Serendipity… WTF?
A tweet randomly flew through my cascading deck over the weekend, containing a link to a blog I’d never visited before.
Contra the NY Times today, why the web is the greatest serendipity engine in the history of culture: http://bit.ly/yZNa2 about 16 hours ago about 16 hours ago
The blog post is by Stephen B Johnson and articulates a frustration I’ve been struggling with for a long time. I don’t get this idea Web technologies are responsible for a decline in ‘natural’ serendipity.
My uncle Ben described the declinist position in a blog post he wrote some time ago at BBH Labs:
It’s a world of perfect targeting. Optimization. Zero wastage. Absolute utility. Total accountability.
More and more of what I see, hear, read and even taste seems exceptionally cunningly targeted at me. My RSS feeds me handpicked news streams. I get perfect movie recommendations via Netflix, books I’ll enjoy via Amazon, uncannily relevant advertising when using Gmail, weirdly familiar music from Last fm. Satnav keeps me resolutely on the data-derived optimum track. And so on.
Well, these shifts are triggering a smoothing out in our experiences, prompting a reduction in serendipity and introducing a spooky predictability to many facets of our lives. It’s becoming clear that ultra relevance comes with a hidden price. Because if everything’s relevant, then nothing’s unexpected, and if nothing’s unexpected, then nothing surprises you, and if nothing surprises you, then that’s a strange, neutralized, vanilla kind of life to lead. Think John Anderton meets Truman Burbank.
We’re talking about the end of surprise.
Of course, this is all true.
We *do* live in a world that’s increasingly like the one Ben describes, but I haven’t noticed any decline in ‘surprises’ yet, and like Stephen I have absolutely no difficulty in discovering weird new shit ALL THE TIME to look at online. In fact, my biggest problems right now *by far* are:
- A super-abundance of weird new shit to discover
- Not enough time to do so, and a resulting daily sense of crushing regret
- Poor attention literacy, manifested by a willingness to be distracted by new stuff discovered by accident through practically every interaction I have online – this is especially serious now that I have a torrent of links pouring into my eyes through my various iPhone apps and desktop, and emanating from a network of 483 ‘friends’ on Twitter
The declinists argue that our ‘human’ need to discover things through serendipity is thwarted by emerging recommendation and discovery technologies but, like Stephen, I feel that it’s completely the other way around.
The declinists point to a mythical golden pre-Web era of serendipity. They say that the way people read newspapers in the old days supported serendipitous discovery far better than a website can. They claim that the experience of discovering music through radio and club DJs was more serendipitous than the experience provided by online music sites. They seriously believe that bookshops and libraries made it easier to discover knowledge by accident than the Web can.
I say that’s rubbish and the declinists are 100% wrong. Serendipity is boosted in the age of super-abundance
The word itself is fascinating. It’s a lovely word isn’t it? It feels good saying it. It’s one of those graceful, slightly mysterious words that invests the one who utters it with depth and a sense of sophistication. The word is unnaturally powerful, magical – almost totemic to its acolytes and disciples, let’s call them the serendipitards.
Its etymology is fascinating and perhaps explains its mythic overtones. The English author Horace Walpole introduced it into the language in a letter in 1754 with the following explanation:English author Horace Walpole introduced it into the language in a letter in 1754 with the following explanation:
“this discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word.”
Walpole created the word from an old name for Sri Lanka, Serendip and explained that this name was part of the title of:
“a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip: as their highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of….”
I met quite a few serendipitards earlier this year at SxSW at a talk billed as ‘Music 2.0′ by Elliott and Sandy Hurst of Supernova.com. The talk’s premise was that the new era of unlimited catalogue and algorithmic recommendation simultaneously provides too much choice AND makes discovery less random than it was in the age of scarcity, and life is therefore less pleasurable.
As this blog post relates, I became involved in an argument in which several of the audience – including me – attacked the panel.
Firstly, I made the point that algorithms are tools: you can use them for good or for evil. In fact, Last.fm had (maybe they still do) a recommendation engine that you could crank up from ‘just like yours…’ to ‘almost totally random’ (the recommendation equivalent of Spinal Tap’s ‘volume 11′ setting). algorithms are tools: you can use them for good or for evil. In fact, Last.fm had (maybe they still do) a recommendation engine that you could crank up from ‘just like yours…’ to ‘almost totally random’ (the recommendation equivalent of Spinal Tap’s ‘volume 11′ setting).
Secondly, I tried to argue that the new super-abundance of unlimited catalogues cancels out the predictiveness of algorithmic recommendation, and that far from being a paralysing nuisance, abundance is a good thing. In evolutionary terms surplus is definitely “a good thing”. The myths and stories of “the ancient ones” demonstrate that pretty much every global culture (other than ascetics, puritans, Taleban and other self-punishing guilt freaks) fantasise about treasure caves, El Dorado, overflowing cups, feasting, milk and honey and cornucopias. The afterlife envisaged by pretty much every world religion is characterised by abundance – and that’s because for most of human history life has been lean, mean, brutal and short.
