The test of a first-rate intelligence is
the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still
retain the ability to function.
Took up this book called "Range: Why generalists
triumph in a specialized world" by David Epstein. With
the diet of Gladwell (10 k hours rule), I am used to the Talent is
overrated notion and so this book was a "binary jolt". I
reasonably believed, you should get to the stadium as early as you can and
practice, get closer and closer to "pole position" and give your best
shot to be successful (pick-n-stick approach).
While that approach tells you that earlier you start the
better, suddenly, you come across a proposition which is orthogonal, making
it difficult to digest. Eventually got over it and I think he has some germane
points to make his side of the case.
Of course, I did have a modicum of reservation about
the early start approach, since if it was that straightforward, almost everyone would have followed suit. Such
a mild side eyed doubt helps you to keep the balance. Another interesting thing
is that, Gladwell himself has a comment about this book saying "being
told that everything I thought about something was wrong".
He like Gladwell,refers with the same Tiger Woods (as an
example to start very early with a laser focus) and next he takes Roger Federer who experimented with several
ball games before he settled on Tennis.
You can appreciate the examples because it is almost
contemporary (not from History books) and establishes the context for full
"range".
He takes up some fascinating and compelling stories where
sticking to the expertise did backfire or even fatal as in the case of Montana
fire accident where the fire fighters refused to give up their tools and ends
up dying.He also talks about Para jumpers' episode - where thinking on the
usual lines would not have yielded such a decision. In order to save space for
the injured soldiers and emergency medical supplies, the key person makes the
most important decision of his life - to stay back and guide the team rather
than going with them. They were always trained as a super close knit team, the
very idea is unbelievable and unthinkable. But in the end, mission worked out
well. The captain would later remark "If something bad happens and if the
officer is not there, think of explaining to 10 families" - a shuddering
thought even as a reader.
He takes NASA challenger disaster in detail in order to
explain how the culture "In God we trust, all others bring data"
did not help. He explains well how to balance the risks that two extremes generate:
That is, "mindless conformity" and "reckless deviation". He quotes Richard Feynman
when he investigated the challenger disaster "When you don't have
data, you have to use reason".
Author gives many data points and anecdotal evidence to
support the fact that experts are no better forecasters than normal people. He
adds a neat corollary that "Good forecasters are good belief updater. If
they make a bet and lose, they embrace the logic of loss just as they embrace
the reinforcement of win". When there is a dearth of data, he suggests
"sense making" rather than decision making. He says, if I take a
decision, will take pride in it and defend it whereas if I try to make sense,
it would entail listening to others and goes on to say "Hunches to be held
lightly". This is akin to futurist Paul Saffo's remark on forecasting
"Strong views held lightly".
Our personalities change over time. Specializing too
early has its disadvantages since THAT person has not yet arrived. Most of the
significant changes occur during the ages 18-20 and then in late 20's. His
repeat point is, when a specialist encounters novel or
unfamiliar situations, they would not consider eschewing their experience
entirely which usually result in a disaster (but I wonder how many times when
you play chess Queen sacrifice for example is required and that too at a
tournament level to win the game). He quips that, patient has more chances of
living when cardiologists caucus because common treatments with
dubious effects are less likely to be performed - apparently there is
enough data to support this claim.
In his book Frames-of-mind, Howard Garder observes,
"If a particular behavior is considered important by culture, nearly
every normal individual would attain impressive level of competence". All
of us can cite many examples to support this conclusion - for example, now a
days, being plain mobile phone user just to make calls to mobile savvy
like using exotic apps in the mobile phone. In this era of super-heated
competition, starting early resonates with society more than broad brush and
later deep dive - except that one will be unprepared for unexpected turns.
In systems theory, one of the key maxims on the risk
side is: "Aggregation gives protection against UNKNOWN.
Specialization gives protection against KNOWN". But then, wisdom lies
in acceptance of this mutual spectrum.
We have to take a pick between Unknown and Known - all
the best.
Thanks for reading this far.
regards,
madhu
