35. David Epstein Knows Something About Almost Everything

**Steven Levitt** (0:04)
My guest today, David Epstein, is one of the world's most gifted popularizers of science. His first book, The Sports Gene, examines the role of nature versus nurture in determining who will excel in sports, and his second book, Range, touts the benefits of being a generalist in a world overrun with specialists.
And if you're looking for real-world support for Epstein's argument that it pays to be a generalist, you need look no further than Epstein himself. He's followed his passion in all sorts of different directions, from being an elite runner in college, to a scientist studying Arctic flora, to a reboot as a writer for Sports Illustrated, and now a New York Times best-selling science writer.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:45)
Welcome to People I Mostly Admire with Steve Levitt.

**Steven Levitt** (0:50)
I have a little problem today in interviewing David Epstein. I agree with too many of his arguments.
For me, it's most fun to have on guests who I deeply admire, but with whom I also have some disagreements. I love the uncertainty. Will my mind be changed? Will the guest mind be changed? Or will we agree to disagree? Well, even if my mind won't be changed today, I know I'll learn a ton because David Epstein seems to know something about just about everything.
I want to talk first about your more recent book entitled, Range, Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. It was a New York Times bestseller. And I have to say, I think you out Gladwell, Malcolm Gladwell with that book, which I mean is a compliment, although I'm not sure whether you're going to take it that way or not.

**David Epstein** (1:39)
Yeah, I don't know. I guess it depends.

**Steven Levitt** (1:41)
Let me explain what I mean. Something odd happens to me when I read Gladwell's books and when I read Range. The stories are so fascinating and so well told that reading the book makes me feel like I'm witty and interesting, even though obviously I'm only a consumer of the book. I feel like I'm better than I really am by virtue of imbibing it. Does that make any sense to you?

**David Epstein** (2:04)
Oh, totally. If you read a lot, people think you're really smart. I'm just relaying and connecting other people's stories, so that totally resonates with me.

**Steven Levitt** (2:11)
Your books are full of stories and there are a few stories in Range that I just loved. One that really got me thinking was your discussion of the Flynn effect. Could you just explain to those who aren't familiar with the Flynn effect, what that is?

**David Epstein** (2:25)
Yeah, the Flynn effect in a nutshell is the rise of IQs across the world that occurred over the 20th century and essentially at every part of the spectrum. So scores on IQ tests shifted to the right to higher in every country and every part of the curve, just as if you lifted up the scores and shifted them over. And it proceeded at a rate of about three points on IQ tests per decade. And it was the most pronounced, interestingly, on the types of tests where change was least expected. Those that were designed to be culturally reduced, meaning they shouldn't be affected. Like if Martians landed on Earth, these are the tests we could give them because culture has no impact. It would never change. These ones that are about recognizing patterns and shapes and things like that. And that's where actually the most change was observed.

**Steven Levitt** (3:16)
OK, so three points per decade. So, am I right that a standard deviation of IQ is 10 points by definition?

**David Epstein** (3:22)
15

**Steven Levitt** (3:23)
15 points. So, our generation is one standard deviation or more than one standard deviation, smarter in quotes, on IQ tests than our grandparents were?

**David Epstein** (3:32)
Smarter. Yeah, that's debated whether it's really smarter, but on the test, yes. And just to put that in perspective, a kid who scored, let's say, on certain parts of abstract tests, average today would be in something like the 95th percentile of their grandparents.

**Steven Levitt** (3:47)
That's huge. What do you think the leading explanations are for that?

**David Epstein** (3:52)
I think it's likely that there are multiple contributors, but one that I think has done a good job of synthesizing a lot of different angles of the data is the idea that we have grown up with what Flynn himself calls scientific spectacles, basically. And we have been growing up in a world that increasingly prioritizes abstract thought and classification. Like, instead of dealing with specific animals, we learn from a young age to start grouping them into classifications. Like, I have a toddler now, and I realize even as I'm reading him storybooks, everything is about generalizing abstract ideas. There'll be a cow that actually looks like a cow in one book, and then a purple one that looks more like a human in another book.