deletions | additions
diff --git a/SPECS-continues.tex b/SPECS-continues.tex
index 8417d18..9397080 100644
--- a/SPECS-continues.tex
+++ b/SPECS-continues.tex
...
Here, $T$ is the trigger and $p$ denotes those preparations that afford the
classification $T^\star$, indicating $T$ to be of interest, while
$p^{\prime}$ denotes the preparations that facilitate the creation of a
bridge to a result $R$, which is ultimately given a positive
evaluation.
\subsubsection*{ Step 2: Evaluation standards for computational serendipity}
\begin{quote} {\em Using Step 1, clearly state what standards you use to evaluate the serendipity of your
system. }\end{quote}
diff --git a/by-example.tex b/by-example.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..379d61a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/by-example.tex
...
\subsection{Serendipity by example} \label{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}
In this section, we illustrate the key condition, components,
dimensions, and environmental factors that support serendipity, using
historical examples. The structure of this section follows and
updates an earlier survey from \citeA{pease2013discussion}, and
prepares the way for our model.
\subsubsection*{Key condition for serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Focus shift}: ``\emph{After removing several of the
burdock burrs (seeds) that kept sticking to his clothes and his
dog's fur,}~[de Mestral]~\emph{became curious as to how it
worked. He examined them under a microscope, and noted hundreds of
`hooks' that caught on anything with a loop, such as clothing,
animal fur, or hair. He saw the possibility of binding two materials
reversibly in a simple fashion, if he could figure out how to
duplicate the hooks and loops.}''~\cite{wiki:velcro}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Components of serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Prepared mind}:
Fleming's ``prepared mind'' included his focus
on carrying out experiments to investigate influenza as well as his
previous experience that foreign substances in petri dishes can kill
bacteria. He was concerned above all with the question ``Is there a
substance which is harmful to harmful bacteria but harmless to human
tissue?'' \cite[p. 161]{roberts}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Serendipity trigger}: The trigger does not directly
cause the outcome, but rather, inspires a new insight. It was long
known by Quechua medics that cinchona bark stops shivering. In
particular, it worked well to stop shivering in malaria patients, as
was observed when malarial Europeans first arrived in Peru. The
joint appearance of shivering Europeans and a South American remedy
was the trigger. That an extract from cinchona bark can cure and
can even prevent malaria was subsequently revealed.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Bridge}: These include reasoning techniques, such as
abductive inference (what might cause a clear patch in a petri
dish?); analogical reasoning (de Mestral constructed a target domain
from the source domain of burs hooked onto fabric); and conceptual
blending (Kekul\'e blended his knowledge of molecule structure with
his vision of a snake biting its tail). The bridge may also rely on
new social arrangements, such as the formation of cross-cultural
research networks.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Result}: This may be a new product, artefact, process,
hypothesis, a new use for a material substance, and so on. The
outcome may contribute evidence in support of a known hypothesis, or
a solution to a known problem. Alternatively, the result may itself
be a {\em new} hypothesis or problem. The result may be a
``pseudoserendipitous'' in the sense that it was {\em sought}, while
nevertheless arising from an unknown, unlikely, coincidental or
unexpected source. More classically, it is an \emph{unsought}
finding, such as the discovery of the Rosetta stone.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Dimensions of serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Chance}: Fleming \citeyear{fleming} noted: ``There are
thousands of different moulds'' -- and ``that chance put the mould
in the right spot at the right time was like winning the Irish
sweep.''
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Curiosity}: Venkatesh Rao \citeyear{rao2011tempo} refers
to a \emph{cheap trick} that takes place early on in a narrative in
order to establish the preliminary conditions of order. Curiosity
with can play this role, and can dispose a creative person to begin,
or to continue, a search into unfamiliar territory.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Sagacity}: This old-fashioned word is related to
``wisdom,'' ``insight,'' and especially to ``taste'' -- and
describes the attributes, or skill, of the discoverer that
contribute to forming the bridge between the trigger and the result.
In many cases, such as an entanglement with cockle-burs, many others
will have already been in a similar position and not obtained an
interesting result. Once a phenomenon has been identified as
interesting, the disposition of the investigator may lead to a
dogged pursuit of a useful application or improvement.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Value}: Note that the chance ``discovery'' of, say, a
\pounds 10 note may be seen as happy by the person who finds it,
whereas the loss of the same note would generally be regarded as
unhappy. Positive judgements of serendipity by a third party would
be less likely in scenarios in which ``One man's loss is another
man's gain'' than in scenarios where ``One man's trash is another
man's treasure.'' If possible we prefer this sort of independent
judgement \cite{jordanous:12}.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Environmental factors}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Dynamic world}: Information about the world develops
over time, and is not presented as a complete, consistent whole. In
particular, value may come later. Van Andel
\citeyear[p. 643]{van1994anatomy} estimates that in twenty percent
of innovations ``something was discovered before there was a demand
for it.''
