I read that once stuff like google or a political party is known and rises, throught positive feedback of fame and reputaiton it can "soar" in these winds. Whereas new players not only have to provide a product but also fight the institutionalised nature of players in the game.
In psychology IIRC there is a status quo bias which tends prefer the current state of affairs... irrationally.
If a stream of water has not carved a groove into the earth it may go 'anywhere', but if there is a bed to flollow its path will be closely reiterated each time it rains. In a sense we are all tributaries and distributaries. We contribute and are a function of others' contribution.
Market leaders like faith groups may not be empirically grounded but they still dominate and influence cultural flow. I wonder whow much is down to historical impetus, inherited dominance and inertia? And how much down to being cool?
In psychology IIRC there is a status quo bias which tends prefer the current state of affairs... irrationally.
If a stream of water has not carved a groove into the earth it may go 'anywhere', but if there is a bed to flollow its path will be closely reiterated each time it rains. In a sense we are all tributaries and distributaries. We contribute and are a function of others' contribution.
Market leaders like faith groups may not be empirically grounded but they still dominate and influence cultural flow. I wonder whow much is down to historical impetus, inherited dominance and inertia? And how much down to being cool?
