User blog comment:Blake Xi/Why types don't matter/@comment-25944787-20150907001426/@comment-112.207.198.22-20150907053821

I dissent.

It is quite incrongruent to say that a type is prefered but it's not the best, as they both are synonymous to each other. To actually describe something as preferable from among a list of things similarly situated, one needs to make an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages one has over the other, the result of which a thing as having more advantages is deemed as superior than the other, hence it is the most prefered, or the best amongst the others similarly situated.

The problem lies as what happens to those excluded from the list of what it is prefered by the general consensus of the masses. Now, it should be worth stressing that even if a type is less prefered, or worse from all others similarly situated, it doesn't mean to say it is rendered inept in the truest sense of the word. Rather, it just means that you have to deal with the various disadvantages it has to offer over what is prefred. Verily, to cope with the disadvantages doesn't mean to say it is inept.

There is are some inconsistencies with your working definition of the best. From the light of the foregoing, what is the best should be assessed from things similarly situated. But who makes the assessment? The answer is quite simple, the person. But, then again, if a multitude of individuals have assessed what is the best and these individuals form a bulk, that is regarded as consensus of the masses. From that point on, it was never regarded as universaly better than all others., but rather, an assessment who had a favorable number of assessors.