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Multiple contexts}: One of the dynamical aspects at play
may be the discoverer going back and forth between different
contexts, with different stimuli. 3M employee Arthur Fry sang in a
church choir and needed a good way to mark pages in his hymn book;
he happened to have been attending seminars offered by his colleague
Silver about restickable glue.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Multiple tasks}: Even within what would typically be
seen as a single context, a discoverer may take on multiple tasks
that segment the context into sub-contexts, or that cause the
investigator to look in more than one direction. The tasks may have
an interesting \emph{overlap}, or they may point to a \emph{gap} in
knowledge. As an example of the latter, Penzias and Wilson used a
large antenna to detect radio waves that were relayed by bouncing
off of satellites. After they had removed interference effects due
to radar, radio, and heat, they found residual ambient noise that
couldn't be eliminated \cite{wiki:cosmic-radiation}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Multiple influences}: The ``bridge'' from trigger to
result is often found through a social network, thus, for instance
Penzias and Wilson only understood the significance of their work
after reading a preprint by Jim Peebles that hypothesised the
possibility of measuring radiation released by the big bang
\cite{wiki:cosmic-radiation}.
\end{itemize}
diff --git a/connections.tex b/connections.tex
index 9ebe54c..fc73d23 100644
--- a/connections.tex
+++ b/connections.tex
...
\section{Connecting our formal definition to literature} % \section{Connections} \label{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}
In this section, we give a short overview covering the etymology The features of
our model match Merton's \citeyear{merton1948bearing} earlier description quite
well: $T$ is the
term ``serendipity'' and trace unexpected observation; $T^\star$ highlights its
development in order to pin
down the key commonalities from many definitions interesting or anomalous features and
instances. In
particular, we point out key conditions of serendipity, their
components casts it as ``strategic data''; and
general characteristics, including environmental
factors. The structure of this section follows and updates an earlier
survey from \citeA{pease2013discussion}, drawing connections with the
new formal model described above. result $R$ may include
updates to $p$ or $p^{\prime}$ that inform further phases of research.
\subsubsection*{Key condition for serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Focus shift}: ``\emph{After removing several of the
burdock burrs (seeds) that kept sticking to his clothes and his
dog's fur,}~[de Mestral]~\emph{became curious as Connections to
how it
worked. He examined them under a microscope, and noted hundreds of
`hooks' that caught on anything with a loop, such as clothing,
animal fur, or hair. He saw the
possibility of binding two materials
reversibly in a simple fashion, if he could figure out how framework we used to
duplicate analyse the
hooks and loops.}''~\cite{wiki:velcro}
\end{itemize} literature are as follows:
%
\textbf{Focus shift}. This corresponds to the identification of
$T^\star$, which is common to both sides of the diagram.
\citeA{creativity-crisis} write that:
``To be creative requires divergent thinking (generating many unique
ideas) and then convergent thinking (combining those ideas into the
best result).'' Accordingly
$T^\star$ may be thought of as an evolving vector of interesting
possibilities or ``strategic data''
\cite[p. 507]{merton1948bearing}. In de Mestral's case, the initial
idea of a hook-and-loop fastener occurred in 1941 -- followed by a
full decade of experimentation before he was ready to file a patent
claim.
\subsubsection*{Components of serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Prepared mind}:
Fleming's ``prepared mind'' included his focus
on carrying out experiments to investigate influenza as well as his
previous experience that foreign substances in petri dishes can kill
bacteria. He was concerned above all with the question ``Is there a
substance which is harmful to harmful bacteria but harmless to human
tissue?'' \cite[p. 161]{roberts}.
\end{itemize}
%% possibilities.
%
\textbf{Prepared mind}. This corresponds to the prior training $p$ and $p^{\prime}$ in our diagram.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Serendipity trigger}: The trigger does not directly
cause the outcome, but rather, inspires a new insight. It was long
known by Quechua medics that cinchona bark stops shivering. In
particular, it worked well to stop shivering in malaria patients, as
was observed when malarial Europeans first arrived in Peru. The
joint appearance of shivering Europeans and a South American remedy
was the trigger. That an extract from cinchona bark can cure and
can even prevent malaria was subsequently revealed.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Serendipity trigger}. This corresponds to the stimulus $T$ in our diagram.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Bridge}: These include reasoning techniques, such as
abductive inference (what might cause a clear patch in a petri
dish?); analogical reasoning (de Mestral constructed a target domain
from the source domain of burs hooked onto fabric); and conceptual
blending (Kekul\'e blended his knowledge of molecule structure with
his vision of a snake biting its tail). The bridge may also rely on
new social arrangements, such as the formation of cross-cultural
research networks.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Bridge}. This corresponds to the actions based on $p^{\prime}$ taken on
$T^\star$ leading to $R$.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Result}: This may be a new product, artefact, process,
hypothesis, a new use for a material substance, and so on. The
outcome may contribute evidence in support of a known hypothesis, or
a solution to a known problem. Alternatively, the result may itself
be a {\em new} hypothesis or problem. The result may be a
``pseudoserendipitous'' in the sense that it was {\em sought}, while
nevertheless arising from an unknown, unlikely, coincidental or
unexpected source. More classically, it is an \emph{unsought}
finding, such as the discovery of the Rosetta stone.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Result}. This corresponds to our $R$. Note that $R$ may imply
updates to $p$ or $p^{\prime}$ in further phases of research.
