We all tend to fall into ruts all else equal.

If it was good enough in the past, why do something else?

In most cases we don't maximize the quality, we just satisfice.

Maximizing takes time.

Time is precious!

We only maximize the most important things.

Imagine a small office with a dozen desks for a half-dozen employees, and no one assigned to any of them.

At the beginning, people just kind of sit at desks randomly.

But each day afterwards, if someone was unhappy with the desk they were at, they switch to a different one.

If they were satisfied with their last desk, they simply stay there next time, too.

Sometimes someone swapping desks takes a desk someone else would have used, forcing the other person to choose a new desk, and that can create a cascade.

At the beginning, no one has a claim to any particular desk.

But after a dozen iterations, if Jeff has sat at a particular desk every time, that de facto becomes his desk, and someone else sitting there would be violating an unspoken constraint.

Over time the system settles into a solution where everyone is satisfied enough with it and it doesn't need to change, so it starts to ossify.

A solution not where everyone loves it, but everyone can live with it.

If they couldn't' live with it, they'd make a change or at least make their displeasure known.

But if it's fine, then why make a fuss?