Nicholas Carr has an article in The Atlantic titled Is Google Making Us Stupid? that got me thinking over the weekend. I’ve noted before how Google’s ubiquitous nature can have unintended consequences, such as the de facto standardization of spelling and grammar. In his article Nick notes that the nature of searching for information is having profound impact on the way in which he and others read:

“. . . what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”

I’ve noticed this myself as well, a feeling that the Internet is condensing all information into Cliff’s Notes. In particular, this has been quite concerning in the blogosphere, where it often seems folks expect hard issues to be discussed and resolved as quickly as they can post. In a previous post on standards for cloud computing I cited a few threads where folks expected publication of specifications and standards as easily as posts to a blog. Of course, that simple isn’t possible, but I believe that the speed with which we access information online builds that expectation.

It appears that one unintended consequence of unhindered access to information is a sort of commoditization of thought. Information is simply so easy to come by that we tend to value it less. Worse, ideas and the effort to communicate them are discounted by the sheer volume of information that floods our senses at every waking moment.

As an example, when I was an undergrad some 25 years ago at CSUF, research was painful. I might spend hours scouring through microfiche, racks of books or the dreaded manual stack for the CDC Cyber mainframe trying to find information. Having unearthed what I was looking for, I was certain to write it down or copy it.  Today, however, I write down as little as possible. Written information is the first thing I lose. I also almost never copy of print information. Rather, I rely on my ability to search for it again. Google has become an integral part of my process for consuming information.

I can’t share Nick’s more pessimistic view of the situation though. Humans are resilient and have a way to adapting technology to their needs even if at first it appears the other way around. I, for instance, picked up an Amazon Kindle a couple months ago. Using the same technologies that can commoditize thought, the Kindle places entire books at my disposal even when I’m unconnected at 30,000 feet. Since getting it I’ve read two novels, three business books, a science book, and numerous magazines and newspapers. That would have been more than a year’s reading before. Plus, I’ve noted more young kids carrying books with them recently than laptops. They’ve got their phone for texting, and their iPod, but no laptop. Perhaps, the market is already pushing back.