In a talk at the Long Now Foundation, Alex Wright discussed the evolution of Information Systems. In it, he made several interesting observations and comments. The first is that networks seem to naturally give rise to hierarchies as information sources and needs become more complex – both at the cellular level and at the human/cultural level. The second observation is that there seems to be an Epigenetic Rule (see A.O. Wilson) that humans have a 5 level taxonomy. All studied human created taxonomies (for plants, living things, environment, etc.) seem to evolve into having 5 levels. This seems to be the level of complexity that humans can readily accommodate.

This observation brings up a couple of related ideas. The first is the concept of 'contexting', the ability of people to compartmentalize their thought processes and behaviors at a wide variety of levels. The second idea is the relationship of contexting and hierarchies to humans propensity to adopt new things and, in doing so, change their behavior (and thinking) in some way.

Contexting

It is interesting to consider the possibility of an epigenetic rule called ‘contexting’. This is the human ability to ‘chunk’ thought into contexts so that it can be managed. Contexts can be either big (the living world) or small (my family) but within the context, mental activity (such as the other epigenetic rule of a 5 level hierarchy) can operate. A 5 level taxonomy applies to a specific context, but there can be other higher (and lower) level contexts that have their own 5 level hierarchy. Integral to this idea of contexting is the fractal nature of these contexts, the fact that one context can contain other contexts and that, no matter how deep you go, there are always other contexts.
This is one way that humans can deal with complexity – by contexting. It is also probably related to another epigenetic rule, the 7 +/- 2 rule of human info processing. This rule states that humans can keep at most seven plus or minus two things 'in-mind' at any one time (this is the reason telephone numbers have seven digits). These things can be simple digits (like numbers) or big 'chunks' of stuff (knowledge, information etc.) as long as each can be thought of as a cohesive, independent entity.
The three potential epigenetic rules are:

• Seven plus or minus 2
• Five level hierarchy
• Fractal contexts

The relationship between these and their implications for how people process information and perceive the world needs to be further explored.

Adoption

How does this relate to adoption of something new? Introducing something new (i.e. un-experienced) requires that the people encountering it fit it into their taxonomy. They can either fit it into an existing taxonomy (i.e. a new branch), modify the existing taxonomy (change the levels in the taxonomy), create a new taxonomy or, most difficult of all, create a whole new context. New things need to be ‘fit in’ somehow. The first thing that a person needs to 'determine' (this term is used even though this is very likely not a conscious process) is' does the new thing fit into an existing context? If it does, then where does it fit within the taxonomy of that context?

If the new thing fits into an existing context and its taxonomy without busting the 7 +/- 2 rule or 5 level rule, it's easy. The person has the right 'mental architecture' to understand the new thing and it can be easily adopted. If, however, the new thing can't be fit in without busting the 7 +/- 2 rule or the 5 level rule, then the taxonomy needs to be rearranged, something much more difficult to accomplish. If, one the extreme, a whole new context (and by implication a whole new taxonomy) needs to be created, then this is the most difficult of all and it will take time.

A taxonomy busting new thing will be more difficult to fit in than a taxonomy accreting new thing. But the taxonomy busting new thing has the potential to be more disruptive and more compelling, once the new taxonomy is formed and people know how to relate to it.
This architecture can be used to explain much of the adoption dynamics observed. It is what 'brand managers' try to manipulate when they create 'crossover' products, make the new thing somewhat different but not too different as to bust a taxonomy. It is also what explains the decade or generation long adoption cycles of disruptive new innovations, such as the cell phone, for which people have to create an entire new context and taxonomy.