Triage Values Assessment Tool

Understanding Your Results

Ask someone what their values are. They’ll say “family, health, integrity, honesty, loyalty.” Every single time. These answers are useless. They’re not wrong, and you probably do value family and health. But they don’t tell you anything about what actually drives your decisions when those values conflict. What happens when family wants you home for dinner, but you have a career opportunity requiring travel? What happens when your desire for adventure conflicts with your need for financial security? What happens when the “right” choice, according to society, feels completely wrong in your gut?

Generic values don’t help you navigate these tensions. They’re aspirational bumper stickers, not your motivational operating system. This is the Instagram Values Phenomenon, where people post what they’re supposed to value. We’ve absorbed what our parents valued, what our culture rewards, and what gets approval. Instagram values are cheap signals, because anyone can post about family and integrity. But look at where your time actually goes, where your energy flows, what you’re willing to sacrifice and what you’d never compromise. That reveals something completely different. Living your values is costly signalling in economic terms, and means actually sacrificing career for family, actually taking the pay cut for meaningful work, actually maintaining boundaries that protect autonomy. These actions are costly, which makes them believable signals of your actual values.

The gap between stated values and revealed values is where burnout lives. It’s where Sunday night dread comes from. It’s why you can follow a perfect training program, nail your nutrition, and still feel like something fundamental is broken. Because no amount of optimisation fixes values misalignment. You’re trying to run Achievement-oriented programming on a Benevolence operating system, or forcing Self-Direction software onto Conformity hardware. Your values are like your phone’s OS. Apps (decisions, relationships, careers) run on top of it. Installing Android apps on an iPhone doesn’t work. Installing Achievement-optimised life on a Benevolence OS causes crashes. Most people never choose their OS; it was installed by parents, culture, and circumstances. This assessment shows you what OS you’re actually running. Now you can choose apps that work with it, not against it.

Think about training specificity for a second. You can’t train for a marathon by swimming. You can’t build a squat by doing curls. Your body adapts to the specific demands you place on it. Life works the same way. You can’t live Achievement values in an environment that rewards Humility. You can’t express Self-Direction in a structure that demands Conformity. You can’t satisfy Stimulation needs through Security-focused choices. The adaptation is specific to the demand. When the demand violates your system, you don’t adapt; you break down.

Why This Matters Now (More Than Ever)

Modern life presents infinite options with no clear filter for choosing between them. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim called this anomie: normlessness in complex societies where traditional guides have broken down. Decision paralysis isn’t about lack of information, it’s about lack of clarity on what actually matters to you in a world with too many legitimate paths and no clear map. The burnout epidemic isn’t about working too many hours. I know people working sixty-hour weeks who are energised (it’s me), and people working thirty who feel dead inside. The difference isn’t volume, it’s alignment. You can push hard at something that serves your values and feel alive. Or you can coast through something that violates them and feel like you’re slowly dying.

Relationship conflicts that seem to be about money, time, parenting styles, or whose family to visit for holidays are usually values conflicts underneath. You’re not arguing about whether to save or spend. You’re experiencing the tension between Security and Hedonism, between Tradition and Self-Direction, between Achievement and Benevolence. Neither person is wrong. You just have different operating systems trying to run the same life. Shakespeare understood this four centuries ago. Hamlet isn’t paralysed by indecision; he’s experiencing genuine values conflict. Benevolence toward his mother pulls one direction. Justice for his father pulls another. Both are legitimate values. Both demand incompatible actions. The play is a 400-year-old exploration of what happens when your values war with each other.

The Triage Values Assessment tool is designed to help you bring this to the surface. It’s a tool based on sixty years of cross-cultural psychological research that measures your actual motivational priorities, not your aspirations. It reveals what actually drives your decisions when values conflict, why certain choices feel obvious while others torture you, where your life aligns with your values and where it doesn’t, why you click with certain people and clash with others, what energises you versus what drains you. More importantly, it gives you a framework for making values-based decisions, redesigning your life around what actually matters, and building a life you don’t need to escape from. As Socrates said 2,400 years ago: the unexamined life is not worth living. This is the modern tool for living the examined life. So, what do your results actually mean?

The Radar Chart and Ipsatised Scoring

Your results appear as a radar chart of twelve dimensions arranged in a circle with your scores plotted across them. This isn’t a personality test. It’s a motivational map. Here’s the critical insight that makes this different from every other values assessment you’ve seen: your score of “5.0” represents YOUR personal average, not a universal baseline. It is standardised to you, not the average (Ipsatised Scoring).

Most values tools ask “Do you value family? Rate 1-10.” Everyone says 10. Useless. The Schwartz framework (on which this tool is heavily based) measures relative importance within your hierarchy. This is revealed preference theory from economics; we don’t judge what you value by what you say, we judge by what you choose when choices compete. 

The assessment forces differentiation. You can’t score everything high. When values conflict, which matters more? That’s what this reveals. If you scored 6.5 on Self-Direction, it doesn’t mean you’re “highly self-directed” compared to other people. It means Self-Direction is more important to you than your average value. If you scored 3.8 on Conformity, it doesn’t mean you never follow rules; it means Conformity is less central to your motivational system than other values.

Above 5.0 means more important than your typical value. Below 5.0 means less central to your identity. Around 5.0 means the middle of your hierarchy. This approach reveals what actually drives you, not what sounds good. It’s the difference between what you think you should want and what you actually pursue when nobody’s watching. 

Your Top 3 Values: Your Motivational Anchors

These three values are your anchor values. Think of them as values gravity: your top values exert gravitational pull on every decision. Choices feel heavy when they conflict with this gravity, light when aligned with it. When life aligns with these three, you feel energised even when objectively working hard. When it violates them, you feel depleted even when “successful” by external metrics.

Your top three explain why certain opportunities excite you immediately while others feel wrong despite being objectively good, what you naturally prioritise when you have free choice, where you’ll make sacrifices without resentment, what you’re willing to defend even when it’s inconvenient, and where you draw boundaries that aren’t negotiable. Think about progressive overload in training. You can push extra hard on movements your body is built for. You then recover, adapt, and get stronger. Push too hard on movements that violate your structure, and you don’t adapt; you usually break down. Same principle. Your top three values are what your system is built for. Align with them, and you can sustain intensity indefinitely. Violate them and you’re grinding toward injury.

These aren’t aspirations. They’re your actual operating system. From an evolutionary perspective, these represent your adaptive strategy. Some of your ancestors survived through cooperation and caring for their group (Benevolence, Universalism). Others survived through status competition and resource accumulation (Achievement, Power). Others through cautious threat-detection (Security) or bold exploration (Stimulation). You inherited a particular mix of these strategies. Your top three values are the ones your brain considers most critical for survival and wellbeing, even though we’re no longer in that ancestral environment. Understanding this helps you see why certain things feel non-negotiable; they’re activating ancient survival programming. Now, these aren’t hardwired, and they can change, but you do have the blueprints stored in your genetics. 

Your Bottom 2 Values: What Matters Less to You

These aren’t “bad” values, they’re just less central to your identity. Your bottom two explain where you’re genuinely flexible in negotiations, what you honestly don’t care about even though others might, why you clash with people who prioritise these values, and areas where you might unintentionally offend others who care deeply about what you find less important.