\subsubsection*{Dimensions of serendipity}
Whereas the foregoing items are the central features of the
definition, the following further characterise the circumstances under
which serendipity occurs in practice.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Chance}: Fleming \citeyear{fleming} noted: ``There are
thousands of different moulds'' -- and ``that chance put the mould
in the right spot at the right time was like winning the Irish
sweep.''
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Chance}. One must assume that relatively few triggers $T^\star$ that are
identified as interesting actually lead to useful results; in other
words, the process is fallible.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Curiosity}: Venkatesh Rao \citeyear{rao2011tempo} refers
to a \emph{cheap trick} that takes place early on in a narrative in
order to establish the preliminary conditions of order. Curiosity
with can play this role, and can dispose a creative person to begin,
or to continue, a search into unfamiliar territory.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Curiosity}. The prior training $p$ causes interesting features to be
extracted, even if they are not necessarily useful; $p^{\prime}$
asks how these features \emph{might} be useful.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Sagacity}: This old-fashioned word is related to
``wisdom,'' ``insight,'' and especially to ``taste'' -- and
describes the attributes, or skill, of the discoverer that
contribute to forming the bridge between the trigger and the result.
In many cases, such as an entanglement with cockle-burs, many others
will have already been in a similar position and not obtained an
interesting result. Once a phenomenon has been identified as
interesting, the disposition of the investigator may lead to a
dogged pursuit of a useful application or improvement.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Sagacity}. Rather than a simple look-up rule, $p^{\prime}$ involves creating new knowledge.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Value}: Note that the chance ``discovery'' of, say, a
\pounds 10 note may be seen as happy by the person who finds it,
whereas the loss of the same note would generally be regarded as
unhappy. Positive judgements of serendipity by a third party would
be less likely in scenarios in which ``One man's loss is another
man's gain'' than in scenarios where ``One man's trash is another
man's treasure.'' If possible we prefer this sort of independent
judgement \cite{jordanous:12}.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Value}. The evaluation $|R|>0$ may be carried out ``locally'' (as
an embedded part of the process of invention of $R$) or ``globally''
(i.e.~as an external process).
\subsubsection*{Environmental factors}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Dynamic world}: Information about the world develops
over time, and is not presented as a complete, consistent whole. In
particular, value may come later. Van Andel
\citeyear[p. 643]{van1994anatomy} estimates that in twenty percent
of innovations ``something was discovered before there was a demand
for it.''
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Dynamic world}. $T$ (and $T^\star$) appears within a stream of data with
indeterminacy. There is a further feedback loop, insofar as
products $R$ influence the future state.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Multiple contexts}: One of the dynamical aspects at play
may be the discoverer going back and forth between different
contexts, with different stimuli. 3M employee Arthur Fry sang in a
church choir and needed a good way to mark pages in his hymn book;
he happened to have been attending seminars offered by his colleague
Silver about restickable glue.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Multiple contexts}. This is reflected directly in our model by the difference
between the ``context of discovery'' involving prior preparations
$p$, and the ``context of invention'' involving prior preparations
$p^{\prime}$. Both of these may be subdivided further.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Multiple tasks}: Even within what would typically be
seen as a single context, a discoverer may take on multiple tasks
that segment the context into sub-contexts, or that cause the
investigator to look in more than one direction. The tasks may have
an interesting \emph{overlap}, or they may point to a \emph{gap} in
knowledge. As an example of the latter, Penzias and Wilson used a
large antenna to detect radio waves that were relayed by bouncing
off of satellites. After they had removed interference effects due
to radar, radio, and heat, they found residual ambient noise that
couldn't be eliminated \cite{wiki:cosmic-radiation}.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Multiple tasks}. Both $T$ and $T^\star$ may be multiple, causing an
individual process to fork into communicating sub-processes that
involve different skills sets.
%%
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Multiple influences}: The ``bridge'' from trigger to
result is often found through a social network, thus, for instance
Penzias and Wilson only understood the significance of their work
after reading a preprint by Jim Peebles that hypothesised the
possibility of measuring radiation released by the big bang
\cite{wiki:cosmic-radiation}.
\end{itemize}
%
\textbf{Multiple influences}. The process as a whole may be multiplied out among
different communicating investigators.
diff --git a/definition.tex b/definition.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..41f5b77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/definition.tex
...
Here, $T$ is the trigger and $p$ denotes those preparations that afford the
classification $T^\star$, indicating $T$ to be of interest, while
$p^{\prime}$ denotes the preparations that facilitate the creation of a
bridge to a result $R$, which is ultimately given a positive
evaluation.
diff --git a/etymology.tex b/etymology.tex
index b1ae788..dd7a232 100644
--- a/etymology.tex
+++ b/etymology.tex
...
% \section{Literature review}
\section{Etymology \subsection{Etymology and selected definitions} \label{sec:overview-serendipity} \label{sec:literature-review}
The English term ``serendipity'' derives from the 1302 long poem \emph{Eight Paradises}, written in Persian by the Sufi poet Am\={\i}r Khusrow in Uttar Pradesh.\footnote{\url{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasht-Bihisht}} In the English-speaking world, its first chapter became known as ``The Three Princes of Serendip'', where ``Serendip'' represents the Old Tamil-Malayalam word for Sri Lanka (%{\tam சேரன்தீவு},
\emph{Cerantivu}), ``island of the Ceran kings.''
