Chances favor the connected

Innovation comes from analogy, cross-discipline, serendipity, etc. Steven summaries all these sources as the connected. His basic argument the idea space is a fractal space, and thus at different scales, the patterns remain unchanged. Therefore, when we understand certain aspects of nature, we probably can abstract the patterns from this understanding and apply these patterns somewhere else. The key to be innovative is thus to connect ourselves on one hand with more discovered patterns, and on the other hand applying these patterns to understand the unknown.

Steven then derives from the above theory that the more connected the environment, the more innovations bred from this environment. Steven's arguments justify general education for innovators, and innovators need to put themselves in an open environment with an open mind.

The question I have here is whether Steven has really answered the question where good ideas come from. I believe, many innovations are derivatives of good questions or good assumptions. And Steven's arguments in applying existing patterns to understand mystic patterns is just a shortcut to find the answers. Thus, I think we should understand more how innovators pose these questions or assumptions in the first place.