If Conformity is in your bottom two, external expectations genuinely don’t feel binding. You’re not rebellious, you just don’t experience rules as inherently important. You need logical reasons, not just “because that’s the rule.” You would probably side with Nietzsche in asking people; “Are your values self-authored or imposed?” High Conformity might be what he called “slave morality”, as these are values accepted from external authority. Low Conformity is “master morality”, as you have values you’ve created for yourself. Neither is better or worse, they’re different relationships with authority and social norms. But if someone else has Conformity as their top value, every interaction with you feels like you’re disrespecting something sacred. You think you’re being reasonable. They think you’re being difficult. Nobody’s wrong, you have different operating systems.

If Power is in your bottom two, you’re genuinely confused by people who seem to care so much about status and influence. Titles, hierarchy, recognition, etc., all feels arbitrary to you. But to someone with high Power, these things are as real as physical objects. They’re not shallow, they’re wired differently. 

Understanding your bottom values is as important as knowing your top values. They explain why certain conflicts feel bewildering. Why does she care so much about this? Because her top value is your bottom value. What feels trivially unimportant to you feels existentially critical to her. It’s not personal, it’s structural.

Your low-scoring values can shift with life circumstances. Becoming a parent often raises Benevolence and Security while lowering Hedonism and Stimulation, at least temporarily. A health crisis raises Security. A divorce might shift Self-Direction as you reclaim autonomy. But in stable periods, your bottom values remain relatively consistent. They’re part of your motivational structure.

Now, I do realise that I am throwing terms at you, like Power, Conformity, and Universalism, and we have not actually discussed these in depth. So, let’s rectify that now.

The Twelve Value Dimensions: Your Motivational Software Explained

Let’s walk through each dimension so you understand what you’re actually measuring, where it comes from evolutionarily, how it shows up in your brain, and what it means practically. Your values aren’t random preferences. They’re evolved motivational programs shaped by thousands of generations.

Benevolence: Caring for Close Others

This is about preserving and enhancing the welfare of people you’re in frequent personal contact with like family, friends, and close colleagues. Benevolence isn’t arbitrary sentiment; it’s kin selection in action. You share genes with family members. Helping them succeed means your genes succeed. Your brain releases oxytocin when caring for close others, the same neurochemical that bonds mothers to infants. This is ancient mammalian circuitry repurposed for human social bonds.

Aristotle called this philia; affection between those who share a life together. It’s love as loyalty and dependability, not romantic passion. High Benevolence means you’re motivated by helping people close to you succeed. Loyalty matters deeply. You maintain long-term relationships. You feel responsible for the wellbeing of your inner circle. You make sacrifices for people you care about without resentment building. When your child needs something, you don’t calculate cost-benefit, you just handle it. When a close friend is struggling, helping them feels as natural as eating when you’re hungry.

Low Benevolence means you’re more self-focused. You’re not cruel, you just don’t feel the same pull toward caring for others. You maintain relationships based on mutual benefit rather than duty. You’re comfortable prioritising your needs over others’ needs without guilt or internal conflict. This is distinct from Universalism. Benevolence is tribal; it’s about YOUR people, your family, your close friends, your team. Universalism is about humanity broadly. You can be high Benevolence but low Universalism (deeply loyal to inner circle, indifferent to strangers) or high Universalism but low Benevolence (care about global justice, neglect family). They’re different motivational systems targeting different social distances.

Universalism: Justice, Equality, Tolerance

This is concern for the welfare of all people and nature. Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for everyone and everything. High Universalism means you’re motivated by justice, equality, and often, environmental protection. You care about people you’ll never meet. You support causes larger than yourself. You’re concerned about fairness in systems, not just in personal relationships. Social issues (inequality, environmental destruction, discrimination) motivate you into action. You feel the suffering of distant strangers as morally relevant.

Low Universalism means you’re focused on immediate concerns rather than abstract principles. You’re sceptical of grand causes. Charity begins at home. You’re pragmatic about inequalities; they exist, but you’re not motivated to fix them. You think people should handle their own problems. Evolutionarily, Universalism likely developed from expanding Benevolence beyond the immediate tribe to reciprocal altruism networks. Help the broader group, and the group helps you. But it also conflicts with tribal instincts. High Universalism people genuinely experience humanity as interconnected. Low Universalism people experience clear boundaries between “us” and “them.”

Neither is more evolved, they’re different adaptive strategies that were both successful in different contexts. In small groups, tight tribal loyalty (high Benevolence, low Universalism) worked. In large trading networks, broader reciprocity (high Universalism) worked. This maps onto political theory too. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between negative liberty (freedom from interference (which maps to Self-Direction)) and positive liberty (freedom to participate in collective decision-making (this maps to Conformity, and Tradition)). The tension between Universalism (equality, collective welfare) and Self-Direction (individual autonomy) is the fundamental divide in political philosophy between communitarianism and individualism.

Self-Direction: Autonomy and Independent Thought

This is independent thought and action; choosing, creating, exploring. Freedom and autonomy in thought and deed. High Self-Direction means you need to make your own choices. External control feels suffocating. You value creativity and curiosity. You resist being told what to do. You think for yourself, even when unpopular. You need autonomy in how you work and live. Following someone else’s system, even if it’s effective, feels wrong. You’d rather figure it out yourself.

Low Self-Direction means you’re comfortable with structure and guidance. You don’t need to reinvent everything. You value expertise and proven methods. You’re fine following established paths. You see constraints as helpful, not limiting. Having clear direction reduces decision fatigue and lets you execute. This creates the central tension in modern life. Self-Direction opposes both Conformity (following rules) and Tradition (respecting customs). High Self-Direction people struggle in rigid hierarchies, highly structured environments, and cultures with strong social norms. Every day feels like grinding against your nature. 

Low Self-Direction people struggle in ambiguous, unstructured environments where you’re expected to create your own path. The freedom feels paralysing rather than liberating. This is what Kierkegaard discussed as “the dizziness of freedom”, which is the anxiety that comes from unlimited possibility. Sartre built on this, arguing we’re “condemned to be free”; burdened with the anguish of absolute choice and responsibility without predetermined essence to guide us. For low Self-Direction individuals, this infinite freedom isn’t liberating, it’s destabilising. They need structure not because their motivational system functions optimally within clear frameworks.

From a neuroscience perspective, high Self-Direction individuals show greater activation in brain regions associated with cognitive control and self-referential processing. They need more autonomy to maintain baseline dopamine. Restriction of choice feels neurologically aversive. Nietzsche captured this: “Become who you are.” Self-actualisation through honest self-knowledge. Not becoming what others expect, but discovering and living your actual nature. That discovery requires Self-Direction and the willingness to question inherited values and think independently.

Stimulation: Novelty, Challenge, Excitement

This is variety, novelty, challenge, and excitement in life. Stimulation values derive from the need for arousal and the maintenance of an optimal level of activation. High Stimulation means you need novelty. Routine drains you physically. You seek new experiences, challenges, and adventures. You’re drawn to risk and uncertainty because predictability feels deadening. You’d rather fail at something new than succeed at something familiar. The learning curve excites you more than mastery.

Low Stimulation means you prefer the familiar. Routine is comforting, not boring. You value mastery over novelty. You’d rather deepen existing skills than constantly start new things. Stability allows you to perform at your best. You can take a technique and refine it endlessly. Stimulation conflicts with Security (predictability) and Tradition (established patterns). This is the tension between exploration and exploitation in evolutionary terms. Some risk-taking was adaptive for finding new resources: new hunting grounds, new trade routes, and new technologies. But too much risk-taking was fatal. Fall off a cliff, get eaten by a predator, or starve because you left fertile ground for unknown territory.