...
with \emph{synthesis} \cite{delanda1993virtual}. The balance between
these two features will differ from case to case.
In the next subsection we will review several historical examples.
First, one further point should \citeA{creativity-crisis} write that: ``To be
made with reference to the ``The
Three Princes of Serendip''. Prior to Walpole's coinage, this story
had been adapted by Voltaire into an early chapter of \emph{Zadig},
and in turn ``the method of Zadig'' informed subsequent approaches
both to fiction writing creative requires
divergent thinking (generating many unique ideas) and
natural science. then convergent
thinking (combining those ideas into the best result).'' This
method is
rooted
firstly exemplified by Voltaire's \citeyear{zadig} character Zadig (inspired
in
discovery:
\begin{quote}
``[Zadig] \emph{pry’d into part by the
Nature and Properties ``The Three Princes of
Animals and
Plants, and soon, by his strict and repeated Enquiries, he was Serendip'') who ``was capable of
discerning a Thousand Variations in visible Objects, that others, less
curious, imagin’d were all
alike.}''~\cite[pp. 21--22]{zadig}
\end{quote}
\noindent Secondly, from disparate observations, Zadig is often able
to assemble a coherent picture:
\begin{quote}
\emph{It alike'' -- in addition ``It was his
peculiar Talent to render Truth as obvious as possible: Whereas most
Men study to render it intricate and
obscure.}~\cite[p. 54]{zadig}
\end{quote}
Similarly, but in reverse, a coherent picture may be reduced to
fragmented pieces each of which may tell a very different story from
the whole. This is illustrated in Zadig's misadventure with a broken
tablet, in which one fragment of a poem of praise reads as treasonous
provocation. In describing the various features of serendipity below,
we will draw connections with the schematic diagram presented in
Section \ref{specs-overview}, in order to unfold the multifaceted
notion of serendipity. obscure.''
diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex
index 3c3c4ad..ef22c85 100644
--- a/introduction.tex
+++ b/introduction.tex
...
\section{Introduction}
Materials, like gold, and processes, like metalurgy, have no value
without a context of application: decoration, trade, circuitry, and so
on. In practice, we are likely to attribute \emph{value} to materials
that are useful, and \emph{creativity} to a person who puts materials
to use in a novel way.
Although computational creativity is well studied in both theory and
practice, the role of \emph{serendipity} has often not been discussed
in this field -- even though serendipity has played a well-documented
diff --git a/literature.tex b/literature.tex
index d539495..10c2155 100644
--- a/literature.tex
+++ b/literature.tex
...
\section{Literature review} \label{sec:literature-review}
In this section, we give a short overview covering the etymology of
the term ``serendipity'' and trace its development in order to pin
down the key commonalities from many definitions and instances. In
particular, we point out key conditions of serendipity, their
components and general characteristics, including environmental
factors. The structure of this section follows and updates an earlier
survey from \citeA{pease2013discussion}, drawing connections with the
new formal model described above.
\subsection{Etymology and selected definitions} \label{sec:overview-serendipity}
The English term ``serendipity'' derives from the 1302 long poem \emph{Eight Paradises}, written in Persian by the Sufi poet Am\={\i}r Khusrow in Uttar Pradesh.\footnote{\url{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasht-Bihisht}} In the English-speaking world, its first chapter became known as ``The Three Princes of Serendip'', where ``Serendip'' represents the Old Tamil-Malayalam word for Sri Lanka (%{\tam சேரன்தீவு},
\emph{Cerantivu}), ``island of the Ceran kings.''
The term ``serendipity'' is first found in a 1757 letter by Horace Walpole to Horace Mann:
\begin{quote}
\emph{``This discovery is almost of that kind which I call serendipity, a very expressive
word} \ldots \emph{You will understand it better by the derivation than by the
definition. I once read a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip:
as their Highness travelled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents
\& sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of}[.]''~\cite[p. 633]{van1994anatomy}
\end{quote}
The term became more widely known in the 1940s through studies of serendipity as a factor in scientific discovery, surveyed by Robert Merton and Elinor Barber \citeyear{merton} in their 1957 analyis ``The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity, A Study in Historical Semantics and the Sociology of Sciences''. Merton and Barber define the term as follows:
\begin{quote}
\emph{``The serendipity pattern refers to the fairly common experience of observing
an unanticipated, anomalous and strategic datum which becomes the occasion
for developing a new theory or for extending an existing theory.''} \cite[p. 635]{van1994anatomy}
\end{quote}
In 1986, Philippe Qu\'eau described serendipity as ``the art of
finding what we are not looking for by looking for what we are not
finding'' \cite{eloge-de-la-simulation}, as quoted in
\cite[p. 121]{Campos2002}. Pek van Andel
\citeyear[p. 631]{van1994anatomy} describes it simply as ``the art of
making an unsought finding''.
Roberts \citeyear[pp. 246--249]{roberts} records 30 entries for the term ``serendipity'' from English language dictionaries dating from 1909 to 1989.
