The problems that only exist inside your head are the easiest to solve because they don't require any external work at all, just thinking. But they are also the hardest to solve because their solutions might imply giving up some of what you consider to be your identity and your lifestyle.
It's up to you to decide.
If you find yourself convincing a random stranger with no skin in your game that your particular decision is right, then it's likely that your decision is shit. Or so you are.
For a close analog of the random stranger, such as an ex-colleague or distant relative, this argument stands as well.
There are three kinds of users: those who read the manuals, those who don't read the manuals and those who read the manuals and then still do weird shit.
Building software that suits the needs of one group is hard. Building software that fits all of them is logically impossible.
When person says something, it's typically safe to assume that she has reasons to say that. Everything else (i.e. that she believes that; that she's telling the truth; that she wants to make certain impression; that she wants to be heard; that's she's competent to make judgement etc) is to be verified separately.
Given a choice between spending a lovely evening with family and friends or spending same evening in an exhaustive Internet flamewar about human rationality, what would a truly rational man do?