So, what’s with this “too much choice” whinging? I don’t get it. At all.
Not only that, but it’s a really boring, college debating society type argument. Ultimately, it comes down to a philosophical point about how random anything engineered by mankind – in this case an algorithm – can really be. That’s about as interesting as debating how many angels you can dance with on the head of a pin.
Lastly, I would just point out that this is not an issue we hear real users complaining about. Ever.
I challenge the serendipitards to go out and discover some real users who are worried about super-abundance and the decline of serendipity. It is simply not a real part of any normal person’s experience. Normal people want more of everything and some tools to help them filter the stuff they might like.
20 comments
Yep – so true.
Writing this as I’m tired and trying to finish writing one thing for work, not really into it and clicking on links in Twitter or elsewhere – and never ever enough time to keep up with all the stuff being shared and that I could find out about every day. I go from complete apathy and giving up on trying to read everything, to pretending I don’t care and casually clicking a few links, to going extreme and desperately trying to consume all the info available (impossible)
Anyways, back to Serendipity – I haven’t read all the links you’re mentioning yet but the theories about it dying seem a bit ridiculous in that they’re not taking into account our human network. By that I mean that the friends, family, colleagues etc you’re connected to have different interests than you have so you’ll be fed surprising information.
And ultimately people still talk to each other (real talking, like audio) and generally learn about different things – unlike the time when everyone was watching the same thing on telly the night before and all talked about the same thing the following day.
Apart from a few extreme examples, as perhaps the life of a slave a while back, serendipity has always been around and not leaving any time soon. It’s a human thing.
Well argued – in fact it occurs to me that the serendipitards are pining for an era of curated discovery goverened by traditional one to many media, whereas on the social web discovery is more often than not through friends on Twitter or through the RSS feeds selected by individuals. A familiar conflict these days.
Erin McKean has a lovely take on serendipity in her talk at TED:
“Online dictionaries right now are paper thrown up on a screen … in fact online dictionaries replicate almost all the problems of print except for searchability. And when you improve searchability you actually take away the one advantage of print, which is serendipity. Serendipity is finding something you weren’t looking for because finding what you were looking for is so damn difficult.”
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html
Erin’s talk is about rethinking the dictionary, and she references a tool built based on technical and informational features, not human abilities.
In my opinion I think most of the stuff from the early tech-based web era is non-human and “non-serendipital”. But the new social stuff, and the stuff designed with human activities and behaviors in mind – from the ground up. Is presenting a whole new league of beautiful and fruitful serendipity that we have not seen before.
Your ‘uncle’ Ben? Freudian or what?
Crushing regret indeed, I’m almost at the point where I’m going to hand over £500 for a speed reading course so I can inject 5 times more weird new shit into my mind.
Cracking rant/post Tim.
(At the minimum, ‘serendipitards’ needs to enter the lexicon and some up-and-coming crazy-assed alternative band needs to name themselves ‘The Declinists’.)
I think there’s some subtlety to explore between the two positions.
Firstly, Ben’s slightly tongue-in-check (?) vision of a ‘recommendation dystopia’ is probably not going to come to pass, but has indeed been heading in that direction. But I see this as a failure in creativity of the people who make those damn targeting tools. They ARE boring and predictable, and once you get over the excitement of your first Amazon or Last.fm suggestion, they’re boring, and yes, a little un-human.
So, ironically enough, the challenge is to create algorithms that surprise and delight and inspire, as opposed to focusing on preponderance to purchase (yawn). I pitched a very cool music algorithm based around a ‘uniqueness engine’ (as opposed to similarity) to do exactly this – but the client couldn’t get it ;(.
Of course in the digital realm, people rely on broader tools than merely algorithms to make discoveries. Twitter is a case in point. Yes, it’s a communications platform, but as much as anything it’s a crowd-filtering tool. And it’s things like this that you use to deal with the super-abundance of great stuff out there. Because there’s no doubt in my mind that serendipity is almost perfectly correlated with access to more information/networks (as Tim argues).
But we’re trying to drink from a serendipitous fire-hydrant (Twitter fatigue anyone?), and it’s just too much.
So I believe that beyond more creative algorithms, what we need are vastly more intelligent, humanised filters. And I don’t think these filters will be about popularity or activity or chronology or ‘likes’ or faves’ or anything else so, er, cold. They will be about emotion and mood and intuition and belief and other human-centered notions of discovery.
We might have a way to go, but I’m hoping that super-abundance and more creative algorithms/filters will create a much more humanised web. And in this utopian world (Serendipiville?), we’ll all be getting high from endless cool shit.
I love serendipity, always have – whether on- or offline. So it seems unfair that the Declinists got the better suffix. Declinards seems more fitting. Long live the Serendipitists.
@char I love ‘declinards’ and wish i’d thought of it. The Catholic bishop that said social software was bad for people was a declinard.
Serendipity is not in peril, what I hear in your article and the comments is ‘abundance anxiety’.