%
Classic definitions require the investigator not to be aware of the problem they serendipitously solve, but this criterion has largely dropped from dictionary definitions. Only 5 of Roberts' collected definitions explicitly say ``not sought for.'' Roberts characterises ``sought findings'' in which an accident leads to a discovery with the term \emph{pseudoserendipity} \cite{chumaceiro1995serendipity}.
%
While Walpole initially described serendipity as an event, it has
since been reconceptualised as a psychological attribute, a matter of
sagacity on the part of the discoverer: a ``gift'' or ``faculty'' more
than a ``state of mind.'' Only one of the collected definitions, from
1952, defined it solely as an event, while five define it as both
event and attribute.
However, there are numerous examples that exhibit features of
serendipity which develop on a social scale rather than an individual
scale. For instance, between Spencer Silver's creation of high-tack,
low-adhesion glue in 1968, the invention of a sticky bookmark in 1973,
and the eventual launch of the distinctive canary yellow re-stickable
notes in 1980, there were many opportunities for
Post-its\texttrademark\ \emph{not} to have come to be
\cite{tce-postits}. Accordingly, Merton and Barber argue that the
psychological perspective needs to be integrated with a
\emph{sociological} one.\footnote{ ``For if chance favours prepared
minds, it particularly favours those at work in microenvironments
that make for unanticipated sociocognitive interactions between
those prepared minds. These may be described as serendipitous
sociocognitive microenvironments'' \cite[p. 259--260]{merton}.}
Large-scale scientific and technical projects generally rely on the
``convergence of interests of several key actors''
\cite{companions-in-geography}, along with other supporting cultural
factors. Umberto Eco \citeyear{eco2013serendipities} focuses on the
historical role of serendipitous mistakes and falsehoods in the
production of knowledge.
It is important to note that serendipity is usually discussed within
the context of \emph{discovery}, rather than \emph{creativity},
although in typical parlance these terms are closely related
\cite{jordanous12jims}. In our definition of serendipity, we have
made use of Henri Bergson's distinction:
\begin{quote}
``\emph{Discovery, or uncovering, has to do with what already exists,
actually or virtually; it was therefore certain to happen sooner
or later. Invention gives being to what did not exist; it might
never have happened.}''~\cite{bergson2010creative}
\end{quote}
As we have indicated serendipity would seem to require features of
both; that is, the discovery of something unexpected and the invention
of an application for the same. We must complement \emph{analysis}
with \emph{synthesis} \cite{delanda1993virtual}. The balance between
these two features will differ from case to case.
In the next subsection we will review several historical examples.
First, one further point should be made with reference to the ``The
Three Princes of Serendip''. Prior to Walpole's coinage, this story
had been adapted by Voltaire into an early chapter of \emph{Zadig},
and in turn ``the method of Zadig'' informed subsequent approaches
both to fiction writing and natural science. This method is rooted
firstly in discovery:
\begin{quote}
``[Zadig] \emph{pry’d into the Nature and Properties of Animals and
Plants, and soon, by his strict and repeated Enquiries, he was
capable of discerning a Thousand Variations in visible Objects,
that others, less curious, imagin’d were all
alike.}''~\cite[pp. 21--22]{zadig}
\end{quote}
\noindent Secondly, from disparate observations, Zadig is often able
to assemble a coherent picture:
\begin{quote}
\emph{It was his peculiar Talent to render Truth as obvious as
possible: Whereas most Men study to render it intricate and
obscure.}~\cite[p. 54]{zadig}
\end{quote}
Similarly, but in reverse, a coherent picture may be reduced to
fragmented pieces each of which may tell a very different story from
the whole. This is illustrated in Zadig's misadventure with a broken
tablet, in which one fragment of a poem of praise reads as treasonous
provocation. In describing the various features of serendipity below,
we will draw connections with the schematic diagram presented in
Section \ref{specs-overview}, in order to unfold the multifaceted
notion of serendipity.
\subsection{Connecting our formal definition to literature} \label{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}
\subsubsection*{Key condition for serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Focus shift}: ``\emph{After removing several of the
burdock burrs (seeds) that kept sticking to his clothes and his
dog's fur,}~[de Mestral]~\emph{became curious as to how it
worked. He examined them under a microscope, and noted hundreds of
`hooks' that caught on anything with a loop, such as clothing,
animal fur, or hair. He saw the possibility of binding two materials
reversibly in a simple fashion, if he could figure out how to
duplicate the hooks and loops.}''~\cite{wiki:velcro}
%
\inlineitem{This corresponds to the identification of $T^\star$, which
is common to both sides of the diagram. \citeA{creativity-crisis}
write that: ``To be creative requires divergent thinking (generating
many unique ideas) and then convergent thinking (combining those
ideas into the best result).'' Accordingly $T^\star$ may be thought
of as an evolving vector of interesting possibilities or ``strategic data'' \cite[p. 507]{merton1948bearing}. In de
Mestral's case, the initial idea of a hook-and-loop fastener
occurred in 1941 -- followed by a full decade of experimentation
before he was ready to file a patent claim. }
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Components of serendipity}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Prepared mind}:
Fleming's ``prepared mind'' included his focus
on carrying out experiments to investigate influenza as well as his
previous experience that foreign substances in petri dishes can kill
bacteria. He was concerned above all with the question ``Is there a
substance which is harmful to harmful bacteria but harmless to human
tissue?'' \cite[p. 161]{roberts}.