Evolution’s solution wasn’t to eliminate the tension; it was to create different individuals with different risk tolerances. Populations need both cautious and bold members. High Stimulation individuals were the explorers. High Security individuals were the stabilisers. Both strategies worked in different contexts. This is also Life History Theory from evolutionary psychology: “fast” strategy (Stimulation, Hedonism; live for now, seek immediate rewards) versus “slow” strategy (Security, Tradition; plan for future, delay gratification). Different strategies are adaptive in different environments.

So, if you’re high Stimulation, trying to follow the same training program for months, you’ll lose motivation because your brain needs variety to maintain engagement. If you’re low Stimulation, constantly switching programs, you’ll never build momentum because you’re violating your need for consistency and mastery.

Hedonism: Pleasure and Self-Gratification

This is pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. Enjoying life, self-indulgence, and treating yourself. High Hedonism means you’re motivated by enjoyment. You prioritise experiences that feel good. You see life as meant to be enjoyed, not just endured. You make time for pleasure without guilt. Rest isn’t weakness, it’s essential. Food should taste good, not just hit macros. Training should be enjoyable, not just effective. You believe in treating yourself, and you don’t need elaborate justification.

Low Hedonism means you’re more disciplined and duty-focused. Pleasure is fine, but it’s not a priority. You can delay gratification indefinitely without feeling deprived. You’re motivated by achievement or duty more than enjoyment. You might even be suspicious of people who prioritise pleasure, as they seem self-indulgent or weak. Hedonism conflicts with Tradition (duty over pleasure) and Conformity (restraint over indulgence). It also creates tension with Achievement. Do you optimise for performance or enjoyment?

The ancient Romans understood this tension very well, and they had many discussions about balancing otium versus negotium. Otium was leisure, contemplation, pleasure, self-directed activity, and this maps to Hedonism and Self-Direction. Negotium was duty, business, obligation, public service, and maps to Achievement and Conformity. Roman culture valued both but recognised the tension. You couldn’t maximise both simultaneously. High Achievement, low Hedonism person pushes through misery for results. High Hedonism, low Achievement person chooses activities that feel good over activities that produce outcomes. Neither is better, they’re different optimisation functions.

But trying to live someone else’s optimisation function breaks you. If you’re high Hedonism forcing yourself through brutal training you hate because “no pain, no gain,” you’ll eventually quit. If you’re low Hedonism trying to make everything fun and easy because that’s what some coach told you, you won’t push hard enough to create adaptation.

Achievement: Personal Success and Competence

This is personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Ambition, capability, influence through performance. High Achievement means you’re driven to succeed. You want to demonstrate competence. You care about performance and results. You set ambitious goals. Recognition matters to you. Not just for status, but as validation of competence. You push yourself to improve. “Good enough” isn’t satisfying. You need to know you’re getting better, that your effort is producing measurable results. Low Achievement means you’re not motivated by competition or external standards of success. You’re content with “good enough.” You don’t need to prove yourself. You’re not lazy, you’re just not driven by achievement for its own sake. Doing well is fine, but excelling isn’t psychologically necessary. 

Achievement likely evolved from status competition in dominance hierarchies. Higher status meant more resources, more mating opportunities, and better survival for offspring. Your brain releases dopamine when you achieve goals and receive recognition. So, this isn’t a shallow desire, it’s an evolved motivational system. However, the problem comes when you’re high Achievement in an environment with no clear metrics or when you’re low Achievement in an environment that only rewards measurable performance. Misalignment between your Achievement score and your environment’s reward structure creates chronic frustration. 

Achievement conflicts with Benevolence (career time vs. family time) and Humility (standing out vs. fitting in). This is where most “work-life balance” struggles live. It’s not about time management. It’s about two opposing values competing for limited resources.

The high Achievement person will always feel pulled toward work because that’s where competence gets demonstrated. High Benevolence people will always feel guilty about work time because it’s time not spent caring for others. You can’t resolve this by “trying harder” at balance. You can only make conscious choices about which value to prioritise when. Max Weber identified how Achievement plus Tradition values shaped capitalism through the Protestant work ethic, where work was a sacred duty, and success was a sign of divine favour. That combination of values created modern economic systems.

Power: Social Status and Dominance

This is social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. Authority, wealth, social power, influence. High Power means you want influence over people and resources. Status matters to you. Positions of authority feel natural and desirable. You want control over your environment and others. Wealth and prestige are important. And not just as comforts, but as markers of influence and capability. Leadership appeals to you. You notice hierarchies and where you fit in them.

Low Power means you’re not motivated by status or dominance. You don’t need authority over others. You’re comfortable in non-leadership roles. Hierarchy feels arbitrary. You’re genuinely confused by people who seem to care so much about titles and status symbols. You’d rather do good work than be recognised for it. Power isn’t evil. It’s a motivational system. Some people are genuinely motivated by influence and status, and societies need people motivated by leadership. The problem is when high Power people judge low Power people as lacking ambition, or when low Power people judge high Power people as shallow and status-obsessed. Neither is true. Different values, different motivations.

Power conflicts with Universalism (inequality vs. equality) and Humility (dominance vs. modesty). Many leadership problems come from high Power leaders trying to motivate low Power employees using status and recognition that the employees don’t actually want. From evolutionary psychology, Power tracks dominance hierarchies. In ancestral environments, dominant individuals had disproportionate access to resources and mates. Your brain inherited this motivational system or didn’t, based on what worked for your particular lineage. Some ancestors succeeded through dominance. Others succeeded through cooperation and prestige; that’s where Humility comes in, as a different path to influence.

Face: Social Image and Avoiding Humiliation

This is protecting one’s public image and avoiding humiliation. Reputation, dignity, saving face, maintaining social standing. High Face means you care deeply about how you’re perceived. Your reputation matters. You avoid situations where you might be embarrassed or humiliated. You’re careful about what you share publicly. Social judgment feels threatening. You monitor how others see you. Being caught in a mistake or looking foolish creates significant distress.

Low Face means you’re relatively unconcerned with others’ opinions. You don’t monitor your reputation closely. You’re comfortable being authentic even if it’s socially awkward. You’d rather be real than respected. Looking foolish bothers you less than being inauthentic. Face is distinct from Power. Power is about dominance and influence, and wanting to be on top. Face is about dignity and avoiding shame, and wanting not to be on the bottom. You can be high Power but low Face (don’t care what people think, just want control) or low Power but high Face (don’t need authority, but care deeply about reputation). This distinction matters because they respond to different interventions. High Face person won’t take risks that might lead to public failure. High Power person takes those risks because potential status gain outweighs potential embarrassment.

In collectivist cultures, Face values tend to score higher because social harmony and reputation matter more than individual expression. In individualist cultures, Face scores lower because authentic self-expression is valued over social image. But within any culture, there’s individual variation. Some people are wired to care deeply about social perception. Others genuinely don’t monitor it much. Neither is more mature, they’re different motivational systems.

Security: Safety, Stability, Predictability

This is safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and self. Order, cleanliness, family security, national security, predictability. High Security means you need stability. You plan ahead. You maintain financial buffers. You value predictability. Uncertainty creates stress. You prefer known risks to unknown risks; you’ll take a calculated gamble but not a leap into complete ambiguity. You build systems and structures that create safety. You’re the person with emergency funds, backup plans, and insurance.

Low Security means you’re comfortable with uncertainty. You don’t need extensive planning. You’re okay with ambiguity. You adapt as things unfold. Too much structure feels constraining. You trust you’ll figure it out when you get there. From an evolutionary perspective, your ancestors who valued safety lived longer and successfully passed on genes. Threat detection was adaptive. The cautious survived. But groups also needed risk-takers who explored new territories and resources. Both strategies were successful in different contexts. You inherited one or the other or some mix.

