Learn it → Apply it → Save as Skill
The decisions available to you today are shaped by decisions made long ago. Once a system, standard, or habit gets enough investment, switching costs, and coordination behind it, it can outlast the reasons that first created it — even when better alternatives now exist.
The Dr. Wallace’s Favorite Mental Models is designed to turn useful ways of thinking into reusable tools. Each model gives you a fast visual overview, deeper interactive learning, practical application exercises and an AI-ready Markdown skill you can save for future use.
Instead of merely reading about mental models, you can gradually build your own AI skills library: a collection of portable reasoning skills that can help ChatGPT, Claude, Grok and other AI assistants apply the mental models you value.
An early choice — sometimes a well-reasoned one, sometimes just whatever was available at the time — gets built on. Every year of investment, integration, training, and habit raises the cost of switching away from it, whether or not it is still the best option.
Important: the switching cost usually isn’t fixed. It compounds as more systems, habits, and people get built around the original choice — so the same decision gets harder to reverse the longer it goes unexamined.
The model is most useful when a current system, tool, standard, or habit feels hard to leave, and you need to know whether that difficulty is a real switching cost or just inertia.
Path dependence explains why a system persists. It does not, by itself, tell you whether the system should change.
Identify the original decision and the conditions under which it was made. Was it well-reasoned, or mostly an accident of timing and availability?
Find the specific mechanisms holding the current path in place: sunk infrastructure, learning curves, network effects, contracts, or institutional habit.
Estimate what it would actually cost, in time, money, retraining, and disruption, to move to a genuinely better alternative.
Weigh the switching cost against the ongoing cost of staying, including how much further the current path may drift from the best available option.
Open a use case to see what the model changes.
Separate the original reasons for adopting it from what keeps it in place now. If the honest answer is integration depth and retraining cost rather than continued merit, price out a migration instead of assuming it is permanent.
Widespread adoption itself becomes a reason to keep using something, independent of its technical merits. Ask what coordination or network effects are doing the locking in, not just whether the standard is well designed.
Trace the process back to its origin. Some inherited procedures exist for reasons that no longer apply; others carry real institutional knowledge. Path dependence alone does not tell you which.
Estimate the compounding cost of building further on the current foundation versus the one-time cost of a deeper refactor. The longer the delay, the more expensive the eventual fix tends to become.
Zoning, transit routes, and utility grids laid down under old assumptions constrain what a city can do now. Understanding the original constraint helps separate what is genuinely fixed from what could still be changed at a price.
Specialization compounds like any other path: it raises your value in one direction while raising the cost of a pivot. Weigh that real switching cost against how much the field itself is still worth staying in.
This is an illustrative example designed to teach the method.
Expand for where the idea comes from and where the standard example gets pushback.
Economic historian Paul David popularized the term in a 1985 paper analyzing the QWERTY keyboard layout as a case where an early technical choice became locked in through adoption, even after the original technical reasons for it had faded. Economist W. Brian Arthur extended the idea in the 1980s and 1990s, showing mathematically how increasing returns and network effects can lock in one technology among several similarly good options.
It is more contested than the popular version suggests. Economists Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis published research in 1990 disputing that QWERTY was meaningfully slower than the Dvorak layout, and questioning how much genuine lock-in explains its dominance versus ordinary habit and marginal differences. The lesson most economists still draw is narrower than the popular story: lock-in mechanisms are real and worth checking for, but not every persistent standard is proof of an inferior technology winning.
Yes. Institutional economists and political scientists use it to explain why policies and institutions persist after their founding conditions change, and organizational researchers use it to explain why company processes and structures outlive their original justification. The mechanics, sunk investment, coordination, and habit, generalize well beyond keyboards and software.
Many path-dependent systems have been successfully migrated. The real question is cost, not possibility.
Sunk cost is a psychological pull toward past investment. Path dependence includes real, structural switching costs that exist independent of feelings about the past.
Skipping the question of whether the original decision was ever well-reasoned, or just an accident of timing, availability, or convenience.
Assuming a migration is impossible without ever actually pricing it out in time and money.
Underestimating how much more expensive switching becomes the longer a path is followed without review.
Treating “we’ve always done it this way” as sufficient justification instead of actually tracing the mechanism holding the path in place.
the current option is still genuinely the best one available. If there is no real gap to a better alternative, there is no lock-in problem to solve.
the resistance to change is purely psychological attachment to past investment, with no real structural switching cost or lock-in mechanism behind it.
the current path carries acute, growing risk, such as a security or safety gap, that outweighs the time needed for a full switching-cost analysis.
This browser tool structures your thinking. It does not send your information anywhere or perform AI analysis.
Save as Skill converts the model into portable Markdown instructions that teach an AI when and how to apply Path Dependence, what questions to ask, what evidence to seek, what mistakes to avoid and how to structure its analysis.
Save the skills you find useful and organize them into your own reusable library. The Markdown is intentionally model-neutral, so it can be used wherever an AI system accepts uploaded files, project knowledge, custom instructions or reusable text context. Platform capabilities differ, so this is a portable skill file rather than a claim of one-click installation.
No. It means switching has a real cost that grows over time, not that switching is impossible. Many organizations and even entire industries have successfully broken a path-dependent lock-in when the ongoing cost of staying finally outweighed the switching cost.
Momentum is a general tendency to keep going in the same direction. Path dependence is more specific: it points to the actual mechanisms, sunk infrastructure, network effects, contracts, learning curves, that make reversing course costly, not just a vague inertia.
Common patterns include phased migration that spreads the switching cost over time, building the new path alongside the old one until it is proven, or waiting for a forcing event, such as a platform’s end of support, that makes the switching cost unavoidable anyway and easier to justify.