prof·li·ga·cy /?pr?fl?g?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prof-li-guh-see]

–noun

[Origin: 1730–40; proflig(ate) + -acy]

The CEO of Google gave an interesting answer at the Seoul Digital Forum when asked what defines Web 3.0. I guess I have my own answer. I feel his was either considerately dumbed down, or, Eric Schmidt is both really lucky and really stupid. My guess is, he was dumbing it down for the audience when he said AJAX was what defined Web 2.0. Anyway, here are my definitions, feel free to re-use them…

Web 1.0: Sociality of an individual with stores of data via Web-based interface. We can understand this as a reflection of the benefits of the “Intelligence of One” concept.

Web 2.0: Sociality of an individuals with stores of data to produce aggregate data stores via a Web-based interface. We can understand this as a reflection of the benefits of the “Intelligence of Swarms” concept.

Web 3.0: Sociality of data and processes. Data and Applications which can leverage any component of each others processing or identity. We can understand this as a reflection of the benefits of the “Artificial Intelligence” concept.

The idea of having a phobia probably causes most Americans to feel anxiety, that worry in itself though, in some cases, might just be another phobia — that is how I know, not all phobias are created equal. While the term phobia can mean having an irrational fear of something, lets not also exclude that it does also mean to have an irrational sensitivity to something.

Still, I feel warm considering the idea that “it all” began when I was just seven or eight years old, sitting behind a keyboard for the first time. Only because that idea itself, makes my progression over the last two decades, seem epic. Chances are, there was nothing epic going on. More than likely “it all”, as I so vaguely put it, was the result of a major case of infophobia.

Something we all suffer from… from time to time.

Now, I suspect, your mind will probably want to attack that word — infophobia — so allow me to do it first: there is no such word as infophobia, at least not in any English Dictionary that I have looked over.

Infophobia is not the battle-cry of some counterculture. Nor is it some industry’s new favorite buzzword. And, infophobia is not some fancy, underhanded term coined so that you’d land in the chair of a therapist either. In fact, infophobia is my very own term.

Let me clarify though, I don’t mean “my very own term” in the usual quaint sense. I mean, its my own term because I registered Infophobia as a trademarked business name. Surely though, shameless plugging is not the reason I brought the term up.

Infophobia describes the cause for (my) anyone’s irrational compulsion to know as much as possible at all times through as many mediums as he/she can find, and despite one’s physical limitations. The term is used to describe the cause for why someone seeks sources of information and information itself, only compulsively.

So, now you know what I mean, when I say, Infophobia. But, does it really mean anything — does such an “illness” exist?

Yes, it does.

We know this kind of behavior/phenomena has occurred in the past, because today, we see the results of the typical symptoms. For instance, one can directly correlate the advancements of information technology with a progressive trend toward open syndication of information. That is, starting with the advent of the Internet, one can find countless examples, on and including, the World Wide Web, or, through the birth of the Open Source Software Community, later leading to Web 2.0 philosophies of free use and collaboration — where one observes the complete transformation of these venues into Infophobic platforms. Clearly, members of these social networks are compelled, through the fear of missing some bit of data, and are motivated to stay connected, in order to remain having a sense of relevance — this is the very nature of popular culture.

We can consider almost any amount of demand in almost any form, with the purpose of information syndication, a typical result of one, or any combination of Infophobic symptoms. This demand is driven by what we can call the Principle of Ideal Preference. Simply stated that is, that the majority of the embodiment of a demand will always tend to prefer ideal results.

The best, simplest example is the “market shopper.” As consumers in a market, the embodiment of the demand is the ideal purchase of ideal products. No one goes shopping with the preference of buying something less than ideal, or in a less than ideal way. Even if it were suggested someone wanted to purchase something already broken, or from some far away place — already broken, or far away are restrictive and define the criteria by which the consumer has entitled the item, or the process ideal.

This is not simply a case of curiosity not so easily dismissed, either. Infophobia is a more deeply rooted part of the human pathology. And, understanding Infophobia, the fear of informational uncertainty itself, or of an awareness that avenues of information are potentially being missed, is integral to understanding the mindset applied during the development of innovative concepts. These fears, worries, and/or concerns invoke thought processes which help to sure up errors found at design time.

Infophobia promotes many of our current, and especially are most effective, analytical, human behaviors. Beyond just analysis, it is this pathological process that motivates, and re-enforces what would otherwise be a fleeting curiosity, and cements these impulses into evolving, problem-solving behaviors.