Neuroscience confirms this too. High Security individuals show greater amygdala activation to uncertain outcomes and novel situations. Their brains code uncertainty as threat. This isn’t neurotic; it’s a difference in threat-detection sensitivity. Think about homeostasis in physiology. Your body constantly works to maintain equilibrium: temperature, pH, blood sugar, hormone levels, etc. Deviate too far from baseline and your system fights to restore balance. Values work the same way. Your psyche has a set point for congruence between values and behaviour. If you’re high Security, chronic uncertainty triggers the stress response. Your system fights to restore predictability.

Security conflicts with Stimulation (predictability vs. novelty) and Self-Direction (structure vs. autonomy). If you’re high Security being pushed to “just take the leap” and “embrace uncertainty,” you’re being asked to violate your core motivational system. If you’re low Security being told to “have a plan” and “think about the risks,” you’re being constrained by caution that doesn’t feel necessary to you. Neither approach is objectively correct. They’re different optimisation strategies.

Tradition: Respect for Customs and Norms

This is respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one’s culture or religion provides. Humility regarding one’s place in the larger order, respect for traditional ways. High Tradition means you respect established ways of doing things. You value cultural and religious customs. You believe there’s wisdom in traditional practices that have survived generations. You’re sceptical of rapid change. You honour your roots. Rituals and customs feel meaningful, not arbitrary. You think modern society discards tradition too easily. As the saying goes: “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” You’re not rigidly clinging to the past; you’re carrying forward the essential wisdom that gave those traditions meaning in the first place.

Low Tradition means you don’t feel bound by traditional ways. You question inherited customs. You’re comfortable abandoning practices that don’t serve you currently. You believe each generation should find its own path. Old doesn’t mean good; it just means old. Tradition conflicts with Self-Direction (respecting customs vs. independent thought) and Stimulation (established patterns vs. novelty). This is often the source of generational conflict and cultural tension. Older generations tend to score higher on Tradition. Younger generations score higher on Self-Direction and Stimulation. This isn’t just “kids these days”; it’s different value hierarchies clashing. Neither is more valid.

From an evolutionary perspective, Tradition represents accumulated cultural knowledge and the practices that helped groups survive. Respecting tradition meant not having to relearn everything from scratch. But blind adherence to tradition also prevented adaptation when environments changed. Balance between tradition and innovation was adaptive. Counter-culture movements throughout history (Christianity in the Roman Empire (rejecting polytheism, emperor worship, and Roman social hierarchies for a radically egalitarian monotheism), the Protestant Reformation (Martin Luther challenging Catholic tradition and papal authority with individual interpretation of scripture), the Enlightenment (reason and scientific inquiry rising against religious dogma and absolute monarchy), the American Revolution (Self-Direction and Self-Governance versus Tradition and Conformity to British crown), Romanticism (emotion, nature, and individual expression rebelling against Enlightenment rationalism and industrialisation), Marxism and socialism (working-class solidarity challenging capitalist hierarchies and private property norms), the suffragette movement (women demanding political equality against centuries of patriarchal tradition), the 1960s counterculture and so on) were essentially values rebellions. High Self-Direction and Stimulation rising against high Tradition and Conformity cultural norms. These weren’t just aesthetic preferences. They were fundamental conflicts over which values should guide society.

Conformity: Rule-Following and Obedience

This is restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations. Obedience, self-discipline, politeness, and honouring obligations. High Conformity means you follow rules, even when no one’s watching. Social norms feel binding. You believe in obedience to authority. You’re uncomfortable when others break rules. You value social harmony over personal expression. Meeting expectations matters to you. You experience rules as inherently important, not just useful.

Low Conformity means rules feel arbitrary unless there’s a clear reason for them. You think for yourself about what makes sense. You’re comfortable breaking conventions when they don’t serve a purpose. You prioritise effectiveness over propriety. You need logic, not just “because that’s how it’s done.” It is critical to understand that low Conformity isn’t rebellion. It’s not experiencing external rules as inherently important. High Conformity people experience rules as binding; they FEEL wrong breaking them, even stupid rules. Low Conformity people need logical justification. The rule itself generates no motivation.

This creates constant friction. High Conformity person sees low Conformity person as disrespectful, difficult, immature. Low Conformity person sees high Conformity person as blindly obedient, unable to think critically. Neither is accurate. Different values, different experiences of social obligation. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus applies here. Your values aren’t free choices, they’re socially conditioned by class, culture, family. High Conformity often comes from environments where obedience was rewarded and necessary. Low Conformity often comes from environments where questioning was encouraged. Understanding this removes moral judgment.

Conformity conflicts with Self-Direction (following rules vs. independent choice) and Stimulation (restraint vs. excitement). This is the central tension in how you relate to authority and social expectations. This is important for the coaches reading, because High Conformity clients thrive with clear rules and structure. Give them a program, and they’ll follow it precisely. Low Conformity clients need to understand why. Just telling them “do this because I said so” generates resistance. They need the logic behind the programming.

Humility: Modesty and Fitting In

This is recognising one’s insignificance in the larger scheme of things. Modesty, accepting one’s place, not calling attention to oneself, being humble.

High Humility means you’re comfortable not being the centre of attention. You see yourself as part of something larger. You don’t need recognition. You’re content with your role. You fit in rather than stand out. Drawing attention to yourself feels uncomfortable. You minimise your contributions even when they’re significant. You deflect praise.

Low Humility means you’re comfortable standing out. You think your contributions are significant. You want recognition for your work. You don’t naturally minimise yourself. You believe you have something important to offer, and you’re comfortable saying so.

Humility conflicts with Achievement (modesty vs. ambition) and Power (fitting in vs. dominance). Many high performers struggle with this tension. They’re genuinely driven to excel and stand out (high Achievement, low Humility), but they feel guilty about it because Humility is socially rewarded in many contexts. They’re told “don’t brag” and “stay humble,” but their actual values are low Humility and high Achievement. This creates internal conflict, and a constant battle between what they naturally want (recognition, standing out) and what they’re told they should want (modesty, fitting in).

The solution isn’t to pretend you value Humility when you don’t. It’s to understand that low Humility is valid, and that some people are meant to stand out and lead from the front. This isn’t narcissism or arrogance. It’s a legitimate motivational pattern with deep evolutionary roots.

From an evolutionary perspective, both dominance (low Humility) and prestige (high Humility) were successful paths to influence. Dominance meant taking resources through force or competition, and being visible, assertive, and comfortable with hierarchy. Those who succeeded through dominance had to be comfortable standing out, claiming their status, and demanding recognition. Prestige, on the other hand, meant earning respect through skill and service while remaining modest. It meant being valued for what you contribute without seeking the spotlight. Those who succeeded through prestige influenced others by being competent team players who elevated the group without elevating themselves.

Both strategies worked. Both were adaptive in different contexts and social structures. Your ancestors succeeded through one path or the other (or both, at different times), and you inherited those tendencies. Some lineages survived because they had bold, visible leaders who commanded attention. Others survived because they had skilled, humble contributors who maintained group cohesion. You’re expressing whichever strategy is coded into your motivational DNA.

We also see humility play a role in many ways of life and religions. For example, Christianity’s paradox of “dying to self” is often misunderstood as mandating Humility for everyone. But the deeper teaching is actually about accepting your true nature rather than the “should-self” imposed by others. It’s about surrendering the false self (the one performing values you don’t actually hold) to reveal the authentic self underneath. For some people, that authentic self is genuinely humble and service-oriented. For others, it’s bold, visible, and comfortable with recognition. Both can be expressions of dying to the false self and living authentically.

