I think most/some/a lot of us judge IQ purely on an objective, measurable basis.
And that is fine, if people really understood those numbers. If you have a sensor with a DR of 13EV, would that be enough for a picture of your garden right now? That of course depends if you or your camera gets the exposure right. And if you lens is high or low contrast, that changes that again.
Now, I use the numbers too, but as a simple gauge. EV13.5 and EV14, is that difference something really to worry about? Is the difference in the EV coming from the shadows or the highlights (it does make a difference). I imagine you do something I do, I learn how my camera sees. I recognize the situation where I need to change my exposure and decide whether I lose the shadows or highlights or lose them for effect. I also understand how far I can push my processing.The DR values has nothing to do with it, at least after I buy my camera.
I have also had folks write that this objective data like DxO mark scores are wrong--they have taken an picture with such and such camera and they "know" it is wrong! So much for objectivity.
I remember when the D800 was released. Folks were saying the lenses would not have enough resolution for the sensor. It would be a disaster! But why? Objectively, it is not hard to calculate that the D800 sensor has a resolution of about 100 l/mm. Optically speaking, that is not a tough target. But you still get folks saying that the lenses have to be made of Kriptonite and forges by elves in Mordor. And here is the kicker. I get an optical report that states my lens can resolve 200 l/mm. But it only does that with a high-contrast target. I go out on an overcast day and my lens is resolving less.
People look at noise, but at 100%. At 100%, if it looks the same, then the sensors are judged the same. But a given amount of noise on a 12MP sensor is not really the same as the same noise on a 24MP sensor.
We both have done a great deal of photography without the need for the technical minutia. I certainly look at that stuff, but like many of the engineers I knew, they are indicators of problems, not of "goodness."
I can agree that objectives numbers are good to have, but you need to know what their relevance is. If you have an incomplete picture, the following false conclusion can be made (which are also widely published over the internet):
Print size is limited by pixel resolution
DoF decreases with pixel resolution
Diffraction limit is based on pixel pitch
All of these are false. Not because there is not a number associated with these ideas, but rather people think there is an objective, absolute frame in which to judge them. The problem is they need to judged based on a subjective, relative one--which has always been true.
The stress on the numbers is far too great. How many people actually choose a camera based on pretty pictures they see on the net rather than DxOmark scores? Pretty picture sell more cameras. Camera ultimately are sold because the buyer thinks they are in someway cool. So much for objectivity.
I don't think we are really disagreeing. I think in many ways we chose and use gear the same way. I just find the emphasis on measured values is not very useful if people cannot place them in context. And when placed in context, they really are not very important at all.