very much

one person does not need to contain every lens like a cursed swiss army knife

teams can carry range by mixing training backgrounds, work histories, and problem styles

it can become that if you keep it vague

the sharper claim is: different training makes teams better at reframing wicked problems

yes

a legal person, engineer, designer, operator, and scientist may each see a different failure mode

it is slower at first

but fast consensus is not a virtue if everyone is confidently wrong in the same dialect

that is the team version of entrenchment

everyone shares the same training, so the blind spot feels like common sense

often

they can move between languages and notice when two fields have already solved neighboring problems

mixed teams can become chaos soup

range helps only if people translate claims into testable pieces

exactly

each lens has to show what it predicts, what it misses, and what evidence would update it

start with silent problem definitions

everyone writes what they think the real problem is before discussion

yep

then compare frames, pick the disagreements that matter, and design one test per frame

team of foxes, plus a few deep specialists who know where the cliffs are

Range is not saying “hire only dabblers”

it is saying wicked problems need breadth somewhere in the system

build teams with translation capacity, not just resumes from the same factory

rude but procurement-friendly. bye