The key is matching your behaviour to your actual values, not the values you think you’re supposed to have. If you’re high Humility, embrace being part of something larger without needing the spotlight. If you’re low Humility, embrace standing out and claiming recognition without guilt. Both paths are valid. Both serve important functions. The world needs visible leaders and modest contributors. The only mistake is trying to be what you’re not.

You Can’t Maximise Everything

Now that we have gone through the different values, you have hopefully realised that you can’t maximise all of them, and that they often compete with each other. Some values naturally support each other, while others fundamentally oppose each other. Understanding these relationships explains why certain decisions feel easy while others torture you.

Values that naturally support each other:

• Benevolence and Universalism both involve caring beyond yourself; whether for your inner circle or humanity broadly, they share the motivation to improve others’ welfare.
• Self-Direction and Stimulation both involve openness to new experiences; autonomy and novelty reinforce each other since both require comfort with uncertainty.
• Achievement and Power both involve pursuing advancement; demonstrating competence and gaining influence often go hand in hand.
• Security and Conformity both involve managing risk through structure; seeking stability and following established rules serve similar protective functions.
• Tradition and Humility both involve accepting your place in something larger; respecting customs and avoiding self-promotion.

When values align like this, decisions feel obvious. High Achievement plus high Power person choosing between two promotions? You evaluate which offers more advancement and influence. Easy. High Benevolence plus high Universalism person deciding between family time and volunteer work? Both serve your caring motivation, so either choice feels congruent. Simple.

Values that fundamentally oppose each other:

• Self-Direction versus Conformity: You can’t simultaneously maximise autonomy and rule-following. Every choice for independence is a choice against obedience. When you prioritise thinking for yourself, you’re necessarily deprioritising external expectations.
• Stimulation versus Security: You can’t maximise novelty and predictability simultaneously. Adventure requires accepting uncertainty. The more you optimise for stability, the less room exists for exploration.
• Achievement versus Benevolence: Time spent demonstrating competence can’t be spent caring for others. Ambition competes with caregiving for your finite hours and energy. This is the classic “work-life balance” tension; it’s very often not about time management, but about opposing motivations.
• Power versus Universalism: Personal dominance conflicts with equality for all. The more you optimise for influence and status, the more you accept hierarchies that contradict universal justice.
• Hedonism versus Tradition: Self-gratification conflicts with duty and restraint. Living for pleasure actively opposes sacrificing enjoyment for obligations or customs.
• Self-Direction versus Tradition: Creating your own path inherently means rejecting inherited customs. The more you question and forge your own way, the less you’re respecting established traditions.

When values oppose like this, decisions become agonising. High Self-Direction plus high Security person choosing between a stable corporate job and an entrepreneurial venture? You’re torn between autonomy and safety. Neither choice feels right because whichever you choose, you violate a core value. This isn’t indecision; it’s genuine structural conflict between opposing motivational systems.

This is Aristotle’s Golden Mean applied to modern psychology. Virtue lies not in extremes but in finding balance between opposing forces. Aristotle called this practical wisdom or phronesis; knowing which value to prioritise in which context. You don’t eliminate the tension. You navigate it skillfully based on circumstances.

My boy Albert Camus would say the tension between opposing values is genuinely absurd. You want contradictory things simultaneously. You can’t have both. The universe offers no resolution. But you must embrace the tension anyway and make conscious choices about which to prioritise when. That is the human condition. You must live with irreconcilable desires and choose anyway.

We know from systems thinking that every system has constraints. You cannot optimise all variables simultaneously. This is Donella Meadows’ concept of leverage points in action. You can intervene at different levels of a system, but values are paradigm-level interventions, which are the highest leverage. Changing values changes everything below them. But the constraint is still real, and maximising one necessarily means accepting less of its opposite.

This is plain old opportunity cost; every choice for one value is a choice against another. Every hour spent on Achievement is an hour not spent on Benevolence. Every bit of money spent on Hedonism is money not saved for Security. Every risk taken for Stimulation is stability sacrificed from Security.

The Triage Values Assessment reveals these trade-offs. It shows you where your natural tensions live and which values you’re trying to serve simultaneously, even though they compete. It helps you make conscious choices about which value to prioritise in which context, rather than being paralysed by competing motivations you don’t understand.

Ultimately, when decisions torture you, you’re not indecisive; you’re experiencing genuine conflict between opposing motivational systems. The solution isn’t to eliminate the conflict. It’s to name it, understand it, and make conscious choices about which value takes priority in this specific situation. That’s what living the examined life means. Not resolving all tensions, but navigating them with awareness rather than confusion.

What Your Values Reveal About Your Life

Understanding your values is incredibly helpful, as it does actually reveal quite a lot about your life and the way you interact with the world.

Decision-Making: Why Some Choices Are Obvious and Others Torture You

Values explain the difference between easy decisions and impossible ones. Aligned decisions happen when options clearly serve your top values. The choice is obvious to you. High Achievement person choosing between two job offers where one offers clear advancement potential and the other doesn’t? No real decision. High Benevolence person choosing between family dinner and networking event? Family wins every time. The decision makes itself because only one option serves your core motivation.

Conflicted decisions happen when options serve opposing values you scored high on. These are the decisions you’re paralysed by. High Self-Direction plus high Security person choosing between stable corporate job and entrepreneurial venture? You’re torn between autonomy and safety. Neither choice feels right because whichever you choose, you violate a core value. 

Misaligned decisions happen when the “logical” choice violates your values; you resist even though you can’t articulate why. High Self-Direction person offered a prestigious but restrictive job? On paper, it’s great. More money, better title, and at an impressive company! But, in your gut it feels wrong. Your values are screaming at you, but you’re trying to logic your way past them. This is cognitive dissonance in action. Rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT), developed by Albert Ellis, can help identify the irrational beliefs underlying this: “I must be good at what society expects” or “If I don’t value what my parents valued, I’m a bad person.” These “should” statements create the conflict. You’re experiencing what he called “musturbation”, which is the toxic belief that you must conform to external standards.

So, if you feel you “should” do something, whose values are driving it? High Conformity people experience external expectations as binding. “I should attend that event because it’s expected” feels like a legitimate reason. The social obligation generates genuine motivation. Low Conformity people experience external expectations as irrelevant. “I should attend because it’s expected” generates no motivation. You need a “real” reason. What will you learn, who will you meet, what purpose does it serve? Neither is better. They’re different operating systems. But if you’re low Conformity trying to motivate yourself with “should,” you’ll fight yourself constantly. And if you’re high Conformity and everyone around you says “ignore social expectations, do what you want,” you’ll feel unmoored because you need that structure. This is also emotional reasoning, a cognitive distortion: “I feel guilty not working, therefore I value Achievement.” Feelings don’t define values, choices do.

Søren Kierkegaard wrote about the “leap of faith”, and how, sometimes, values alignment requires irrational commitment despite uncertainty. You can’t logic your way to certainty about which value to prioritise. At some point, you must leap. You must choose and accept the consequences. Jean-Paul Sartre discussed how you’re “condemned to be free.” Once you know your values, you’re responsible for actually living them. You can’t claim ignorance. You can’t blame circumstances. That’s the weight of this knowledge. Freedom and responsibility are inseparable. Living someone else’s values is what Sartre called mauvaise foi (bad faith). You’re pretending you’re not free to choose, accepting someone else’s definition of who you should be. Authenticity means values-behaviour congruence, not personal brand performance.

