Inertia | in technology or cognition
Inertia is the tendency of a person or system to continue in its current way, even when better alternatives exist.
Technological Inertia & QWERTY
Have you ever wondered why the keyboard starts with QWERTY? The layout isn’t alphabetical, doesn’t put the most commonly used vowels in the easiest-to-reach places, and the overall arrangement seems to lack any obvious logic. Yet, even after decades of technological evolution, the same layout remains standard—on computers, phones, and anywhere.
Was it designed for efficiency? Or based on research proving it to be ergonomically ideal? Or maybe it was born from some mysterious spell?
None of the above.
The story goes back to the late 19th century, when typewriters were first invented and began spreading as a new tool. Early mechanical typewriters had a problem: if you typed too fast, the typebars would block. So, in the 1870s, designer Christopher Sholes came up with the now-famous QWERTY layout—a strange arrangement that deliberately separated frequently used letters to slow down typing and reduce jamming.
QWERTY was not designed for efficiency, but to prevent mechanical failure.
As technology improved, jamming was no longer an issue. But QWERTY had already become the standard for training typists, and companies were invested in it.
Newer, more efficient layouts (like the Dvorak keyboard) were invented but never widely adopted.
QWERTY persists not because it’s the best, but because history locked it in.
Technological change is not necessarily efficient in the short run; instead, it may be subject to historical accidents and self-reinforcing mechanisms that lock-in suboptimal technologies. — Paul A. David, “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY”, American Economic Review, 1985
Technological Inertia Can Be Broken
While technological inertia often allows outdated systems or inferior technologies to persist, there are also many stories of successful disruption—where inertia was overcome. These stories usually involve at least one of the following:
- Technological leap: The new technology has overwhelming advantages.
- Behavioral shift: The new solution significantly lowers the cost of adoption or learning.
- Collective switch: Industries or communities transition together.
- Policy or regulation: Laws, standards, or incentives guide the transition.
Kodak’s dominance during the film photography era is a textbook case of path dependency. Digital cameras started off with lower quality and higher costs, and couldn’t compete at first. But as image quality improved and the internet and smartphones transformed how people stored and shared photos, user behavior shifted. People wanted instant sharing. The combination of technological leap and behavioral shift disrupted the old model. Kodak, unable to adapt in time, ultimately went bankrupt.
On the other hand, the widespread adoption of the USB-C connector on mobile phones was achieved through collective action and regulatory intervention. Apple clung to its Lightning connector, and the Android ecosystem used a variety of ports, creating a mess of cables and adapters. Then came collective pressure from users, companies, and finally legislation: the EU mandated that all small devices use USB-C from 2024 onwards. The industry aligned, and even Apple had to comply.
Technological inertia seems to affect many aspects of our daily lives.
But in reality, inertia is rarely about the technology itself—it’s about how we think.
Even worse, people often use technical inertia to cover up the lack of knowledge.
How Do We Cover Up Our Own Lack of Knowledge?
People rarely say “I don’t understand” or “I can’t do this.” Instead, they hide their unfamiliarity with new technologies or new ways of thinking behind seemingly reasonable excuses. These excuses often take the form of Technology Resistance, Cognitive Inertia, Structural Excuses, or Emotional Closure.
Technology Resistance
When people actively or passively reject new technology—usually due to a lack of understanding, trust, or confidence in adapting.
Original: “I’ve heard this thing isn’t mature yet.”
Translation: I don’t actually know what it is or how to use it.
Original: “I haven’t fully evaluated its safety and process implications yet, so I’m holding off.”
Translation: I didn’t understand it, so I’ll act like I’m being professionally cautious.
Cognitive Inertia
When individuals or groups continue to use old mental models or frameworks even in new situations—preferring the familiar, even if change would clearly help.
Original: “I can do this in CAD in 10 minutes, no need for all that flashy BIM stuff.” or “We’ve done it this way for years, we don’t need your fancy system.”
Translation: I don’t understand what you’re talking about, and I’m afraid I won’t be able to learn it.
Original: “This has always worked for us. Why change it?”
Translation: I don’t want to learn new things. I’d rather stick to the old way.
Structural Excuses
Blaming organizational structure, workflows, or company culture for resisting change or transformation.
Original: “This new system is great, but our processes can’t be changed.”
Translation: I don’t know how to change things and I’m afraid to try.
Original: “I’m not sure our team could adapt to this.”
Translation: I’m afraid of losing control or not being able to keep up.
Emotional Closure
Turning a knowledge gap into an emotional response, avoiding the responsibility of learning.
Original: “I just don’t like this stuff. It’s too much hassle.”
Translation: I’m overwhelmed and confused. I don’t want to deal with it.
Original: “This is a thing for young people. I’m not into that.”
Translation: I don’t see where I fit into this, so I protect myself by rejecting it.
Anyways, we often cover up our lack of knowledge not by saying “I don’t know,” but by blaming the tools, the timing, or the system — anything but ourselves.
Breaking the Inertia
Inertia is the tendency to stay in the current state. Breaking it, much like in physics, requires an external force.
That force could be:
- A moment of listening without bias or assumptions
- A conversation with an open mind
- A genuine attempt at something new
Inertia itself isn’t the enemy.
What’s dangerous is thinking that inertia is a rational choice.
Real change starts with a small push — a listening, a conversation, an attempt.
Annex
Bob: Hey, someone told me they know the thing they’re doing doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore, and might not be sustainable, but since they’ve worked on it so long, they just need to push it out. They said it’s due to technological inertia. What does that even mean?
Yo: Imagine someone’s watched Transformers 1 through 7, and spent years studying how to transform. Then along comes a Pikachu and says, “Be brave! Try something new! Let’s go on an adventure!” And they reply, “No! I finally learned how to transform! I’m staying right here and transforming!”
Yo: When someone insists on transforming just because they can, regardless of purpose, context, or relevance—that’s technological inertia.