With the first part, about the walk in the countryside, I was speaking about evaluating alternatives in order to make a choice. But they could be different alternatives; what if bears live by the lake and often attack people? You’d want to see the lake, but at risk to life and limb?
You love to get “more taste, more novelty, more whatever”, but what is the risk? I have no way of knowing how it is for you – but there are people who knock a decade or two off their lives as a direct result of their overeating. And/or a decade or two of good health in the same way. So really they end up with less taste, less novelty, less whatever.
AND it’s still important to evaluate these possibilities with free choice in mind. You are still free to go see the lake and get attacked by a bear. My own priorities are to be pain-free, not on any medication, full of energy, for as long as I can. But this is my choice, at least for now.
Interpreting scores from the “Exploring Choice” exercise, is not too precise; it just gives you an idea of the size of the problem. The lowest I’ve seen is 60 and most are over 100. It would be ideal to score close to zero.