by Ian Brian
Submission date: 21-May-2020 07:44AM (UTC-0700)
Submission ID: 1329136662
File name: The_Order_of_Things.edited x (15.61K)
Word count: 578
Character count: 2827
Exclude quotes On
Exclude bibliography On
Exclude matches Off
Submitted to Brigham Young University
Submitted to Sophia University
Submitted to Coastline Community College
by Ian Brian
Running Head: THE ORDER OF THINGS
The Order of Things
NAME OF THE STUDENT:
The Order of Things
In human life, we live in, we are subjected to dilemma, especially when we have to make decisions. When we have to make decisions, we have to rank the preferences from variables present to choose from. There are different criteria that we use when we are ranking preferences, but from philosophers, a ranking of alternatives by human beings is majorly based on the final results that we expect a human being. The criteria in which we could classify things when we are making decisions is called the order of things, and this was critically analyzed by Malcolm Gladwell (Malcolm, 2011) the order of things, retrievable from
In 2010, car editors subjected three cars in a test of people’s preferences of these cars based on different specs of these cars. In this activity, three models of cars were used being Chevrolet corvette grand, Lotus Evora and Porsche cayman s. a question arises whether when we are ranking choices of things or opinion is we are affected by the existence of any subsets of ranking. From the order of things by Malcolm, there are no subsets which affect or intervene in the process of ranking variables. From Malcolm, we rank objects on the basis of similar inputs of comparing objects. This implies that is different objects are to be ranked; they are ranked on the basis of their commonalities but not on what these objects differ from each other. From these three cars, they were also ranked on what was heterogeneous for all three model cars. Therefore, the ranking of the car was based on a common character in all three car models. These common aspects which were used to rank these cars were how fun to drive each car was, the car itself, chassis of each car, and the power terrain of each of these three cars.
From the aspects of the above name, there were no cars that were ranked in comparison to another on the basis of different aspects, for instance, chassis and power terrain ranking of cars was heterogamous, in that if it was power train, all cars were ranked in accordance to its power train. This is what happens in our lives as human beings. The order of things is the similarity of the final result determines our life. We rank objects or opinions on the basis of which of the object has better n more desirable predetermining end result. I can agree with Malcolm that when we are ranking opinions, we focus on what is common between events under ranking. This is what allows us to make the most strategic rankings of subjects in question.
In cases we have different variables of consideration before raking objects, we rank objects on the basis of the common elements, and then we sum these ranking together. The aggregate ranking enables us to assess what ranks more than the other on the aggregation of common factors that are used in ranking. Take, for instance, for the three cars and the four criteria that were used to rank these cars. To determine which was the better car than the others, they were first ranked respective of the four criteria used in ranking. From this ranking, a summation was taken to assess the car with the highest score, medium score, and the lowest score among the three car models.