%%
%
\inlineitem{This corresponds to the prior
training $p$ and $p^{\prime}$ in our diagram.}
\item \textbf{Serendipity trigger}: The trigger does not directly
cause the outcome, but rather, inspires a new insight. It was long
known by Quechua medics that cinchona bark stops shivering. In
particular, it worked well to stop shivering in malaria patients, as
was observed when malarial Europeans first arrived in Peru. The
joint appearance of shivering Europeans and a South American remedy
was the trigger. That an extract from cinchona bark can cure and
can even prevent malaria was subsequently revealed.
%
\inlineitem{This corresponds to the stimulus $T$ in our diagram.}
%%
\item \textbf{Bridge}: These include reasoning techniques, such as
abductive inference (what might cause a clear patch in a petri
dish?); analogical reasoning (de Mestral constructed a target domain
from the source domain of burs hooked onto fabric); and conceptual
blending (Kekul\'e blended his knowledge of molecule structure with
his vision of a snake biting its tail). The bridge may also rely on
new social arrangements, such as the formation of cross-cultural
research networks.
%
\inlineitem{This corresponds to the actions based on $p^{\prime}$
taken on $T^\star$ leading to $R$.}
%%
\item \textbf{Result}: This may be a new product, artefact, process,
hypothesis, a new use for a material substance, and so on. The
outcome may contribute evidence in support of a known hypothesis, or
a solution to a known problem. Alternatively, the result may itself
be a {\em new} hypothesis or problem. The result may be a
``pseudoserendipitous'' in the sense that it was {\em sought}, while
nevertheless arising from an unknown, unlikely, coincidental or
unexpected source. More classically, it is an \emph{unsought}
finding, such as the discovery of the Rosetta stone.
%
\inlineitem{This corresponds to our $R$. Note that $R$ may imply
updates to $p$ or $p^{\prime}$ in further phases of research.}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Dimensions of serendipity}
Whereas the foregoing items are the central features of the
definition, the following further characterise the circumstances under
which serendipity occurs in practice.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Chance}: Fleming \citeyear{fleming} noted: ``There are
thousands of different moulds'' -- and ``that chance put the mould
in the right spot at the right time was like winning the Irish
sweep.''
%
\inlineitem{One must assume that relatively few triggers $T^\star$
that are identified as interesting actually lead to useful results;
in other words, the process is fallible.}
%%
\item \textbf{Curiosity}: Venkatesh Rao \citeyear{rao2011tempo} refers
to a \emph{cheap trick} that takes place early on in a narrative in
order to establish the preliminary conditions of order. Curiosity
with can play this role, and can dispose a creative person to begin,
or to continue, a search into unfamiliar territory.
%
\inlineitem{The prior training $p$ causes interesting features to be
extracted, even if they are not necessarily useful; $p^{\prime}$
asks how these features \emph{might} be useful. }
%%
\item \textbf{Sagacity}: This old-fashioned word is related to
``wisdom,'' ``insight,'' and especially to ``taste'' -- and
describes the attributes, or skill, of the discoverer that
contribute to forming the bridge between the trigger and the result.
In many cases, such as an entanglement with cockle-burs, many others
will have already been in a similar position and not obtained an
interesting result. Once a phenomenon has been identified as
interesting, the disposition of the investigator may lead to a
dogged pursuit of a useful application or improvement.
%
\inlineitem{Rather than a simple look-up
rule, $p^{\prime}$ involves creating new knowledge.}
%%
\item \textbf{Value}: Note that the chance ``discovery'' of, say, a
\pounds 10 note may be seen as happy by the person who finds it,
whereas the loss of the same note would generally be regarded as
unhappy. Positive judgements of serendipity by a third party would
be less likely in scenarios in which ``One man's loss is another
man's gain'' than in scenarios where ``One man's trash is another
man's treasure.'' If possible we prefer this sort of independent
judgement \cite{jordanous:12}.
%
\inlineitem{The evaluation $|R|>0$ may be carried out ``locally'' (as
an embedded part of the process of invention of $R$) or ``globally''
(i.e.~as an external process). }
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Environmental factors}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Dynamic world}: Information about the world develops
over time, and is not presented as a complete, consistent whole. In
particular, value may come later. Van Andel
\citeyear[p. 643]{van1994anatomy} estimates that in twenty percent
of innovations ``something was discovered before there was a demand
for it.''
%
\inlineitem{$T$ (and $T^\star$) appears within a stream of data with
indeterminacy. There is a further feedback loop, insofar as
products $R$ influence the future state.}
%%
\item \textbf{Multiple contexts}: One of the dynamical aspects at play
may be the discoverer going back and forth between different
contexts, with different stimuli. 3M employee Arthur Fry sang in a
church choir and needed a good way to mark pages in his hymn book;
he happened to have been attending seminars offered by his colleague
Silver about restickable glue.