Great, thought-provoking post. The web giveth and the web taketh away. On the one hand, it’s undeniably true that for the curious and magpie-like user link culture has created an endless ability to explore and find the unexpected. On the other, it’s also true that it’s easier, if you’re so inclined, only to consume things, based on your buying history, that are for people like you by people like you. So the overheard, perception changing conversation can get lost. I think, though, to Justin’s point this is ultimately less interesting as a philosophical debate than as a challenge to the quality of our algorithms and recommendation software. Which ultimately comes down to the quality of the data. With more and more sites embracing open/social IDs and the stream of social/contextrual data that opens up the algorithms must surely become smarter, more nuanced and more able to pleasantly surprise.
Paul, that term abundance anxiety really sums up something I’m working on at the moment. Is that a term you coined yourself? I’d like to credit you in an article I’m working on.
I think it´s all about you let yourself or desire to be caught by surprise. On the internet you have more tools to skip serendipity If you will. I wouldn´t.
Kind of reeling from the thought of the only surprises left being computer mediated surprises. Feels like the holodeck on Star Trek. It’ll never happen. Life’s far too messy, and people still spend most of their time and make most of their decision in meat-space.
I think that web actually increased serendipity. Where else could I get a Netvibes with so much topics on my door everyday?
Relevance or ranks or whatever doesn’t excludes the surprise factor in things. Surprise is overrated! [see from slide 11: http://www.slideshare.net/paul.y.kim/three-stories-about-participation-1576150?type=powerpoint ]
http://www.slideshare.net/paul.y.kim/three-stories-about-participation-1576150?type=powerpoint
Sharing and filtering takes selection of content to another level – it´s just a start of collaboration process, implicitly you´re opening a debate for much MORE options, NOT excluding. And this is the premisse of serendipity.
“Not enough time to do so, and a resulting daily sense of crushing regret” that’s how i feel everyday. :)
great post!
I bow to you sir.
I just bumped into this post and read it thoroughly, because I believe that serendipity is part of my life and the Internet is a good place for it.
While, on one hand, I guess I understand who says that “natural” serendipity is declining, on the other, I strongly believe it’s only part of the “natural” suspicious way of thinking of those who feel threatened by the Web and it’s (again) natural caos of things.
When I started to use the Internet, back in the 90′s, my first goal was to learn all those things books would not tell me. Especially the books I could phisically reach. The answers to the many questions I always have can be so far away when you have to rely on texts that might as well not exist where you live. That was the first phase of my experience as an Internet user. Then, serendipity took over. Discovering new interests, new stuff that my memory can’t possibly deal with it is part of my everyday experience. And that is something I try to transmit my customers (small marketing agency). I believe that, anyway you put it, serendipity will always be something natural (artificial serendipity simply does not exist), no matter what technology is in place. And that is in part why we talk about Web 2.0 and even Web 3.0. Discovery is out there, but no one will be able to organize it 100% for you.
And the irony is that I stumbled on this piece thanks to a small link on another page that I’d found by accident when I was looking for something else. Surely that is serendipity?
There is no way I’d ever know as much as I do today if it weren’t for the internet. The surprises may not be so ‘abrupt’ as they were before the internet, but when you have an RSS feed that showcases the best in graphic design, the latest developments in nano-technology, reports on the discovery of a new star system in a far-flung galaxy, and all the latest marketing best practice… what’s to worry about?
Serendipitous or not, the benefit is the same: a rich and varied repertoire of information, education and entertainment. The internet allows you to bite off way more than you can chew, and for those greedy to make new discoveries, that’s the greatest gift around.
Arrive here through the serendipity of finding a link to this post on Neil Perkin’s Post of the Month recommendation @
http://neilperkin.typepad.com/only_dead_fish/2009/09/post-of-the-month-nominations-august-09.html
http://neilperkin.typepad.com/only_dead_fish/2009/09/post-of-the-month-nominations-august-09.html
Marco and many others including myself have worked through the experience of the web since its arrival say circa 1994-5. I firmly believe in the biography of not only humans but also organisations. The web is an organisation par excellence and it has gone through the first seven years of physical growth, the last seven years or so 7-14 are the emotionally awakening years(bursting the bubble anyone) and now we hit the teenage years and the ego arrives!! I am.
The biggest serendipity has to be, not what is on the web and all the fancy algorithms, but the fact that people are becoming conscious of self due to over abundance – they have to take control and indeed become more engaged.
I wonder if you’re struggling with the same issue I’ve been wrestling with. A tension.
The tension is that for the evolution of ideas you need diversity but for our engagement we need relevance.
I blogged in a little depth here http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/bored-of-twitter.html
The tools that help us manage this tension look like having the brightest future.
http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/bored-of-twitter.html
Excellent stuff.
“A super-abundance of weird new shit to discover” – yes, it’s a double-edged sword, but who wants to go back to the days of 4 TV channels, news from newspapers, and about 1 shelf’s worth of interesting books in your local bookshop? Not me.