Would a person choosing to take Thalidomide in the late 1950's be using the Pseudo-certainty theory?

In the late 50's, there was not enough data for people to understand the risks associated with Thalidomide. Links to birth defects were not "proven" at that point. This was, as you indicated, a seemingly rational decision at the time, and so no cost-benefit assessment was involved. If you were looking at someone who took it in the mid to late 60's, you may have a basis for speculation. However...

The thing about pseudo-certainty theory is that it is not really a desicion making process that someone would "use" to make a desicion. It is, more precisely speaking, the term for how decisions are made when an option is presented in a certain way. Pseudo-certainty theory tells us that if a woman were told she had a 75% chance of reducing morning sickness and a 75% chance of having a child with no birth defects, she would be more likely to take Thalidomide than if she was told there was a 25% chance her baby would be born with birth defects, and a 25% chance she would also have no alleviation from her morning sickness symptoms.

The only people who "use" pseudo-certainty theory are theoreticians. It is not a decision making process, but a term for the way decisions are influenced by how the outcomes are presented. The better question would be if taking Thalidomide in the late 50's was an example of pseudo-certainty theory.

You could say that someone who took Thalidomide in, say, 1967, may have been influenced by the way the data was presented, and this decision was therefore an example of pseudo-certainty theory. The person "used" an indivualized cost-benefit analysis strategy, and the situation may have been an example of pseudo-certainty theory.

Someone who took it in the late 50's had no significant basis to expect that Thalidomide was dangerous, and so was not an example of pseudo-certainty theory.

I think I'd choose B. If all you see are the "finest" things, then you would miss out on a lot and would never get the true sense of the country and the people. I have much more fun mixing with locals and going to the places that they frequent. Of course that sometimes includes museums , gourmet expensive meals and top of the line hotels but it also includes a mix of other things as well. Some of my best meals have been in small family restaurants, my best stays have been in small B&Bs and not all museums will keep my interest. While I definitely want to see some of the main monuments and tourist attractions, I also love being able to wander off the beaten track.