Path Dependency: The Traps of QWERTY and ActiveX

How Do Minor Past Choices Become Invisible Forces Governing Our Present and Future?

• The concept of Path Dependency and its impact on our lives
• Understanding the mechanics of technological traps through the QWERTY keyboard and ActiveX cases
• Exploring the psychology of trust and betrayal through behavioral economics games

How Was Your Choice Determined?

Take a look at the keyboard you are using now. From the top left, Q, W, E, R, T, Y… What if this familiar layout is actually a relic from the past, deliberately designed to slow down typing speed? Despite more efficient alternatives, why do we still live under the “tyranny of QWERTY”? This question leads us into the vast mystery of path dependency that governs our lives.

We believe ourselves rational, but life is often full of irrational inertia and puzzling choices. Today, we will investigate the invisible forces controlling our lives through the map of path dependency—how past choices constrain the present—and the microscope of the “Golden Balls” game that exposes human psychology.

Part 1: The Inertia of History – Once a Path is Set, It Doesn’t Change

The Sad Legend of the QWERTY Keyboard: The Beginning of Path Dependency

The story goes back to the late 19th century, when the smell of typewriter ink filled the air. At that time, typebars frequently jammed if typing was too fast. To solve this, inventors deliberately spaced frequently used letters apart to slow typing speed, creating the QWERTY layout. It was a design pursuing what might be called “efficiency in inefficiency” to avoid technical flaws.

As time passed and the computer era arrived without the risk of typebar jams, August Dvorak developed the much faster and more comfortable Dvorak keyboard. Although clearly superior, the result was, as we all know, the victory of QWERTY. This is the terrifying power of path dependency.

• Initial accidental choice: QWERTY became the standard due to historical technical limitations.
• Increasing returns and network effects: As QWERTY typewriters spread, the entire ecosystem—typing schools, companies—was built around QWERTY. The larger the network of QWERTY users, the more its value snowballed.
• Huge switching costs: Now that hundreds of millions are familiar with QWERTY, the social and economic costs of changing everything are unimaginable.

Ultimately, unless something is overwhelmingly better, we choose to endure familiar inconveniences.

South Korea’s Digital Dilemma: The Trap of ActiveX and Public Certificates

This tragedy of path dependency is painfully familiar to us as well, in the story of ActiveX and public certificates.

In 1999, the government mandated the use of public certificates for online financial security, starting the tragedy. The easiest solution at the time was Microsoft’s ActiveX technology, which installed security programs directly on users’ PCs. This decision pushed South Korea’s internet environment onto a long ‘ActiveX path.’

The government mandate created a strong “lock-in effect.” Once dependent on a specific technology or system, switching becomes very difficult.

• Ecosystem entrenchment: All developers and companies built services based on ActiveX, forming a massive industry ecosystem.
• User habituation: We became numb to the inconvenience of installing numerous programs for internet banking.
• Technological shackles: Public certificates became intertwined like a web with Windows and Internet Explorer, making it impossible to change just one component.

As a result, South Korea’s internet was trapped for over a decade in the Galápagos of Internet Explorer, with the comical experience of hunting for certificates in the NPKI folder. Although mandatory use was later abolished, the massive inertia of entrenched systems and habits means we still cannot fully escape this inconvenient path.

Part 2: The 5 Million Euro Game – The Psychology of Trust and Betrayal

Now, turning away from the grand flow of history, let’s examine a moment of human choice. The final round of the British game show “Golden Balls,” called ‘Split or Steal,’ is a perfect laboratory exposing human psychology.

Split or Steal: The Prisoner’s Dilemma

The rules are chillingly simple. Two contestants secretly choose either ‘Split’ or ‘Steal’ for the final prize.

This structure is identical to the classic game theory problem, the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” If both trust and cooperate (‘Split’), both benefit. But there is a strong incentive to betray (‘Steal’) for greater gain. Rationally, ‘Steal’ seems the dominant choice.

However, humans consider something more important than money: the desire not to look like a fool. Being betrayed after trusting causes not only financial loss but also immense psychological costs of humiliation and anger (-S). This pain can be worse than mutual loss.

“I Will Steal” – How Deception Created Miraculous Cooperation

Consider the legendary contestant Nick, who revealed the psychological essence of this game. He made a bombshell declaration to his opponent Ibrahim:

“Ibrahim, I trust you 100%, but I will press ‘Steal.’ If I win the entire prize, I will give you half after the show.”

This completely flipped Ibrahim’s decision matrix.

1. Uncertainty removed: The hope that Nick might ‘Split’ vanished. Nick will definitely ‘Steal.’

2. Choices restructured: Ibrahim now has two options:

   Advertisement

   • Press ‘Steal’: Since Nick will also ‘Steal,’ the result is (Steal, Steal). Guaranteed 0.
   • Press ‘Split’: Since Nick will ‘Steal,’ Ibrahim gets 0 for now, but there remains a very slim chance Nick will keep his promise.

Between a guaranteed 0 and a 0 with a tiny chance of reward, the rational choice is the latter. Ibrahim chose ‘Split,’ and against all odds, Nick also chose ‘Split.’ Nick used the threat of betrayal as a “nudge” to redesign his opponent’s choices, paradoxically achieving cooperation through the threat of non-cooperation.

Conclusion: When One Choice Becomes History

A single choice in the ‘Golden Balls’ game is like the initial adoption of the QWERTY keyboard standard. It is a “critical juncture” that sets the path of relationships. Once a relationship starts with ‘Steal’ (betrayal), it becomes trapped in a path of distrust, requiring enormous effort to rebuild broken trust and change course.

Three Key Takeaways

1. Minor initial choices constrain the future through ‘path dependency.’ Even when better alternatives appear, huge switching costs keep us on inefficient paths.
2. Human choices consider psychological costs beyond simple profit calculations, such as the desire not to look foolish. The trust-betrayal dilemma maximizes this complex psychological utility.
3. One betrayal locks a relationship into a ’lock-in effect.’ Broken trust traps relationships in inefficient conflict states that are costly to repair.

Our choices never exist in isolation; their traces accumulate into vast paths we cannot escape. How about taking a moment to consider what path your current choices might create for the future?