Chapter 12 Deliberate Amateurs
The First Book: Range by David Epstein
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters, and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see.
Who should read this?
All books have a thesis they attempt to answer, and Range's subtitle gives away the thesis right on the cover!
Why generalists succeed in a specialized world?
If the quote," jack of all trades, master of none." resonates with you, this book will fascinate you. Or if you are a curious person might berate themselves having too many interests. The book is about being broadly curious to solve problems more effectively.
You can get an offline PDF version of the blueprint to support our work here!
Chapter 12 Deliberate Amateurs
In Zen Buddhism, this chapter could be called Shosin or beginner's mind historically was applied in martial arts. This idea has moved out of its roots to broader psychological use in recent times. No matter how advanced of a learner, it is often better to be receptive, open, and limit preconceptions on any topic
Saturday Morning Experiments
The chapter opens with the story of Oliver Smithies, who would later be known for introducing starch as a medium for gel electrophoresis in 1955. But at this point, we were introduced to his Saturday routine. In many ways, sometimes, to think differently, you have to drop the habit. As Smithies says, "On Saturday, you don't have to be completely rational."
Smithies is credited as a molecular biochemist and geneticist. Those two categories are hyper-specialization to us today, but back then, these categories were brand new and developed in real-time. Even up to the end of his life, Smithies would encourage his students to think more broadly. "I try to teach people, 'Don't end up a clone of your thesis adviser.' Instead, take your skills to a place that's not doing the same sort of thing. Take your skills and apply them to a new problem or take your problem and try new skills."
I think the last part of that quote sums up the core of Saturday morning experiments. But, even still, whatever day you choose, it's often to make yourself a beginner again and instead try to look at the problem, in the same way, maybe think what other tools could help solve this.
Art histories Sarah Lewis elaborates on her thoughts on another notable researcher Andre Geim, "A paradox of innovation and mastery is that breakthroughs often occur when you start down a road, but wander off for ways and pretend as if you have just begun." Andre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics with Konstantin Novselov for graphene in 2010. This is juxtaposed with an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for levitating a frog using an intrinsic magnetism. Andre even had his term to allow him to explore more wildly Friday Night Experiments.
From 2006 written by John Murphy, Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas, "Many people chose a subject for their PhD and then continue the same subject until they retire. I despise this approach. I have changed my subject five times before I got my first tenured position and that helped me to learn different subjects." Another insightful quote from Andre's Nobel Prize page bio, "When one dares to try, rewards are not guaranteed but at least it is an adventure."
It seems clear that what looks like wasting your time can end up being an advantage but what seems like a through-line for both Smithies and Geim is their ability to keep a child-like playfulness about what they were exploring. As we age, we tend to crystalize our thinking and become more strict about exploring or becoming more aware of our limits. If there's anything to take away is about the journey, not the destination, because there always be another stone to uncover.
Despecialization
Enter Arturo Casadevall, who holds Molecular Microbiology & Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Hopkins. Soon after arriving at Hopkins, he gave a lecture declaring the pace of progress had slowed and that retractions in scientific literature had accelerated. He believes that part of the reason is that young students are pushed to specialize soon. The problem is two-fold they don't know how to produce good work and are unequipped to critique colleagues' work.
Casadevall and fellow professor Gundula Bosch launched the R3 Initiative (Rigor, Responsibility, Reproducibility). At the core here is that we have access to all human knowledge, yet we don't know how to integrate it into our lives. Even though this is a high-level degree (for now), there is a massive reason to apply this thinking to everyone. Another resource to help the general public access scientific information is from Peter Attia's series Studying Studies.
It's worth stating that having a general public that can interpret scientific information effectively has become even more needed since the COVID pandemic arrived in early 2020. Amid scientific rhetoric and news being shared at a dizzying rate, the public needs to develop a fluency to decision fact from fiction from the source studies. The world of information fragments is based on interpretation or feelings about that data; the only way forward is to step outside of specialization entirely. Back to the book, Casadevall likened the current system research to European guilds in the middle ages. While the results were clear, it stifled innovation and encouraged people to be conservative or secretive about their skills. Moreover, specialized professionals no longer even have to leave their specialized trenches to get funding or don't have any incentive to do so.
The problem here is that even if a multi-disciplinary grant proposal could be written in two areas, you could have a champion for either side. Still, nobody would be able to defend the interface. We know it's essential, but we haven't made it accessible.
Import and Export of Ideas
Researchers have analyzed the networks of creative teams and have found universal traits. This book has spent a lot of time discussing individual range and how individuals leverage their curiosity to develop range. The same is true for teams. What energizes networks is people interacting with different groups; the cross-pollination of ideas helps the whole network. According to sociologist Brian Uzzi, working with new collaborations allows a creator to take conventional ideas into new groups as innovations. To Uzzi, human creativity is the import and export business of ideas.
The effect of import and export of ideas can be seen in the 1970s; teams with members from different institutions were more likely to be successful. Another example of this model is supported by scientists who work abroad who are more likely to make a more significant scientific impact. Economists who studied this trend could be similar to "arbitrage" but in the world of ideas—or going back to the beginning of the chapter Oliver Smithies's ideas to bring new skills to an old problem, or a new problem to old skills.
Intentionally Inefficiency
Casadevall believes everyone should explore outside their expertise. Even reading of one idea in another domain can trigger questions that lead to novel pathways in your line of work. But unfortunately, modern work doesn't easily reward this type of thinking or exploration. If you tried this apply this right now, it would be met with one word - inefficient. The current system is set up to grant those with clear outcomes in mind, yet sometimes we can't test something if we don't have the tools to find it. Sometimes we have to come at the problem from a completely different direction than what we anticipated to find a solution.
While thinking about this issue, I am reminded of the famous Albert Einstein quote, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." This is a prime example of why the most productive thing might be to wander widely and live in a different world. A new use comes up for something beyond what was intended. A good example is Viagra. Initially, the compound was developed to treat hypertension and angina. Still, during the study, it had little effect on those symptoms, but researchers found what was effective and later approved by FDA for use as an oral treatment for erectile dysfunction. The key point here is that what may look like a waste of time may succeed when looked at with a fresh pair of eyes.
More Chapters
