
• The % progress indicator takes into account?all pages including acknowledgements, notes and bibliographies?so is not a true indication of progress. However the ‘time left in book’ display only considers the main body of text.?(If anyone knows a way to change this, please comment or get in touch!)