Automated Zemblanity

William Boyd coined the term Zemblanity in the late twentieth century to mean the opposite of Serendipity:



William is incorrect, of course, and (don't get me wrong) this is not meant as a criticism of the book or its author (hey, I am a great fan of Gérard de Nerval, too — "Evey flower is a soul blossoming in nature."), but what need is there (poetic license aside) for a new word, when a perfectly suited one, which already exists, will do.

The opposite of Serendipity—making discoveries by design—is not Zemblanity, it is Indoctrination.

Along with the tools by which conformity is enforced:

...Newspeak.

...Doublethink.

And any deviation thereof stigmatized:

...Thoughtcrime.

All of which are words which were coined by George Orwell (1949).



But that was long before Al Gore had invented the internet or the term "World Wide Web" was coined by Tim Berners-Lee (1990).

Simply put, Serendipity is an UNPLANNED fortunate discovery.



It has both been described as a phenomenon (something that just happens), or a faculty (an inherent mental or physical power). I have no issue with either definition.

I like to think of it as a breeze of fresh air.



Since the advent of the World Wide Web, Serendipity has also been seen as a potential design principle for online activities that were (and did, for a brief time) present a wide array (the "Wide" part in "World Wide Web") of information and viewpoints.

The problem with Serendipity is that (by definition) it cannot be automated, for if it is, what is thusly artificially cultivated, is no longer Serendipity, but a finite manufactured sequence of well-defined, implementable instructions (like Google PageRank or Netflix's Cinematch)—which is what algorithms are.



What ended up happening instead, is that the very search engines that were supposed to be associated with a more diverse information access and lead users to sources to which they would not have been exposed otherwise, turned out to become, not just simply a tool of censorship (it happens), but the asphyxiating instruments by which the echo chambers and filter bubbles of a dominant culture are reinforced.



If the results yielded by your search engine seem to you less serendipitous than they used to be just but a mere three or four years ago, it's because they are.

The hand that writes the algorithm is the hand that rules the world.



Yes, Virginia, Serendipity exists.

And it is both a phenomenon and a state of mind.

But algorithms do not generate Serendipity.

Serendipity exists, in spite of algorithms.

Try the dice pool in the side bar.



There is no knowing. You might get lucky.

Whether it is serendipitous is entirely between the dice and you, and that which you were not looking for.