deletions | additions       diff --git a/connections.tex b/connections.tex  new file mode 100644  index 0000000..9ebe54c  --- /dev/null  +++ b/connections.tex 
...
\section{Connecting our formal definition to literature} \label{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}  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.  \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}  %  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}  %%  %  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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  $T$ (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}  %  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}  %  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}  %  The process as a whole may be multiplied out among  different communicating investigators.