Epstein's basic argument is that focus on early specialization is unwarranted. Starting in the world of sports he contrasts
Tiger Woods (who specialized early as a golfer) with
Roger Federer (who played numerous sports, including tennis, before specializing only on tennis later than many of his peers) and argues that when he looks more broadly at successful people, they "seemed to have more Roger than Tiger in their development stories". Epstein then argues that while specialization is useful for the kinds of problems in closed predictable environments like a chess game or playing music, the modern world is characterized by wicked problems which requires the people to deal with a new situation where they cannot rely on perfecting from known experience. As he puts it: "And that is what a rapidly changing, wicked world demands – conceptual reasoning skill that can connect new ideas and work across contexts". He then expands on this general idea to argue that
range, combining knowledge and experience from multiple fields and late specialization is a better focus than early specialization. Some critics, including Jim Holt and Nicole Smartt Serres, see the argument as a response to
Malcolm Gladwell's popularization of the
10,000-Hour Rule that argues for early specialization, == Reception ==