I read somewhere that qwerty was intentionally designed to force typists to slow down because early typewriters jammed easily.
The concept is real, but it’s also tantamount to saying “sh*t happens.” A fishing pole is path dependence in a way because it’s a inferior model for fishing compared to boat and net. If only people would invest in boats and nets they’d catch more fish. But as far as many people are concerned the pole works just fine for their purposes, so why switch? Same thing in essence. Better is in the eye of the beholder in all instances in economics. And also in engineering as well. My company makes commercial shades and there’s some play in the U joint that joines the shaft of the motor to more than one shade. One guy tried to solve the problem by putting a solid shaft through several different shades and indeed, they all would have been perfectly leveled, aligned, and moved in unison. But the shaft was too damn long to get into some buildings. His solution solved one problem but because he wasn’t aware of all the criteria that needed to be met, the ‘better’ solution was actually worse. In economics its very much the same.
People make ‘wrong’ decisions or decisions based on ‘indifference’ according to some economists because those economists presume facts not in evidence: knowledge of what criteria the person was making their judgement on. A wrong or indifferent decision from the outside is rational and justified in a person’s interior logic. A perfect engineering solution that solves one problem causes another because a person couldn’t see the entire process. So from an engineering stand point you should look at decision making in an economic context as a problem that can’t be solved because all the information needed is simply not available and where is no reliable fudge factor to account for that.
Not really. Read The Myth of the Keys. The first tests that ‘proved’ the superiority of Dvorak were run by Dvorak himself. Good chance for experimenter bias there. Subsequent studies, some of which are mentioned in The Myth of the Keys, show no real clear advantage to either lay out so far as know. Of course individuals may have preferences one way or the other.
They’re actually not. If we were starting from scratch and a complete blank slate and everyone’s physical abilities and preferences were known to a T, perhaps. For someone to relearn Dvorak from Qwerty, that’s an extra cost and hassle, to retool the lines at the factories, etc. There’s just nothing significant in that in terms of a supposed market failure. If things were different they wouldn’t be the same. If we were all using Dvorak there would be people claiming the market failed because Qwerty or some other keyboard layout was ‘better’ for this reason or that. And they’d be wrong too. It’s just really not an issue. Even from an engineering point of view a ‘perfect’ solution doesn’t mean jack if can’t deliver on a practical level in the real world, and that’s where path dependence fails: nirvana fallacy. A room temperature material that would instantly transmit electrical charges with no resistance whatsoever would be a great thing. But the absence of such a material on the market, and the continued use of copper wire in place of existing super conducting materials, isn’t a market failure. It’s just the best solution given the practical reality of what’s necessary, what’s available, the grid and electrical designs we have developed over time, and how much in terms of resources people are willing to devote to solutions in this area.
Path dependence fails on a reductio absurdum argument because technically there’s always a way to do something that’s arguably ‘better’ than what’s being done now. And what’s being done now is always the result of what’s happened before and the decisions that people have made that lead to our current situation. So what? If things were different they wouldn’t be the same. Sadly enough, someone will likely win a Nobel Prize for expounding on that rather simple and insignificant point.
Or it may in fact lower it, as it does already by fostering higher time preferences.
The only quibble I have with your otherwise very excellent post is that you still seem to think Dvorak is not the end and be all of typing in the English language:) Otherwise - yes, full agreement. Path dependence is interesting, but trivial. 
Oh, and never forget; Hayek and Mundell both got a Nobel Prize actualyl, I think Mundell proposed something much smarter than the application in the Euro zone seems to indicate:) But THAT’S a different discussion.
Again, thank you all for the wonderful input. I think this really is a good forum to discuss economics.
Cheers,
Dietwald
I’m not particularly concerned with Nobel Prizes either way because I don’t care about Sweden. My whole family line come from the nordic region and they’re all drunken idiots, so I’m biased.
Children are taught to type on QWERTY keyboards in public schools. Perhaps that helps to explain why Dvorak hasn’t caught on. The opportunity cost of learning a new system is too high for most people to bother.
Another reason. Again, path dependency, but no market failure. (Besides, who runs public schools, eh?) 