Subtitle: The Ultimate Generalist Event
Introduction
Posted on February 13th, 2024
By Olivia Baker
If you ran track at any point in life, from age-group level up through the pros, I feel confident saying that at some point, you carried the baton on a 4x400m. It didn't matter whether you were a sprinter, jumper, distance runner or even thrower—you likely found yourself in a situation at the end of a track meet where the team needed four people to line up, and your coach called out your name. This is because the 4x400m is the ultimate generalist event in track and field (hear me out).
The 4x400m demands both speed and endurance, strategy and adaptability. It's not just about being the fastest sprinter or the strongest middle-distance runner; it's about blending multiple skills to excel. Most runners don't specialize in running the 400m, but every track runner (and very many field eventers too) needs to be capable of running a respectable 4x400m leg in order to be good at their own primary event. Your high school coach didn't pull you off the track after your 100m final to put you on the 4x4 just out of necessity, but because your elite speed and power out of the blocks makes the 4x400m team better, running a 400m will make you better, too. As a matter of fact, many of the best 4x4 teams in the world are those made up of people across multiple events. Look no further than the 2021 Tokyo Olympic gold-medal winning U.S. women's 4x400m team. The team consisted of two 400m hurdlers (Sydney McLaughlin and Dalilah Muhammed), a 200m runner (Allyson Felix), and an 800m runner (Athing Mu). This blend of backgrounds created a team that could handle the unpredictable nature of the race: Dealing with different track positions, adjusting to fatigue, making split-second decisions in high-pressure moments and, ultimately, winning Olympic gold.
Just like the best 4x400m teams—those that bring together the pure speed of a sprinter with the speed endurance of a mid-distance runner—David Epstein argues that success in life often comes from drawing on diverse skills rather than hyper-specializing in one area. I chose Range by David Epstein for the 24th installment of Runners Who Read because I believe that everyone should be ready to pick up a leg on the proverbial 4x400m if your name is called. At a time where technological advances, automation and artificial intelligence are continuously changing the ways we live and work, it's important to have the skillset to adapt to ever-changing conditions, just like in a 4x400m. Whether in a field of work, running or life, choosing to become well-rounded prepares us for the challenges we will inevitably face in this day and age.
Discussion Questions:
Did you run track at any level growing up? What was your experience like running the 4x400m with your team?
Do you consider yourself a generalist or a specialist in your field of work? In what way?
What are you most looking forward to explore in this book?
Subtitle: Thriving in a Wicked World by Defying Gravity
Prologue, Chapters 1-3
Posted on March 3rd, 2025
By Olivia Baker
Something has changed within me
Something is not the same
I'm through with playing by the rules of someone else's game
Too late for second-guessing
Too late to go back to sleep
It's time to trust my instincts, close my eyes and leap
It's time to try defying gravity
I think I'll try defying gravity
And you can't pull me down
- Elphaba, Defying Gravity (Wicked)
In the first three chapters of Range, David Epstein introduces the concept of "wicked domains," a term first coined by psychologist Robin Hogarth. In wicked domains, "the rules of the game are often unclear or incomplete, there may or may not be repetitive patterns and they may not be obvious, and feedback is often delayed, inaccurate, or both." (pg.21). Contrast this with "kind domains" (a term also coined by Hogarth) like chess or golf in which "patterns repeat over and over, and feedback is extremely accurate and usually very rapid." (pg.20). Specialists thrive in kind domains because repetition of a narrow task leads directly to predictable improvement. However, most of our world exists in the wicked where the link between cause and effect isn't always so clear and the rules can change without notice. This is where generalists thrive.
Take firefighting for example. A firefighter who spends most of her career fighting house fires is called in as back-up from her small town to help out with an uncontrolled fire in a skyscraper. If she leans on her specialized experience fighting house fires to confront the skyscraper fire, the very intuition she's built from years of fighting house fires runs the risk of leading her astray in a new situation. A generalist who has less but more diversified experience would be far better suited to adapt to a change in the conditions of her profession. It can be hard for a specialist who is so deep into their experience to diversify their skillset, but it's not impossible.
Enter Elphaba and the Wicked movie! For those unacquainted, Wicked is the origin story of the Wicked Witch of the West, Elphaba, first seen in The Wizard of Oz. Most of her story takes place in the fantasy world of Oz where she must navigate a wicked world filled with wizards and winged monkeys but also discrimination, unjust authorities and abuse of power amongst other challenges. Though Elphaba is a powerful witch, she has grown up in a system that has told her that she can't fly and has suppressed some of her magical powers. However, much like the experienced neighborhood firefighter preparing to take on a skyscraper fire, it is only once Elphaba begins to explore the bounds of her power at first by accident, and then on purpose with the help of new friend Galinda, that she is able to break free from the script. Through this, she's able to defy gravity to finally get away from the Wizard of Oz who (spoiler alert) had no special powers of his own and was just using her.
