I think I can do that too.
I think he never really implied that the highest price meant better quality. If you try, you can read that from the article, but there is something else you can read from it.
I think what he was saying was more like: if the difference in costs is smaller than the appreciated gaining in life comfort, then do it, spend the money in the expensive one.
The point being, don't be cheap if not being cheap can make your life better.
> So what if they’re $100. Unless you’re some sort of foot messenger, you only need to buy one pair a year.
Or buy $30 shoes that last 2 years and are subjectively just as comfortable. Maybe if you're a foot messenger you need better shoes (or go shoeless), maybe if you have bad feet or a bad back you need expensive shoes with Dr. Shoels. Another example?
> Buy scented candle or some potpourri and a stack of washcloths for your bathroom counter. It smells awesome and you feel great when you grab a fresh towel to wash your face every day.
I hate that crap. My point is that people have different utility functions.