Be a Generalist!

I have always associated negative connotations with the proverb - "Jack of all trades, master of none". As if something is amiss if you know something about everything but do not know everything of something. Basically, in one way or the other emphasizing the need to be a specialist/expert in at atleast one domain. Over time this has manifested itself in many different forms -  Students very early on like to choose their majors, parents choose the sport for their kids and follow the hyped regimen as Tiger Woods' father followed with his kid (and even wrote a book about it :Training a Tiger: A Father's Guide to Raising a Winner in Both Golf and Life), but this is not a one-size-fits-all formula. (Read: Polgar sisters).

This book challenges the above and many such notions. 

• It says that the often mentioned theory of 10,000 hours is not necessarily true - as dabbling in various interests helps gain some extra skills before the person identifies what they want to specialize in. The author put forward the example of Roger Federer who played many "ball-sports" before finalizing that he wanted to focus on tennis. However, trying out many other sports helped him acquire some level of other skills through them.
  
  
• People often succeed because of their range of interests and experiences not just because of it.
  
  
• It seemed that specialization is inevitably required but "delayed specialization" is what the author seemed to advocate. Although, part of me still felt at the end of the book that even without specialization one can succeed.
  
  
• "Facts that challenge basic assumptions and thereby, threaten people's livelihood and self-esteem - are simply not absorbed. The mind does not digest them."
  -Daniel Kahneman wrote in 2011 in NYT article "Don't blink". This quote explains why sometimes we wonder how educated people can subscribe to crazy, silly ideas.
  
  
• Section of the book deals with Does Experience lead to Expertise?
  The answer is depends on the domain in question. (also, another way of attacking the 10,000 hours-to-master-a-skill theory).
  
  
• The author says that experience leading to expertise is only true for situations which are "statistically regular". Like - chess, golf, doing taxes, surgery.
  
  
• But the moment a domain is not regular as in you reverse the order of things - people aren't able to handle it.
  
  
• The author then ties it to "education system". How most students don't have the critical thinking skills. Because their discipline is solely focused on narrow specialization. Although, he calls out "Economics" to be an exception - it's a subject that promotes critical thinking!
  
  
• And, the argument is tied to how "Range" or inter-disciplinary knowledge helps in critical thinking.
  
  
• With a range of extensive examples, related to music - where musicians with no formed training and infact who played other instruments were successfully able to transition to a different instrument - the author concludes that 
  "....the more contexts in which something is learned, the more the learner creates abstract models, and the less they rely on a particular example. Learners become better at applying their knowledge to a situation they've never seen before which is the essence of creativity." 
  
  
• "Learning Fast and Slow" - the book seemed to deep dive into pedagogy - how children learn and what's the best technique to learn. It is about how much you struggle/grapple with a problem. The key takeaway is :
  i) The more you struggle, the better long-lasting learning it is.
  ii) The more time you give in b/w practice the better it is.
  
  
• The author gives a fascinating account of how Jonathan Kepler relied and used "Analogical Thinking" to deal with problems refusing to accept roundabout explanations/hypothesis and eventually lay down the foundation for Astrophysics.
  
  
• Collectively, as a group - a group which is having people of varied backgrounds i.e people having dissimilar level of info -are the most likely to solve a problem. Even individually - "connections across disciplines" is what helps in thinking outside-the-box experience/analogies.
  
  
• The author makes a nuanced point - that too much of grit is bad! (Wonder what Angela Duckworth thinks about it). He gives the example of Vincent Van Gogh - who moved from passion to passion in a short-period of time before he ended up on his style where he excelled at. At this part, the author brings up the idea of MATCH QUALITY - trying out new things which match your abilities.
  
  
• Too Much Grit stops one from moving on to the other thing.
  
  
• It is very valuable to know when to quit. And he says that the hoary advice - "never quit" is not right.
  
  
• In the chapter titled "Flirting with our possible selves" - it is emphasized that we should be open to and experience range of things.
  
  
• It is basically, the oft-given advice that we should try new things as who knows what hidden talent we might have.
  
  
• Also, a brief section over personality. It is influenced by both nature and environment. As we grow, our preferences - likes/dislikes change and so does our personality.
  
  
• I specially like Paul Graham's graduation speech. He said 
   It is a bit insidious to say "never give up on your dreams". That's wrong! It is as to say there is some grand plan already and you have to keep pushing at it. 
  
  
• You should not choose options which lead you to a goal. Rather ones which give you the most range of experiences.
  
  
• Being an outsider to a field helps a great deal in looking at the problem differently. This is the reason why companies like InnoCentive are hugely successful. This phenomenon has been displayed so many times.
  
  
• It is best summarized as the more specialized info that is available, the more info for curious dilettantes to consume that disparate info and make connections.
  
  
• The chapter "Lateral Thinking With Withered Technology" talks about how lateral thinking can reap dividends.
  
  
• Lateral Thinking -  reimagine info in new contexts or connecting seemingly disparate info to give old ideas new uses.
  
  
• The analogy of Birds v/s Frogs is also quite interesting. 
  Birds - can be considered as Visionary as they can see far.
  Frogs - can be considered as Detailed as they can see deeper.
  
  
• It also clarifies that a specialization might be the most useful when a same situation with identified routines has to be repeated - example a putt in Golf.
  
  
• This is a quality of serial innovators - ability to connect disparate pieces of info and they have breadth of knowledge.
  
  
• The author dedicates a full chapter on Experts - (they are hyper-specialized in their domains) and how even after being so "scientifically literate" they remain glued to their "views" and keep doubling down on them, bending the more info they gather to "fit their theory".
  
  
• Another elaborate analogy using animals that I found very interesting  is "hedgehogs and foxes".
  Hedgehogs can be understood to have narrow-views while foxes are integrators who know many little things.
  
  
• Foxes treat ideas like Instagram filters so much so that it may appear hard for the other person to figure out what the fox actually believes in.
  
  
• Foxes are looking for people/facts/ideas to push back against their view as they are viewing their opinions as "hypothesis in need of testing".
  
  
• Foxes hunt for info as - Roam freely (read/consume material supporting or against their view) + Listen carefully + consume from everywhere ("omnivorous").
  
  
• Foxes exhibit = "Active open-mindedness".
  
  
• It is true that "scientifically literate adults" are more dogmatic as they are good at finding info that re-inforces their viewpoint. (Confirmation bias).
  
  
• "Drop familiar tools" - is about not sticking to the tools and processes you have been working with all along. 
  The author gives good references of case studies of Carter Racing and Wildfire fighters.
  
  
• Stickler to data can be dangerous specially if there isn't enough data (quantitative analysis).
  Richard Feynman said -  "When you don't have data, you have to use reason".
  
  
• In an organization, often people treat the time-tested process as something that can't be bypassed. The author reminds that there is no tool or process that cannot be abandoned or dropped if the need arises.
  
  
• In organizations, where there is too much focus on conformance - there are many missteps and because people don't spot it, they continue to live in fool's paradise. Rather, it's better that organizations should ideally promote informal individualism i.e not have a hierarchical chain of command so it doesn't happen that there is just one-way chain of communication.