Ok, the opportunity to use a Defying Gravity reference here was too good to pass up. Of course, if you drop a ball, it falls to the ground reliably every time because gravity exists as a law of physics on this planet, but you know what I mean. How many "rules" from our learned experience are (at best) unreliable or (at worst) simply not so? How frequently have we fallen into learned helplessness because we accepted our repeated outcomes as inevitable? We often constrain ourselves to a set of rules that we infer from our experiences to make this world seem "kinder" than it actually is. In this way, we slowly put ourselves into the box of specialists in the circumstances we encounter most frequently in life. What would happen if we opened our minds to the idea that in this ever changing world, our "rules" can change too?
Discussion Questions:
What domains in your life are "kind" and which ones are "wicked"? In what ways?
In chapter 3, Epstein examines the concept of Fermi estimation—making relatively accurate rough estimations of something using basic knowledge and logic. For example, one might use Fermi Estimation (pg.52) to answer a question like "How many piano tuners are there in New York City?" The point he makes is that the way of thinking required to answer this question (without Googling it) is the way of thinking that generalists use and is a quick way to understand whether a given number or statistic is likely misleading. Have you ever used Fermi Estimation? Did you find it effective?
Subtitle: In Defense of the Side Hustle
Chapters 4-6
By Olivia Baker
Posted on March 11th, 2025
We love a good story of long, hard work finally paying off. The retail manager who worked her way into the executive management of the company over the course of a 40 year career, the researcher who spent her career meticulously studying a single microorganism to finally discover a breakthrough treatment for a rare disease, and the Olympic gymnast who worked his whole life for the opportunity to nail a single pommel horse routine to seal a bronze medal for Team USA (looking at you, Stephen Nedoroscik) are all examples of this type of story. All of these people exhibit great grit, a much sought after character trait, and found success. Grit can be defined as a personality trait characterized by perseverance and passion for achieving long-term goals despite failures, adversity, and plateaus along the way according to the American Psychological Association. However, these stories are more often the exception than the rule. What if the secret to success isn't finding something you are passionate about early in life and stubbornly sticking to it whether or not your interests change, but instead, experimenting, failing, and reinventing yourself at any age?
That's the core message of Chapter 6 of Range by David Epstein. This chapter, titled "The Trouble with Too Much Grit," challenges the idea that sticking to a single path is always the best strategy. Instead, Epstein highlights that some of the most successful people didn't specialize early or follow a straight line. They wandered, explored, and, most importantly, weren't afraid to fail. Take Van Gogh for instance, who is highlighted at the beginning of the chapter. He spent time as a teacher, bookseller, and preacher amongst other things, dabbling in and out of the art world along the way before he settled on art full time. He habitually changed career paths and even styles of art before eventually creating the art form for which he would become famous at 33 years old, only to then pass away at 37. Epstein goes so far as to note that "…had Van Gogh died at thirty-four rather than thirty-seven, he might not even merit a historical footnote." (pg. 128). It is truly never too late in life to try something new, and, in Van Gogh's case, there is no doubt that having had so many different career paths was critical to the novelty of his late life artwork. However, what if there was a way to hedge your bets and walk the line between pursuing a career with grit and habitually trying something new?
In this day and age, we call this a side hustle—an activity that supplements a person's income in addition to their main job. I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the privilege that it is to be able to make such changes to a career. If you have a job that you are good at and provides for you and your family, why change for something that could be exponentially better or potentially much worse than what you have? There are many people who cannot afford to take such a risk for one reason or another. In my opinion, (and let me be clear, this is my opinion, David Epstein might disagree with me on this one) the choice presented in Chapter 6 between a single or one of a few specialized career paths, and trying, failing, and experimenting with many different career paths is a false one. As a matter of fact, this very blog is brought to you by the side hustle of a Human Biology major who is currently a professional runner but also has a passion for reading and writing! We can pursue a single career path while also dipping our toes in other fields of interest, effectively exercising our grit muscles and leaving space for change. Yes, you can have the best of both worlds!
Discussion Questions:
Would you rather try something and fail at it or never have tried to begin with?
How many times have you changed career paths in your lifetime? How did your previous careers prepare you for the one you have now?
What are your current side hustles if you have any?
Subtitle: The Birds and the *Frogs*
Chapters 7-9
By Olivia Baker
Posted on March 28th, 2025
In Chapter 9 of Range, David Epstein highlights a powerful metaphor from physicist Freeman Dyson: The world needs both birds and frogs. Birds soar high, seeing the big picture, connecting ideas across large swaths of forest land. They are the generalists, visionaries and interdisciplinary thinkers of the deciduous forest who put the pieces together. Frogs, on the other hand, stay close to the ground, mastering the details and solving highly specialized problems with precision and depth. They are the specialists who know every tree and plant from the next one in their small forest swamp. A healthy forest biome requires the contributions of both birds and frogs to thrive (and prevent environmental collapse).