Relationship Patterns: Why You Click With Some People and Clash With Others

Values also help explain relationship chemistry better than almost any other framework. Shared anchor values create instant rapport. When someone shares your top two values, you feel immediately understood. Conversations flow. You don’t have to explain yourself. You just get each other. Two high Self-Direction people bond over creative autonomy and resistance to structure. Two high Benevolence people connect over caring for others and maintaining relationships. Two high Achievement people recognise each other’s drive immediately.

This isn’t magic, it’s simple coalitional psychology. We evolved to form alliances with those who share our values because cooperation with the like-minded increased survival. When someone shares your top values, your brain recognises “same tribe” at a visceral level. Erving Goffman’s symbolic interactionism explains this: we construct identity through values-signalling to others. When those signals match, we experience recognition and belonging.

Opposing core values create constant friction. When someone’s top value is your bottom value, every interaction creates tension. High Power person partnered with high Universalism person? He wants status and influence; she wants equality and justice. Every career decision, every social choice, every parenting question becomes a battlefield. It’s not that either is wrong, they’re just operating from fundamentally different motivational systems. High Stimulation person partnered with high Security person? She wants adventure and novelty; he wants predictability and planning. Every decision about money, travel, lifestyle becomes a conflict. She thinks he’s boring and risk-averse. He thinks she’s reckless and irresponsible. They’re both right from their own value systems.

It’s not personal. It’s structural. This is where most relationship advice fails. “Just communicate better” doesn’t help when the underlying issue is fundamentally different values. You can communicate perfectly and still have irreconcilable differences. Fyodor Dostoevsky understood this in The Brothers Karamazov. Each brother embodies a different values hierarchy. Dmitri is high Hedonism and Stimulation, Ivan is high Self-Direction and low Tradition, Alyosha is high Benevolence and Universalism. Their conflicts aren’t merely personality clashes. They are structural incompatibilities between different ways of being human. The healthiest relationships aren’t necessarily those with identical values. They’re relationships where values differences are recognised, named, and negotiated consciously rather than endlessly re-litigated as if one person will eventually see reason.

Common values conflicts in relationships: 

• Power versus Humility creates conflicts around leadership style, public visibility, and how you present yourselves socially. 
• Stimulation versus Security creates conflicts around lifestyle choices, financial decisions, and risk tolerance. 
• Self-Direction versus Conformity creates conflicts around how much you care about others’ opinions, whether you follow social norms, and how you make decisions. 
• Achievement versus Benevolence creates the classic work-life balance conflict. It’s not about time management, it’s more about opposing values competing for limited resources. 
• Hedonism versus Tradition creates conflicts around how you spend free time, whether duty or pleasure drives choices, and how you prioritise responsibilities versus enjoyment.

Energy Management: What Fills Your Tank and What Drains It

Energy isn’t just about sleep and nutrition. It’s about values alignment. Activities that align with your top values energise you, even when objectively difficult. High Achievement person crushing a challenging project feels energised, not depleted. High Benevolence person spending hours caring for family feels fulfilled, not drained. The activity serves their core motivation, so their system rewards it with energy and engagement. Environments that honour your priorities energise you. High Self-Direction person in autonomous work environment shows up energised every day. High Stimulation person in dynamic, changing role feels alive. The environment allows expression of core values, which maintains motivation effortlessly.

People who share or respect your values energise you. You don’t have to defend your priorities. You don’t have to justify your choices. You can just be yourself. This is why “found family” or tight friend groups feel so restorative; they’re often values-aligned social environments. Prolonged violation of core values depletes you at a level no amount of sleep or recovery can fix. Environments that reward opposing values drain you. High Self-Direction person in rigid bureaucracy feels dead inside, no matter how much they sleep. High Benevolence person in a cutthroat, competitive environment feels depleted, even if they’re winning. The environment constantly demands behaviour that violates core motivation.

People who demand you compromise your anchors drain you. It’s not that they’re bad people. They’re just operating from different values, and the constant negotiation exhausts you. Think about this like proper form in training. Proper form isn’t just generally safer, it’s also more efficient. The movement works with your structure rather than against it. When your environment and the people in it align with your values, you’re working with your motivational structure rather than against it. Energy flows efficiently. Sustainable intensity becomes possible. When environment fights your values, you’re constantly grinding against your own nature. No amount of discipline overcomes structural misalignment indefinitely. This is also why values you don’t express atrophy, like unused muscles. Use it or lose it. If you’re high Universalism but never engage in activities expressing that value, it withers. The motivational pathway weakens.

All of this is also relevant to burnout. Burnout is often due to doing work that violates your values. High Achievement person in unmeasured, ambiguous role where competence isn’t recognised? Burnout. There’s no way to demonstrate competence, which is their core motivation. High Universalism person in purely profit-driven work with no social impact? Burnout. It violates their principle of caring about more than personal gain. High Self-Direction person in micromanaged environment where every decision requires approval? Burnout. Their autonomy is constantly violated.

This is the core of what Acceptance and Commitment Therapy calls creative hopelessness. You’ve exhausted yourself trying every solution except the one that matters: addressing the core values violation. You’ve tried time management, productivity hacks, mindfulness apps, therapy, medication. Nothing works because you haven’t changed the fundamental misalignment. This is why you can work sixty hours a week at something you love and feel energised, but thirty hours a week at something that violates your values destroys you. The solution isn’t always working less. Sometimes it’s working at something that aligns with who you are.

This connects to Mihály Csíkszentmihályi’s flow state research. Flow happens when challenge matches skill, but it also generally requires values alignment. You can have perfect challenge-skill balance and never achieve flow if the activity violates your core values. The activity needs to be inherently motivating, which means aligned with your values hierarchy. Athletes understand this when they retire and face values crisis. Their entire identity was built around Achievement, and demonstrating competence / improving performance / winning. When that ends, they’re lost. What are they without their primary value expression? Like periodisation in training, different life seasons should emphasise different values. But you need a plan for transitioning between seasons, or the shift will crush you.

The Gap Between Values and Life: Your Honest Reckoning

Most people will have some sort of gap between their values and the way they actually act in life. You often have to do things that don’t perfectly align with your values, because, well, we have to survive. But understanding the gap is still important, as you can very often close the gap with some dedicated work, and this can significantly enhance your life.

The Time Audit: What Your Calendar Reveals About Your Actual Values

You now know your values hierarchy from the assessment. The key question that matters now is: does your life reflect it? Most people are unsure, and that is totally normal. To answer this, I would track one week honestly. Roughly every hour, where does your time actually go? Then map time spent to values served. Hours at work where you demonstrate competence equals Achievement. Hours with family equals Benevolence. Hours in creative or autonomous work equals Self-Direction. Hours seeking new experiences equals Stimulation. Hours in routine and planning equals Security. Hours helping others or causes equals Universalism. Hours in pleasure and enjoyment equals Hedonism. Hours following rules and expectations equals Conformity.

Calculate percentage of time living each value. Compare to your values hierarchy from the assessment. This is revealed preference theory from economics. We don’t judge what you value by what you say, we judge by what you choose when choices compete. Your time is your most finite resource. Where it goes reveals your actual priorities, regardless of your stated priorities. Annie Dillard wrote: “How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives.” Your daily micro-choices accumulate into your life. Each small choice is a vote for who you become. If you’re voting against your values thousands of times daily, you’re building a life that doesn’t reflect who you are.

