> Yes, and we can objectively measure what those chances are. That's not being questioned. You're missing the point. Let's say you have cancer: You statistica

> Yes, and we can objectively measure what those chances are. That's not being questioned. You're missing the point. Let's say you have cancer: You statistically have a 10% chance of surviving if you do treatment, but it will make your remaining time worse, no matter what. What do you do? Delegate your decision to some abstract scoring system? Of course not. It's a personal decision, influenced by all the variables in your life. As matter of fact, our system is set up to endorse more treatments in order to limit liabilities. How are you going to factor that one in? It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the people treating you. > Sure, if you wish to ignore all objective evidence when making life-and-death decisions for yourself as a way of showing off just how gosh-darn free you are, that's your prerogative. Choosing to get a screening early is probably about as risky as riding a bicycle to work. What if the average person really likes riding a bike so much that it's worth the risk? Shouldn't you also absolutely ride a bike? Of course not. You should ride the bike if you like to. > I'm not sure how you've concluded that your perceptions cannot be objectively measured. Can my perception, which by definition is subjective, be measured objectively, by some technology, at least in theory? Perhaps. Practically speaking, is it going to be measured in this context? Am I going to get a prediction on how I personally will feel when choosing one thing over another? No.