The Hidden Cost of Coincidensity Hunters
Why chasing more random encounters rarely creates real value — and what Authentic Serendipity actually demands
In today’s hyper-connected world, a particular archetype has become increasingly common: the Coincidensity Hunter.
You recognise them immediately. They treat every networking event, conference, virtual meet-up - or even outdoor activities - as a numbers game.
They proudly declare they are “increasing their luck surface area,” collecting conversations the way others compulsively collect business cards. Their strategy is simple and relentless: maximise volume.
What “Coincidensity” Really Means
The term coincidensity was originally introduced by Matt Biddulph (formerly of Dopplr) and later further highlighted by Stowe Boyd. It describes the powerful combination of coincidence and density that naturally generates unexpected encounters. These are the defining characteristics of dynamic metropolitan areas — and often also of well-functioning virtual communities.
Coincidensity is real and often valuable. It increases the raw probability of chance meetings, ideas, and weak ties. But here is the crucial distinction:
Coincidensity is not serendipity.
When people become excited about “engineering serendipity” through more events, more connections, and more random encounters, they are in fact only engineering coincidensity. The desire for unexpectedness is a fairly recent phenomenon, introduced by those who want to turn serendipity into a manageable process.
Photo courtesy: Ilkka Kakko. “My six-basket tribute to coincidensity. Filed under: Networking, Not Working. Njet working.”
The Fundamental Misconception
Coincidensity Hunters confuse social density with insight generation. They prioritise quantity over relevance, activity over timing, and motion over meaning. They rarely respect other people’s time and often lack the emotional intelligence to read whether the other person is genuinely open to engagement or simply wishes the conversation would end.
This constant drive also pushes against a fundamental human limit: Dunbar’s number — the cognitive capacity to maintain only about 150 stable social relationships. Beyond that, connections become superficial and lack the depth needed for real insight or collaboration.
The result is a modern paradox: the harder they hunt for coincidences, the less likely they are to experience anything of genuine, lasting value.
Now They Found a New Scene: LinkedIn
The perfect habitat for Coincidensity Hunters is no longer just the conference hall or the metropolitan lobby. They have discovered a far more efficient hunting ground: LinkedIn.
Just this week, a post titled “How to become luckier in 2026” collected more than 700 likes within days. The content was the usual checklist: talk to strangers, embrace rejection, always have a project on the go.
What makes this revealing is not the post itself, but who is engaging with it. Many of the likes and comments come from the very same Coincidensity Hunters who proudly declare they are “increasing their luck surface area.”
They are not engaging because the advice is profound. They are engaging because the algorithm rewards visible activity — and because publicly liking and commenting on popular (yet shallow) content is now seen as a low-effort way to stay visible, stay relevant, and perhaps catch someone else’s attention.
In other words: they are hunting coincidences on the platform that was literally built to maximise coincidensity.
LinkedIn has become the ultimate coincidensity machine. It optimises for volume, visibility, and weak ties.
It rewards the hunter who posts, likes, comments, and reposts the most — often without any real depth or follow-through. The platform itself turns the very act of “networking” into a performance sport.
This is why the 700+ likes tell us less about the quality of the advice and more about the audience: a large portion of them are not seeking insight.
They are simply practising the modern digital version of coincidensity hunting — hoping that enough superficial interactions will somehow translate into real opportunity.
The irony is hard to miss: the same people who claim to be mastering serendipity are, in reality, optimising for the very thing that most often prevents it — endless low-value noise.
Authentic Serendipity: A Different Game
Authentic Serendipity is my coinage — a deliberate attempt to reclaim the true lessons of the original Peregrinaggio di tre giovani figliuoli del re di Serendippo (1557).
Unlike Walpolean serendipity, which reduces the story to a lucky accident or “finding something you were not in quest of,” Authentic Serendipity restores what Walpole obscured: the princes’ purposeful journey (peregrinaggio) for wisdom to rule. The three princes were not randomly hunting for treasures. They were on a carefully prepared quest for sagacity — the quality that turns anomalies into actionable insight.
At its core, Authentic Serendipity is a structured, forward-looking process.
It begins with sharp observation and the detection of an anomaly, moves through abductive reasoning and strategic reframing to create a better story, and culminates in implementation and real value creation.
This process is illustrated in the framework I developed:
The princes demonstrated this in classic cases:
In the Camel case, they noticed subtle indirect evidence (grass eaten only on one side, tracks, traces of load) and collaboratively inferred the full picture.
In the Counselor case, they detected micro-signals of hidden intent and designed an indirect strategy to expose the plot.
In the Diliramma case, they refused lazy surface explanations and deliberately created conditions (seven palaces, diverse storytellers) that made the missing information surface.
In each instance, success came not from volume or chance, but from a prepared mind, collective sagacity, empathy, strategic design and by creating a better story — the very opposite of frantic coincidensity hunting.
This is why Authentic Serendipity is purpose-driven, objective, and collective, while Walpolean serendipity remains subjective, retrospective, and heavily biased toward post-hoc “happy accident” narratives.
Final Reflection
The next time you encounter a Coincidensity Hunter enthusiastically chasing the next random connection, remember this distinction:
They are not hunting for serendipity.
They are hunting for coincidences — and hoping that quantity will somehow substitute for quality, timing, and depth. Both in conferences, cocktail parties, social gatherings and even outdoor activities.
What could be worse than getting a Coincidensity Hunter in your tee-off group during a game of golf!
Timing is more important than action. A prepared mind meeting the right moment will always outperform someone who simply talks to more people.
May Kairos be with you in the jungle full of Coincidensity Hunters.