If you scored high on Benevolence but spend 5% of your time with family, there’s a gap. If you scored high on Self-Direction but spend 80% of your time following others’ directives, there’s a gap. If you scored high on Hedonism but never do anything just for enjoyment, there’s a gap. This gap explains the Sunday night dread. This gap explains the burnout. This gap explains why you feel like you’re living someone else’s life. 

You see, your default mode network (DMN) (the brain system most active when your mind is at rest, wandering, or reflecting on yourself) plays a key role in building and maintaining a coherent sense of who you are. It integrates memories, values, and future goals into a continuous personal narrative. So, when your daily actions repeatedly clash with the values you hold dear, this mismatch creates cognitive dissonance that the DMN keeps revisiting during quiet moments. Instead of switching off properly, the DMN stays overactive, replaying the discrepancy through rumination and self-questioning. This persistent internal friction is experienced as unease, emptiness, or that quiet voice saying “this isn’t me.”

Far from being a vague feeling or personal failing, it’s your brain’s self-coherence system signalling that your lived experience no longer fits the identity it’s trying to sustain. That signal is real, measurable in neuroimaging studies, and evolutionarily designed to push you toward realignment.

We judge ourselves by our intentions, but others judge us by our actions, and our actions reveal our actual values. You can intend to value family while working eighty hours a week. But your actions reveal Achievement as your actual top value. This isn’t about moral judgment. It’s about accuracy. The time audit forces accuracy. It shows you what you’re actually optimising for, not what you wish you were optimising for.

Why the Gap Exists: The Honest Diagnosis

There are four main reasons for values-behaviour gaps. First: inherited “should” values versus actual values. You absorbed what your parents valued. You internalised what your culture rewards. You adopted values that brought approval. But they’re not YOUR values; they’re borrowed values. Your parents valued Achievement and Security, so you built a stable, impressive career. But you’re actually high Self-Direction and Stimulation, so you’re dying, trapped inside the life they would have wanted. This is Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. Your values aren’t free choices, they’re socially conditioned by class, culture, and family. Breaking free requires conscious examination of which values are actually yours versus which you inherited.

Second: circumstances temporarily override values. You took the job because you needed money. You stayed in the relationship because you had kids. You moved for your partner’s career. You chose security during a recession. Circumstances forced values-compromising choices. That’s understandable. The question is whether you are still in those circumstances, or have you just never reassessed? Many people make temporary compromises that become permanent because they never revisit the decision. Like technical debt in software engineering, where small compromises made for expedience compound into systemic problems. Values debt accumulates the same way. Each compromise builds on the last until your entire life is structured around violations you never consciously chose.

Third: you haven’t examined whether daily choices align. You say family is your top value. But when did you last have an uninterrupted meal with them? You say health matters. But when did you last prioritise sleep over work? Most people operate on autopilot, never checking whether daily micro-choices align with stated macro-values. Your life is an experiment. Are you tracking the data? Are you A/B testing values-aligned choices against misaligned ones? Or are you running on assumptions that were never tested?

Fourth: social pressure to conform to certain values. Your industry rewards Achievement and Power, so you performed those values even though you’re actually high Universalism and Humility. Your social circle values Hedonism and Stimulation, so you show up at parties and pretend to enjoy it, even though you value Security and Tradition. You’ve been performing someone else’s values for so long that you’ve lost touch with your own. This is “impression management” taken to pathological extremes. You’re managing impressions 24/7 rather than living authentically. Your reference groups (the people you compare yourself to) shape your values. Change your reference group and your values shift to match.

When Misalignment Is Acceptable (And When It’s an Emergency)

Not all misalignment is crisis. Some is temporary, necessary, or acceptable. Life has phases where one value temporarily dominates everything else. 

New parent: Benevolence dominates completely. Your child’s needs override everything. That’s appropriate, as it’s time-limited and serves a critical purpose. Parental investment theory from evolutionary psychology explains this: raising offspring successfully required enormous investment, so evolution programmed Benevolence to spike during caregiving years.

Startup phase: Achievement and Power require intense focus. If you’re building a business, Security and Hedonism take a backseat temporarily. That’s a conscious trade-off. 

Health crisis: Security becomes paramount. Everything else pauses while you address threat. That’s adaptive, not problematic. 

Misalignment seasons are normal. You’re not abandoning your values, you’re temporarily emphasising different ones for strategic reasons. However, the key to navigating this successfully is ensuring they are named, time-boxed, and have an exit strategy. “I’m focusing on career for the next two years to establish security, then I’ll rebalance” is different from “I’ve been sacrificing family for career for fifteen years with no end in sight.” 

Some value tensions can’t be resolved, only managed. High Achievement plus high Benevolence equals constant tension between career and family. You can’t maximise both simultaneously. You can only make conscious choices about which to prioritise when. This is Aristotle’s practical wisdom or phronesis: knowing which value to prioritise in which context. It’s not about eliminating tension but navigating it skillfully. ACT calls this psychological flexibility, which is the willingness to experience the discomfort of competing values rather than trying to eliminate the discomfort.

Sequential satisfaction, not simultaneous perfection. Spend five years building security through a stable career, then use that foundation to pursue stimulation through travel or entrepreneurship. Spend intense career-building years accepting less family time, then shift to more presence once you’ve achieved baseline success. This is like periodisation in training, where different phases emphasise different adaptations. You don’t try to build maximum strength and maximum endurance simultaneously. You alternate emphasis while maintaining the other.

Living 80% aligned is a realistic success. Perfect alignment is a myth. You might work in a stable corporate job (Security) even though you value Self-Direction, because it provides a financial foundation to live your other values. As long as 80% of your life serves your core values, the 20% compromise is sustainable. 

The question isn’t “Is there any misalignment?” The question is “Is the misalignment chosen consciously and sustainable long-term?” Nietzsche’s concept of amor fati (loving your fate) includes accepting your values hierarchy, even the tensions. You don’t rage against the tensions. You embrace them as part of who you are and navigate them as skillfully as possible.

But some gaps aren’t acceptable trade-offs. They’re crises. Chronic values violation means years, not months, of ignoring core values. Daily work that violates your principles. Relationships that require you to be someone else. Lifestyle that serves none of your top three values. Constant suppression of what matters to you. The cost is depression, anxiety, physical illness, identity crisis, and breakdown. Your body and your psyche keep score. Chronic misalignment doesn’t just feel bad; it makes you sick.

This is Sartre’s concept of bad faith or mauvaise foi; living inauthentically, pretending you’re not free to choose, and accepting someone else’s definition of who you should be. Leo Tolstoy’s novella “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” is entirely about this. Ivan spends his whole life living according to social expectations, pursuing the career, the marriage, and the status that society deems successful. Only on his deathbed does he realise he lived someone else’s values. The story ends with his recognition: “What if my whole life has been wrong?” 

That’s the cost of values blindness: wasting your one life living someone else’s script.

Warning signs your system is in crisis aren’t always obvious, but there are quite a few common ones. Sunday night dread every single week. Fantasising about a completely different life. Numbness, going through motions, and feeling dead inside. Physical symptoms can include insomnia, digestive issues, chronic tension, and frequent illness. Substance use to cope with your life. Envy of others living your unlived values. Feeling like you’re watching your life from outside. Explosive anger at minor triggers because you’re constantly suppressing larger issues. If you recognise three or more of these as your lived reality, you’re likely not in temporary misalignment. You’re in crisis. 

