>>The first process eliminates the idea that 'likes' are a recipe of personality, social considerations, and other factors since, if it were true, everything would be established as like-able or stupid upon first encountering something new. This process actually seems to imply that you contribute something to the conclusion of liking or disliking. <<
In my unprofessinal opinion, if something is brand new, say a sound or a taste, the mind needs to categorize that new experience by comparing it to previous experiences of a similar nature. Hence, "it tastes like" or "it sounds like". This includes perceptions based on social interactions, as judgements are often influenced by how peers express their opinions. If you didn't like how that other thing sounded or tasted, you're probably not going to like this new thing very much, at least initially.
Then you get into impressions and how they can go either one way or another. As a choir student during my freshman year in highschool, it was common for people to express displeasure at the sound of a new song. Then as people began to learn the notes and the song, the opinions became more favorable. The impressions changed for the positive as the song became familiar.
By contrast, hearing the same song on the radio several times a day at work tends to change my impression of that song to the negative. I just get sick of it after awhile.
As for N'Sync, you're looking at social politics more than anything. They are visibly and strongly marketed as a boy band, something catered to the female population ranging from 9-15 years of age. As this is the group most commonly associated with the fan base, other people outside of that age group/gender are less likely to voice their liking of the band. In a sense, many people don't actually listen to the music, as they are turned away by the premise of being associated with that kind of fan. There is also a backlash against that type of marketing-for-music. Many people may feel that the music is "cheap" and that the band is a gimmick, again based on factors other than the music itself.
This may very well be why the Niki is so unpopular *with certain people*. In reality the Niki is a very popular plane (a lot of people fly it). That popularity itself is met with a backlash based on the reasons as to why it is so popular. Everyone is driven by competition, but there are different types.
Some prefer a competitive challenge, and so will shy away from anything that seems to 'stack the deck'. Playing against the odds is more favorable and provides more of a rush. It also provides some security in both personal satisfaction, and attempting to deny the opponent any satisfaction. For the sake of argument, a Jug pilot engages a Niki pilot and loses. The Jug pilot can know that the fight was lost due to the performance edge of the other plane, and the factor of the other pilot's skill is negligable, the Niki is 'supposed' to win. If the Jug wins, then the pilot skill of the Jug was the deciding factor because the Niki was 'supposed' to win, and the pilot skill of the Niki is still negligable or sub-par because that pilot lost an engagement to an inferior airframe.
Others prefer a competitive edge, and so will prefer whatever it is that will give them an advantage. The rush here is derived from success over failure, as they're more likely to achieve success if the odds are in their favor. If the airframe can provide those odds, that's what they will choose. There is also the opinion that, since everyone is entitled to fly whichever plane they choose, and since "pilot skill" makes the most difference in a fight, there is no reason for a person to be upset with the plane type chosen by the opposition.
These two style directly contradict each other, so it is no surprise that respect for one style is not rampantly displayed by the other. "When worlds collide" so to speak.
I'm at work, it's Friday, and I'm bored.
