Final answer:
The challenges of calculating 'aura' stem from the intrinsic difficulties in measuring subjective experiences. Improved methods might combine qualitative assessments with physiological indicators and consider engagement of intuition and potential cognitive biases. It's crucial to use transparent methodologies and diverse metrics to obtain more accurate representation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The calculation of an 'aura,' in the sense of measuring subjective experiences such as happiness, is fraught with challenges because these experiences are inherently qualitative and cannot be easily quantified. Problems with the Theory include the difficulty of objectively measuring something that is inherently subjective, like pleasure or happiness. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that individual experiences and expressiveness vary greatly, making it unreliable to use a one-size-fits-all measurement.
When approaching the concept of 'aura' or any subjective measurement, it's useful to engage intuition to understand abstract concepts such as the warmth transmitted by a wall. The same intuitive engagement is necessary when attempting to measure something as nebulous as 'happiness.' Engaging intuition can sometimes lead to cognitive biases, such as anchoring bias or the availability heuristic, which may skew perception and judgement.
Instead of relying on crude measurements, an improved approach might involve a combination of qualitative assessments and more objective measures, such as physiological indicators of mood. Additionally, using a diverse set of metrics and feedback from multiple sources could help create a more nuanced and representative profile. Clear assumptions and transparent methodology are crucial when trying to draw any sort of conclusion from the data, ensuring that the findings are as reliable and valid as possible, whether they adhere to theories such as Weber's Law or expose new insights into human perception and happiness.