Why Progress Outpaces Preferences

Most people like the status quo because it works well enough for them. They’ve built routines, habits, and expectations around how things are, and that stability is comforting. There’s only so much capacity for change in a person’s life at any given time, and most of that energy goes toward navigating immediate personal and professional challenges. The explore-exploit tradeoff — seeking new opportunities versus sticking with what’s already proven — shifts naturally toward the exploit side as people age. Change becomes riskier when you have more to lose, and a natural increase in conservatism (in its traditional sense) takes hold. This isn’t a failure of imagination; it’s an adaptive strategy to minimize upheaval in a complex world.

Advocates, academics, professionals, and entrepreneurs are not drawn to their work because they love the way things are. Rather, they see gaps, inefficiencies, or injustices in the status quo and dedicate themselves to addressing them. Their entire raison d'être is to push for change. That drive is what makes them effective at innovating, solving problems, and bringing about progress. People working in a field are selected for people wanting to make change in that field.

The issue is, as suggested above, the median citizen doesn’t necessarily share that enthusiasm for change. Change, even for the better, is risky and disruptive.

This creates a mismatch between what change agents propose and what the general public wants. Advocates champion bold reforms; academics propose paradigm shifts; entrepreneurs launch technologies that disrupt entire industries. But for the average person, these innovations can feel overwhelming, if not outright unwelcome.

The result is that society often gets more change than it’s asking for. Not because people explicitly demand it, but because those who shape the future—the advocates, the academics, the entrepreneurs—are inherently biased toward change. It's their job.

Consider a few examples from the world of transport where this dynamic plays out.

• Autonomous Vehicles: Companies like Waymo are building the future of driverless cars. Academics (like me) model the safety, efficiency, and environmental benefits and costs of AVs. Advocates champion the reduction of road fatalities. But few everyday drivers are clamoring for this change. The public appears skeptical about safety, ethical dilemmas, and job displacement in industries like trucking. The push for AVs is coming from those excited about the potential for disruption — not necessarily from the median citizen who just wants their commute to be less stressful.

• Congestion Pricing: Economists and transport advocates agree: congestion pricing is one of the most effective ways to reduce traffic and improve urban mobility. It’s efficient, fair, and grounded in decades of research. Yet, try proposing it in a city council meeting. The backlash is immediate — people don’t want to pay for something they’ve traditionally gotten for free, even if the result is better traffic flow and less pollution. The average commuter (who in many countries is the average citizen) isn’t demanding congestion pricing; they’re more likely asking for smoother and wider roads and cheaper parking.

• Bike Lanes: Advocates for active transport push hard for protected bike lanes, often supported by academic studies highlighting safety and public health benefits. But the typical driver (and again, in many countries, the typical citizen) sees a bike lane as a loss: less space for cars, fewer parking spots, and more traffic congestion. The majority of urban residents might like the idea of cycling more, but they’re not necessarily thrilled about the infrastructure changes required. Those outside central cities are even more skeptical. Yet bike advocates continue to push, and over time, cities slowly adapt — often well before the public is fully onboard.

In each case, the push for innovation or reform is coming from people who view the status quo as a problem to be solved. These are the advocates, academics, and entrepreneurs whose careers are built on identifying gaps and proposing solutions. Meanwhile, the average citizen may not even see the same problems, let alone feel urgency for the proposed fixes. This creates friction, but it’s also how change happens. Over time, as ideas are refined and proven, what was once seen as disruptive becomes the new normal.

This isn’t inherently bad, many of the advances we take for granted today were initially met with skepticism or resistance. But it does highlight the need to balance the pace of innovation with the public’s capacity to adapt. Change is inevitable, but it’s not always embraced. For those pushing for it, understanding that dynamic is just as important as having a good idea in the first place.

Dall-E envisions this blog post.

FIN