Thanks. I don't mean any weaknesses in particular, the idea laid out by EY was to confront your greatest weaknesses, so that is something for those that follow the theory to look into -- I'm just exploring :).

I guess what I'm not following is this idea of "choosing" an approach. Implicit in your answer I think is the idea that there is a "best" approach that must be discovered among the various theories on living life -- why does the existence of theory that is the "best" indicative that it is universally applicable? The goal is to "understand reality," not choose a methodology that is the "best" under the assumption that the "best" theory can be then be followed universally.

Put differently, to choose rationality as a universal theory notwithstanding its flaws, you're saying more than "its the "best" of all the available theories -- I think you must also believe that the idea of having a set theory to guide life, notwithstanding its flaws, is the best way to go about understanding reality. What is the basis for the belief in the second prong?

Saying "well i have to make a decision," so i need to find the best theory doesn't cut it. It is clear there are times we must make a decision, but you are left with a similar question -- why are humans entitled to know what to do simply because they need to make a decision? Perhaps in "reality" is there is no answer (or no answer within the limits of human comprehension) -- it is true you're stuck not knowing what to do but you surely have a better view of reality (if that is the reality).

The implications of this are important. If you agree that rational choice theory is the "best" of all theories, but also agree that there is (or may be) a distinction between "choosing/applying a set theory" and "understanding reality" to the greatest extent humanly possible, it suggests one would need more than rationality to truly understand reality.