I think it depends on what you are evaluating. If you are trying to evaluate the essence of every persons 'core beliefs' or cognitive behavior that results in knowledge or how these have an effect on knowledge, then I think you are in the field of epistemology. However, once you start evaluating what makes a single person predisposed to certain beliefs (perhaps by past experiences), then you are talking about interpretation (or hermeneutics, if I am using the word correctly).
Inherent in all of this is the assumption that some thoughts we have about ourselves, etc. are more true than others.
It seems to me that we are an egotistical being by nature. Our lives start off revolving around us, and this is a hard predisposition to escape. I assume there is a certain point in most peoples lives that the world stop revolving around them, and they inevitably embark on an existential journey that leads to the realization that there are two worlds out there, the world of me and the world of everything else. There are certain things that are more true to me than most anything that I experience, and those are my emotions: love, hate, happiness, sadness, despair, joy, etc. The mysterious thing about emotions is that one can never fully express what they are or what they feel like. We can only represent them with common words and expressions that fall short of bringing to light the true nature of what a particular emotion means to each individual person in a particular instance.
My rambling boils down to this, there are certain things that are more true than others, but we must not confuse what those things are. Once we move outside the way we feel (whether it accurately depicts the actual world or not) we must be careful not to impose those feelings on the empirical data we receive (which seems impossible at times).
I probably don't answer your question, but I tried.