One reasoning flaw I've seen in this type of discussion is the assumption that the person has the same value system as you / the experts. In your example, it is assumed that the subject values a very long life. Maybe they don't, maybe they value smoking way more than a long life.
I largely agree with you, but I would tweak it to say "Humans are decent at doing what's best for them given their own values and knowledge".
Re:Actually, Democracy Dies in H.R.
by listenallyall on Monday May 18, 2026 @05:59PM
(#48186332)
Smoking is typically a bad example, IMO, because it really takes a lot to actually kill you^. Like 50 years, usually (even 30, in your example, is on the low side). Further, there really are no visible downsides among smokers in their first 10 years or so. Meanwhile lots of other bad habits - hard drugs, alcohol, over-eating, even just sloppiness or laziness - often have real, visible, negative effects pretty quickly.
^as in any situation, there is always the <1% of outliers
At any given decision point, people are more likely to pick the option that provides some benefit to them. That looks very different from consistently picking the choice that is eventually best for them.