%
\inlineitem{This is reflected directly in our model by the difference
between the ``context of discovery'' involving prior preparations
$p$, and the ``context of invention'' involving prior preparations
$p^{\prime}$. Both of these may be subdivided further.}
%%
\item \textbf{Multiple tasks}: Even within what would typically be
seen as a single context, a discoverer may take on multiple tasks
that segment the context into sub-contexts, or that cause the
investigator to look in more than one direction. The tasks may have
an interesting \emph{overlap}, or they may point to a \emph{gap} in
knowledge. As an example of the latter, Penzias and Wilson used a
large antenna to detect radio waves that were relayed by bouncing
off of satellites. After they had removed interference effects due
to radar, radio, and heat, they found residual ambient noise that
couldn't be eliminated \cite{wiki:cosmic-radiation}.
%
\inlineitem{Both $T$ and $T^\star$ may be multiple, causing an
individual process to fork into communicating sub-processes that
involve different skills sets.}
%%
\item \textbf{Multiple influences}: The ``bridge'' from trigger to
result is often found through a social network, thus, for instance
Penzias and Wilson only understood the significance of their work
after reading a preprint by Jim Peebles that hypothesised the
possibility of measuring radiation released by the big bang
\cite{wiki:cosmic-radiation}.
%
\inlineitem{The process as a whole may be multiplied out among
different communicating investigators.}
\end{itemize} \input{etymology.tex}
\input{by-example.tex}
\input{related-work.tex}
diff --git a/model.tex b/model.tex
index 1de750a..6675847 100644
--- a/model.tex
+++ b/model.tex
...
\section{Our
formal model} computational model of serendipity} \label{sec:background}
\input{SPECS-begins.tex} \input{definition.tex}
% \input{schematic-tikz}
{\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{schematic}
\par}
\input{SPECS-continues.tex}
diff --git a/related-work.tex b/related-work.tex
index 92665e4..9e4cc2e 100644
--- a/related-work.tex
+++ b/related-work.tex
...
\subsection{Related work} \label{sec:related}
\textbf{[Since we are now have the formal definition, let's be sure
that we're sufficiently thorough in connecting this related work
back to it -- and pointing out what still needs to be done.]}
\textbf{[AJ I would prefer this section and the Literature review goes before the formal definition. Then the definition section can draw from the related work and lit review (why are related work and lit review separate sections?) and it is a bit clearer where the definition work comes from.]}
Paul Andr{\'e} et al.~\citeyear{andre2009discovery} look at
serendipity from a design point of view. These authors also propose a
two-part model, in which what we have called \emph{discovery} above
...
%% And thirdly, in noting that the unexpected fact must be "strategic," i. e., that it must permit of implications which bear upon generalized theory, we are, of course, referring rather to what the observer brings to the datum than to the datum itself. For it obviously requires a theoretically sensitized observer to detect the universal in the particular.
\end{quote}
These features match our earlier description quite well: $T$ is the
unexpected observation; $T^\star$ singles out the interesting or
anomalous features; and the result $R$ may include updates to $p$ or
$p^{\prime}$ that inform further phases of research.
%
Van Andel's \citeyear{van1994anatomy} ``patterns of serendipity'' are
often instances of this broader pattern.
diff --git a/serendipity.tex b/serendipity.tex
index 454a62d..e71f086 100644
--- a/serendipity.tex
+++ b/serendipity.tex
...
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[framemethod=tikz]{mdframed}
\mdfsetup{
skipabove=\baselineskip,
skipbelow=0\baselineskip,
innertopmargin=3pt,
innerbottommargin=3pt
}
%% \usepackage{fontspec}
%% \newfontfamily{\tam}[Script=Tamil]{Lohit Tamil}
%% \defaultfontfeatures{Scale=MatchLowercase}
...
\newpage
\input{introduction.tex}
%% The literature review
\input{literature.tex}
% \input{etymology.tex}
% \input{by-example.tex}
% \input{related-work.tex}
%% Our core definition
\input{model.tex}
\input{related-work.tex}
\input{connections.tex}
\input{related-work.tex} \input{SPECS-begins.tex}
\input{SPECS-continues.tex}
% SPECS-begins.tex
% figures/schematic/schematic.png
% SPECS-continues.tex
%% Development of the idea with examples
\input{serendipity-in-computational-context}
% cc-intro.tex
% ww-intro.tex
% figures/ww-serendipity/ww-serendipity.png
% ww-design.tex
% figures/ww-schematic/ww-schematic.png
% ww-analysis.tex
\input{discussion}
\input{conclusion}
diff --git a/ww-analysis.tex b/ww-analysis.tex
index 8936b23..ea7986b 100644
--- a/ww-analysis.tex
+++ b/ww-analysis.tex
...
\bigskip
\noindent
(We In our thought experiment, we focus
here on the case of
a hypothetical discussions and exchange of views between computational
poetry
workshop; systems as our example of a situation where social
circumstances could encourage serendipity. We note that similar ideas
would apply for prose and, with further adaptation, other
arts.) arts.
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: \paragraph{Thought Experiment: Prepared mind.}
Participating systems need to be able to follow the protocol. This
means that participating systems will need components like those
listed above. The {\tt listening} and {\tt questions} components of
...
reminiscent of the operating strategy of {\sf SHRDLU}
\cite{winograd1972understanding}.
