Everybody plays favourites. When you root for the underdog, you're still rooting for the one that strikes your fancy. Only the utterly random responses are free from personal preference. We are what we like. I like to make up random rankings in my head from time to time when I get bored - These lists range from Most difficult math topics to Worst EPL striker of all time to Most Absurd movies to Freakiest-looking Muffin ever made, among other more nonsensical goings-on that take place in the labyrinth that calls itself my brain.

In the end, however, you like what you like, and for the most part no external judgment can cloud your taste, not unless you're one of those prissy girls that simply go along with whatever their friends say because individuality is frowned upon where they come from. Don't deny it, you're probably biased in one way or another ; There's a reason a TKGS girl(for lack of a better example) would call one of her green brethren who can lick her elbow "talented" and a "future contortionist" while anyone else is "freaky","weird" and "doomed to circus sideshow-dom". This would, of course, raise ugly questions about TKGS girls, but that is not the point here. The point here is that everyone has a personal bias of sorts.

So what does that lead us to? It means that people tend to make decisions that they like, as opposed to rational decisions or thought-through decisions. There are obviously people who like the smartest choice, but these are the same people who started out supported Man U, then Arsenal, then Chelsea or whoever won the league the last season. Besides, the loopholes can be saved for later. Admittedly, I've made several boneheaded mistakes in the course of my life - 18 years is an awful lot of time to screw around with. I'm not talking about boneheaded mistakes such as "Ah! Why didn't I round it off to 3 s.f", "Why did I waste my money watching that movie?" or even "Why didn't I start training to be an Iron Chef at age 5?", I mean making mistakes that I knew I would regret right after I made them. Granted, such mistakes can be minimised, but everyone makes them at some point of time.

Obviously, all this arises because of favouritism - If I like being an asshole, I'd insult a person first opportunity that arises, which too often doesn't prove to be very smart. The problem with this is that it's a lose-lose situation ; If I let loose and flap my gums I'd obviously be pissing some people off, while holding back would piss myself off even further. While you could call me an isolated case, modern society has developed in such a way that people are trained to see the bad in others over the good - People seem to forget that Michael Jackson produced decades of good music sometimes, instead choosing to focus on things comparatively minute in comparison, happily ignoring the fact that where music is concerned, Michael Jackson is the man(feel free to replace the word man as you see fit). In some ways, it's quite obvious that social conditioning does contribute to favouritism, which would be the answer to the TKGS question, but that's something I don't intend to mention at length.

And social conditioning, of course, is where the bulk of humans get their ideals from. Remember the phrase "Never underestimate stupid people in large groups"? It's pretty much true, because it's almost a given that there will be more idiots than intellects in any given place, and also that its easier for a genius to become a retard than vice versa. This also means that the ideals of the less clever will tend to be more dominant. In fact, History has proven that the masses are also the most uneducated. And the masses are called the masses for a reason.

However, the alternate theory states that things could be the other way round ; Dumb people do not become dumb because they hang out with dumb people, rather, dumb people hang out with other dumb people because they're rather foolish. The main difference, of course, is in the opinions whether people are born the same or whether people can be smarter than others at the point of birth. We all know that IQ tests are pretty much unreliable in proving intelligence, much like practically every exam in the system, so there really isn't any way to prove either side true, kind of like agnosticism for intelligence levels.

So, how does one go about deciding which theory is true, or doing the clever thing and deciding that this really isn't of concern and probably won't take any lives or break any new ground if proven and subsequently not care?

He practices favouritism.