For every Steve Jobs flying high above the forest, there is a (often times lesser known) Steve Wozniak patrolling the forest floors. Gunpei Yokoi, innovator of many of Nintendo's greatest games from the Game Boy to the Wii, needed a specialized electrical engineer in Satoru Okada to put together the internal systems that would bring his unique design interfaces to life. Left to their own devices, birds fly together, migrating from project to project and leaving many unfinished works in their wake. The presence of too many birds leaves the forest floor in shambles. Frogs, however, can find themselves so deep in the mud that they get stuck. The depth of their knowledge limits their ability to think outside the swamp for a solution. Too many frogs working together can cause them all to get stuck and leave them more vulnerable to predators. The frog could use a bird to swoop down and pull it from the mud, and the bird could use a frog to provide specific insights and weigh down its flighty tendencies to get the project across the finish line.
In Freeman Dyson's full quote, he says "It is stupid to claim that birds are better than frogs because they see farther, or that frogs are better than birds because they see deeper. The world…is both broad and deep. We need birds and frogs working together to explore it." (pg. # 200). Dyson and Epstein are concerned that today's world is becoming overly saturated with frogs (specialists). However, though most of this book has been for the birds (generalists), Epstein notes that the best environments are those that create space for both birds and frogs to thrive together in harmony. If this analogy is getting too in the weeds of this temperate deciduous forest, let me bring us all back to sea level with this thought expanding upon the text: The overarching theme here is that diversity is necessary for the health of all the microbiomes we experience in life. Whether it is diversity of thought process and depth/breadth of knowledge (as with the birds and frogs in this particular example) or experience, age, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, etc., our environment is healthier and our solutions are better when a range of people from all walks of life are included.
Discussion Question:
Are you a bird or a frog? How has working with someone who is opposite of you in this regard made you better at what you do?
Subtitle: Run Your Own Race
Chapters 10-12, Conclusion, Afterword
Posted on April 14th, 2025
By Olivia Baker
"A jack-of-all-trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." -Unknown
As David Epstein points out at the end of Range, it is quite interesting and very culturally telling that people so often leave out the second half of this quote these days. In a world that is moving more towards hyper specialization, here are three things I will take with me from Range to push back against the narrative that early, narrow specialization ensures stability and success:
1. Head starts are overrated. Many of us, especially if you are a millennial or Gen Z, know what it feels like to search for an entry level job and come to find that many of them recommend (if not require) several years of experience in that field to even apply. The way that our hiring system is set up favors those who specialize early, but as we learned in Range, this is much to the detriment of both the applicant and most businesses. Head starts only make a difference in kind environments like chess and golf. As for the rest of the world, which can be a wicked environment, the research shows that those who take the head start are often caught by their later starting peers and have better match quality within their line of work (pg# 9).2. Don't feel behind. It's easy to feel behind when you don't hit society's "unwritten" (and oftentimes unrealistic) milestones on time. Major events like finding your dream job, becoming established in your career, buying a home, getting married and having kids are all things that many of us expect to do on a certain timeline. When we don't hit one or more of those markers, it can seem like life isn't going according to plan and these feelings can be exacerbated when we see others seemingly passing us by as they reach them before us. However, Range teaches us that the winding path is actually the most efficient one. No lesson is lost and no time is wasted when we try and fail at something. Rather, starts and stops, trying one path and then abandoning it for another and experimenting with a wide array of potential paths give us the greatest chance to discover the best fit for our passions and be great at it once we arrive.
3. Run your own race. This is the final and most important point. We are the only ones who can run the race that is our life. For some chapters, we get the blessing of running alongside others, but it is important not to equate running next to someone competing. As Epstein said, "compare yourself to yourself yesterday, not to younger people who aren't you. Everyone progresses at a different rate [and]…You probably don't even know where exactly you're going, so feeling behind doesn't help." (pg# 290).
This last one is a lesson that I am still learning to some degree in this present moment. If you had asked me 10 years ago what I'd have accomplished and what I would be doing today, I would have told you that I would have gone to the Olympics in 2016, completed medical school, started work as a neurosurgeon and settled down somewhere that I expect to live for a long time. Instead, I haven't been to the Olympics yet, have lived in four different states, worked in marketing, professional sports, coaching, blogging and senate staffing, and am still trying to figure out what's next for me. In a year in which I see many of my peers from human biology back at Stanford completing their residencies and beginning their work as doctors, this can be hard to reckon with at times. Nonetheless, I'm grateful in those moments to be reminded that no experience is wasted and to focus on running the race that is uniquely my own.
Discussion Questions:
What were your favorite lessons learned from Range?
What failure or life experience that was unrelated to your current field has informed your current line of work in an impactful way?
In what ways can you focus on running your own race instead of comparing yourself to others?