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: \paragraph{Thought Experiment: Serendipity triggers.}
Although the poem is under the control of the initial generative
subsystem, it is \emph{not} under control of the listening subsystem.
...
involved in the discussion, the ``comment generator'' module would
expand to contain its own feedback loops.
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: \paragraph{Thought Experiment: Bridge.}
Feedback on portions of the poem may lead the system to identify new
problems, indeed, new \emph{types} of problems that it hadn't
...
%% Counting Breathing Position Distribution Phonics Rhythm Repetition
%% Thematic Narrative Entropy
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: \paragraph{Thought Experiment: Result.}
The final step is to take the problem or problems that were
identified, and write new code to solve them. Several strategies for
diff --git a/ww-generative-tikz.tex b/ww-generative-tikz.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6fb398c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ww-generative-tikz.tex
...
\begin{tikzpicture}[
single/.style={draw, anchor=text, rectangle},
]
\node (discovery) {\textbf{\emph{Discovery:}}};
% poet generates poem
\node[single, right=8mm of discovery.east,text width=1.5cm] (poet) {\emph{poetry generator}};
\node[single, right=4mm of poet.east] (poem) {P};
\draw [-latex] (poet.east) -- (poem.west);
% critic listens to poem and offers feedback
\node[single, right=4mm of poem.east,text width=1.5cm] (critic) {comment generator};
\draw [-latex] (poem.east) -- (critic.west);
\node[single, right=4mm of critic.east] (feedback) {F};
\draw [-latex] (critic.east) -- (feedback.west);
%%% Next phase
\node[below=1cm of discovery] (invention) {\textbf{\emph{Invention:}}};
% poet integrates feedback
\node[single, right=8mm of invention.east] (feedbackcont) {F};
\node[single, right=8mm of feedbackcont.east,text width=1.7cm] (integrator) {\emph{feedback integrator}};
\draw [-latex] (feedbackcont.east) -- (integrator.west);
\node[single, below=8mm of integrator.south,text width=1.5cm] (explainer) {feedback explainer};
\node[single, below right=2mm and 2mm of integrator] (question) {Q};
\node[single, below left=2mm and 2mm of integrator] (answer) {A};
\draw[-latex] ([yshift=-1.5mm]integrator.east) to [out=0,in=90] (question.north) ;
\draw[-latex] (question.south) to [out=270,in=0] (explainer.east) ;
\draw[-latex] (explainer.west) to [out=180,in=270] (answer.south) ;
\draw[-latex] (answer.north) to [out=90,in=180] ([yshift=-1.5mm]integrator.west) ;
\node[single, right=8mm of integrator.east] (problem) {X};
\draw [-latex] (integrator.east) -- (problem.west);
% poet reflects on feedback and updates codebase
\node[single, right=4mm of problem.east,text width=1.5cm] (pgrammer) {\emph{code}\\ \emph{generator}};
\draw [-latex] (problem.east) -- (pgrammer.west);
\node[single, right=4mm of pgrammer.east,text width=.3cm] (etc) {...};
\draw [-latex] (pgrammer.east) -- (etc.west);
\end{tikzpicture}
diff --git a/ww-intro.tex b/ww-intro.tex
index 85918ef..6031f00 100644
--- a/ww-intro.tex
+++ b/ww-intro.tex
...
\subsection{A
Writers Workshop for Systems} thought experiment evaluating our model of serendipity} \label{sec:ww}
%% \textbf{[It would be good to go back over To evaluate our
other paper and make
%% sure computational framework in usage, we
make good apply a thought
experiment based around a scenario where there is high potential for
serendipity. As discussed above, sociological factors can influence
serendipitous discoveries on
the idea in the Related Work section a social scale. The exploitation of
the
%% current paper that ``This earlier paper remains broadly
%% indicative, however, social creativity and
the ideas it describes feedback can
see
%% considerable benefit from the more formal thinking we develop in
%% the current work.''} create scenarios where serendipity
could occur.
%% \textbf{In particular: at least one of the reviewers found the Writers
%% Workshop ``technologically unrealistic'' or similar, so let's try to
%% make sure we're not overpromising. I think the other paper makes it
%% all fairly realistic.]}
%% In \cite{poetry-workshop}, we
investigate the feasibility of using
%% designs of this sort in considered multi-agent systems that
learn by sharing
work in progress, and
%% discussing partial
understandings.
This earlier paper remains broadly
%% indicative, however, and the ideas it describes can see considerable
%% benefit from the more formal thinking The thought experiment we
develop apply here explores
serendipity in
such scenarios, and is influenced by the
current work.
% \citeA{poetry-workshop} describes a ideas of
\citeA{gabriel2002writer} on Writers
Workshop for poetry
%systems. Workshops.
Following \citeA{gabriel2002writer}
% we described a template for a pattern
...
in other words, what they find in the presented work. In some
settings this is augmented with {\tt suggestions}. After any {\tt
questions} from the author, the commentators may make {\tt replies}
to offer
clarification. clarification.\footnote{We return to discuss further work with Writers Workshops and serendipity in Section \ref{sec:futurework}.}
This is how these steps map into the diagram we introduced in Section \ref{sec:background}:
\input{ww-schematic-tikz}
