Range (by) David Epstein

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.  

F. Scott Fitzgerald 

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

Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell

Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell.

Nobel Physicist Richard Feynman used to say there are two kinds of physicists - the Babylonians and the Greeks. The Babylonians made great strides in understanding numbers, equations and geometry. Yet, it was Greeks, in particular, Thales, Pythagoras and Euclid whom we credit with inventing Mathematics. It is because Babylonians cared if the method of calculation worked and if it adequately represents the real physical world – and not whether it is a fit to a greater logical system. On the other hand, Thales and others invented the system of “Theorem” and “Proofs”. In order for a statement to be considered true, it had to be exact logical consequence of explicitly stated assumptions or axioms. To put it simply, Babylonians focused on phenomena where as Greeks focused on the underlying order.

Welcome to Gladwell’s Greek treatment of “success”.

We would have read many success stories (who want to read failure stories anyway?). But from there extracting the factors that drove success would be discouragingly elusive. Now Gladwell comes up with certain underlying orders which would help us to understand the “success perspectives”.
Here are his key findings.
1. Successful people are those who have been given opportunities either by chance or by concerted cultivation.
2. To excel in any field of endeavor, you would have to clock a minimum of 10,000 hours in that area. Earlier you can do the better you are at. He asserts none of the studies could find any “naturals” who floated at the top while practicing a fraction of what their peers did. Hence practice is absolutely non-negotiable.
3. Intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated.
4. When you are “born” has an impact on achievements (call it “demographic luck”).
5.Matthew effect: In systems terminology, it is “increasing returns”, that is more success because of previous success – an accumulative advantage.

Perhaps, my gleaning may not be exhaustive, but the above five points struck me well due to solid examples.

When you are basically capable and opportunities are given, then you can rise to the occasion and become successful. He takes up the case of Oppenheimer, who without exaggeration was given one of the most important jobs of the 20th century. Tracing his background, it is clear he was systematically groomed to take up big ticket assignments. Be it Bill Gates of Microsoft or Bill Joy of Sun they got exposure very early in their life to intense programming expertise before they made it big in software. Same is true for Beetles in music.

His view point on time of birth is instructive – not that, it is configurable. He gives an excellent example of Canadian ice hockey team where overwhelming majority of the top players are born in the months of January, Feb and March. The cutoff date is first of January every year and hence if you are born in the first 3 months of the year you get additional months to practice than a person who was born say in December or November. In an arena where competition is intense and brutal, a few months of extra slogging would bring in enormous advantage. Similarly, when a new wave of opportunities arises, if you are too old or young, you cannot take advantage of the wave. He gives examples where most of the billionaires after great depression are born between 1931-39 and similarly 1951-58 for computing wave.

As to intellect and success correlation, his story of Chris Langan, possibly with the highest IQ in America is very instructive. If you compare it with Oppenheimer, the contrast would be even more.

He dispels the notion that the best and brightest are self made. He says, “We look at young Bill Gates and marvel that our world allowed a 13 year old to become fabulously successful – but that is a wrong lesson. If million teenagers have been given an opportunity of unlimited computer usage, we would have had many Microsoft.” Similarly, he says if Canada has a second league which focuses on people who are born in the second half of the year, it would have two great leagues!

Outliers are products of history and community. Their success is not exceptional or even mysterious. It is grounded on the web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some plain lucky – but all critical to making them who they are. In the end, Gladwell philosophically concludes “outlier is not an outlier at all”.

The same Matthew (22:14) in bible says, “Many are called, but few are chosen”. The daunting question still remains. How one can manage to be in the group of “chosen few” – it is still to be solved. But in terms of actionable insight, the “10,000 Hours” rule is the best one to take as serious example. Plan to clock that as early as possible in life to get the accumulative advantage.
If one visualizes the bell curve, area of the outliers is indeed small. So, in spite of every effort, only a “selected few” would still experience the Matthew’s effect. So, it may be worthwhile to remember the view of another Nobel Laureate, Albert Schweitzer: “Of all the will, only a small part manifest in public action. All the rest must be content with small and obscure deeds. The sum of these however is 1000 times stronger than the acts of people who receive public recognition. The latter compared to former is foam of waves of a deep ocean”.

So, focus on “foaming” but be prepared to be a part of the “ocean”.

Thanks for reading this far….
Regards
madhu

Ref:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
3. http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer