Subjectivity vs Objectivity

Wrote this a while ago. Evidence suggests while on my mission, but I never posted it because it's just random thoughts of mine and posting it wouldn't have fulfilled my purpose, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm posting them now unedited (besides whitespace), plus I added some additional thoughts I've had recently on the topic at the end:

You know, I think ranking things is kind of hilarious. I look at somebody else's list ranking, let's say, cosmere books, and they randomly have one of the Mistborn books near the bottom, I would stop them and be like, "Nuh uh. This is wrong and you're wrong." And yet, when I look at any of my lists, I'm just like, "Yep. That's correct."

Obviously I identify the fact that these are opinions and if you prefer Elantris over Mistborn, that's totally up to you.

I just think it's funny how our initial reaction is to straight up disagree and tell the opposing view their wrong. When, in reality, you're both correct.

And this brings up an interesting distinction too. Because if you're talking about your favorite books, both people are correct. It's just their personal opinion and if they say and think that Elantris is better than Mistborn, then it's correct. But if you argue which one is a better book, that's an entirely different question/situation.

If you're arguing which one is the best versus which one is your favorite, it changes from a subjective question to a objective question.

In the past, I personally preferred Regional at Best to Vessel. This is no longer the case, and Vessel is now my favorite album of all time, but in the past that was the case. So, back then, I could say that I subjectively preferred Regional at Best. However, if you asked which one is objectively better, then the answer is, in theory, Vessel because it has more better production and is generally considered the better album.

This brings up another interesting thing. When talking about which thing is objectively better, bringing in the general consensus of the public on something is totally acceptable (at least in my opinion). Of course, the general consensus of the public consists of many many subjective opinions compiled together. So what difference does it make? If you're using many subjective opinions to determine an objective thing, doesn't that ruin the point of it being objective?

[End of original thoughts; now sharing some additional thoughts from 2023 Alex]

One thing that I think is interesting about this all is that some things lean toward "This is purely opinion based" and other things lead toward "This actually has some factual evidence behind it".

For example, I think it's kind of funny when people debate over what food tastes better. It's, like, purely subjective. It's whatever your tastebuds say taste better, and different people's tastebuds are going to say different things.

In regards to other things, though, there's actually something of substance to bring up. For example, ranking Smash Brothers characters. I have a friend who thinks Zero Suit Samus is bottom 20 (ridiculous, I know). In order for me to disagree with his opinion, I can point out objective things to help with subjective opinions. And, I think, perhaps, when there's enough objective things, you can begin to say that some subjective opinions are wrong because everything points to it being so. Saying opinions can be wrong is a hot take, perhaps, but I think it makes sense.

(On a side note that's not really a side note: ZSS is not bottom 20. Frame 1 jab, aerials are incredibly safe on shield (-7 being the worst one), basic bread and butter combos, good kill confirms, some of the best movement stats in the game, good size hitboxes, zair is so good, and down-b often gets you out of disadvantage for free. How on earth do they think ZSS is bottom 20??)