I really am trying to maximize my ice-cream-related world-state-utility

And how often, while doing this, do you invent new ice cream options in an effort to increase the utility beyond that offered by the available choices?

How many new ice cream flavors have you invented, or decided to ask for mixed together?

So now you say, "Ah, but it would take too long to do those things." And I say, "Yep, there goes another asynchronous prediction of an exceeded perceptual tolerance."

"Okay," you say, "so, I'm a bounded utility calculator."

"Really? Okay, what scoring system do you use to arrive at a combined rating on all these criteria that you're using? Do you even know what criteria you're using?"

Is this utility fungible? I mean, would you eat garlic ice cream if it were free? Would you eat it if they paid you? How much would they need to pay you?

The experimental data says that when it comes to making these estimates, your brain is massively subject to priming and anchoring effects -- so your "utility" being some kind of rational calculation is probably illusory to start with.

It seems a bit cynical to me to say that people make the decision to buy a car because they've concluded that their car-buying analysis is sufficiently elegant;

I was referring to the perceptions involved in a task like computer programming, not car-buying.

Part of the point is that every task has its own set of regulating perceptions.

they probably buy the car or walk out of the dealership when they've concluded that the action will very probably significantly improve their car-related world-state-utility.

They do it when they find a car that leads to an"acceptable "satisfaction" level.

Part of my point about things like time, elegance, "best"-ness, etc. though, is that they ALL factor into what "acceptable" means.

"Satisfaction", in other words, is a semi-prioritized measurement against tolerances on ALL car-buying-related perceptual predictions that get loaded into a person's "working memory" during the process.