Death anxiety often underlies a lot of this. Ernest Becker and existential psychologists argue that many value conflicts stem from avoiding existential givens like mortality, meaninglessness, and isolation. The milestone birthday crisis is really death awareness forcing values confrontation. You realise time is finite, and you’re spending it on things that don’t matter to you.

Most people don’t course-correct until forced. Health crisis, heart attack, burnout collapse, relationship breakdown, divorce, estrangement, or getting fired or quitting impulsively. Milestone birthday existential crisis. Someone close dies, and you confront mortality. These are your system’s nuclear options. It’s trying to save you by forcing crisis that demands change. A better option would be to use this Triage Values Assessment to course-correct before crisis. That’s the point of this framework. You have early warning systems now. You can see the gap between values and life before it breaks you.

Closing the Gap: Making Your Life Match Your Values

Now, while this is supposed to just be an article about how to get the most out of the Triage Values Assessment Tool, I would feel remiss if I didn’t actually include some information on how to actually close the gap.

The Values-Based Decision Framework

Every major decision becomes simpler (not easier, simpler), when filtered through your values. For any major decision, ask yourself: Which of my top three values does this serve? Which of my values does this violate or compromise? Is this trade-off acceptable to me? Will future-me thank me for this choice? Am I choosing this, or defaulting to it?

Job offer evaluation: Not “What pays more?” but “Which job serves my top values?” High Self-Direction plus low Power person choosing between a prestigious corporate role and a lower-paying creative freelance role? The corporate job violates Self-Direction (rigid structure) and doesn’t serve you (you don’t care about prestige). The freelance role serves your core value even though it sacrifices financial security. If you can afford the trade-off, the choice is obvious. The “logical” choice (corporate job) is actually illogical for your motivational system. This is similar to premeditatio malorum from Stoicism. Anticipating values conflicts before they happen so you can navigate them consciously rather than being blindsided.

Geographic moves: Not “Where’s the best opportunity?” but “Which location allows me to live my values?” High Universalism person choosing between high-paying job in an environmentally destructive industry in “X” versus lower-paying non-profit work in “Y”? The money doesn’t compensate for daily values violation. High Security person choosing between an adventurous but unstable life abroad versus a stable but boring life in their hometown? The adventure doesn’t compensate for constant anxiety. Environment matters enormously because it shapes what’s possible daily.

How to spend a windfall: Not “What should I do with this money?” but “How does this money serve my values?” High Security person pays off debt and builds an emergency fund. High Stimulation person books adventure travel. High Achievement person invests in career development or education. High Benevolence person supports family members. High Universalism person donates to causes. All correct, for their values. There’s no universal “right” answer because money is just a tool for living your values.

This is the Stoic dichotomy of control applied practically. You control which values you prioritise in each decision. You don’t control outcomes. High Security person might build emergency fund and still face crisis. High Stimulation person might book adventure and have terrible experience. But they made the values-aligned choice, which means they maintained integrity regardless of outcome. That’s what creates resilience and psychological well-being: knowing you chose according to your principles rather than according to fear or external pressure. John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” thought experiment applies here: if you didn’t know your circumstances, what values would you choose? That reveals which values are truly yours versus which are conditioned by your current situation.

Designing Your Choice Architecture: Making Values Alignment the Default

Every day you cast thousands of tiny votes for the person you’re becoming. If you want those votes to reflect who you truly are, stop leaving the ballot box wide open. Instead, redesign the voting booth itself so that the values-aligned choice is the one that requires zero effort, zero debate, and zero heroic willpower. This is choice architecture, the behavioural-economics idea from Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein: shape the environment so that the default is the choice you want.

Most of us never notice we’re still running on our parents’ operating system, until we deliberately install our own. That’s why a 60-statement values assessment beats trying to rank all twelve values at once: too many options trigger the paradox of choice, and you freeze. It’s why a single daily violation stings harder than an aligned win feels good (loss aversion). It’s why we trade a decade of meaning for a Friday dopamine hit (present bias). And it’s why the boundaries we’ll set later are classic commitment devices (pre-commitments that bind your future self to your present intention).

Here’s what that looks like in practice.

High Benevolence? Put family photos on your desk. Schedule recurring dinners as non-negotiable calendar blocks. Make “family time” the default, not something you fit in if there’s time. 

High Self-Direction? Remove notification temptations. Create uninterrupted thinking time as protected calendar blocks. Set up work environment where autonomy is default, not something you have to fight for. 

High Achievement? Track metrics that actually matter. Remove vanity metrics. Make progress visible so you can see competence developing. 

High Security? Automate savings so security-building happens by default. Create emergency protocols in advance so you’re not making decisions during a crisis.

This is James Clear’s Atomic Habits principle applied to values: make it obvious, attractive, easy, and satisfying, but for values, not just habits. If you value Self-Direction, make autonomous work obvious (block calendar time), attractive (design a pleasant workspace), easy (remove obstacles to deep work), and satisfying (track creative output). Your environment should make living your values the path of least resistance. Otherwise, you’re fighting friction constantly, which depletes willpower and eventually breaks down.

When your environment aligns with your values, you’re working with your motivational structure rather than against it. Energy follows alignment. In the gym, proper form equals efficient movement; in life, values alignment equals sustainable energy. 

You need to set a strong foundation before you can flourish. You need values clarity to do this.

We see this in many ways of life. Buddhism teaches Wu Wei from Taoism, which is effortless action that comes from alignment with the Tao. When you’re aligned with your values, action becomes effortless. When you’re misaligned, everything requires force. Islam’s concept of Niyyah recognises that values are your deepest intentions; the why beneath all your actions. Christianity’s paradox of “dying to self” is actually about accepting your true values rather than the should-self imposed by others.

Questions That Reveal Your Actual Values

Before we move on, here are provocative questions that will help you to cut through self-deception:

The Deathbed Test: If you continue living exactly as you are now, what will you regret on your deathbed? That reveals your actual values, not your stated ones. 

The Lottery Paradox: If you won $10 million tomorrow and didn’t have to work, how would you spend your time? That’s closer to your true values than how you currently spend time. Money removes the constraint of survival. What remains is what you actually value.

The Eulogy Exercise: What do you want said at your funeral? Compare that to what would honestly be said based on your current life. That gap is your values misalignment. What do you want to be remembered for versus what you’re actually building toward?

The Opposite Day Experiment: If you had to live the exact opposite of your current values for one year, what would that look like? How horrifying is that? That reveals how important your values are. High Achievement person forced into a role with no metrics or recognition? High Security person forced into constant uncertainty? High Benevolence person forced into pure self-focus? The horror you feel reveals the depth of the values misalignment.

The Cloning Paradox: If you could clone yourself, which version would you want to be? The “should” version or the “actual” version? Why does a gap exist between them? Which version is living your values, and which is performing for others?

The Alien Anthropologist: If an alien observed your actual behaviour for a month, not your words, what would they conclude you value? Does it match your self-perception? Aliens don’t hear your explanations or intentions. They only see actions. What do your actions say?

The Two Doors Problem: Door A is perfect values alignment, but 50% less money and status. Door B is a total values violation, but 2x money and status. Which do you choose? When you hesitate, that’s the real conversation. Which matters more: external validation or internal congruence? Values-aligned struggle beats values-violated comfort every time.

The Parenting Mirror: What values are you modelling for your kids or future kids? Are those the values you want them to have? If not, why are you living them? Your children won’t inherit your stated values; they’ll inherit your lived values. What are you showing them matters?

The Cost of Values Blindness: What Happens Without This

Before we finish up, I think it is important to really truly understand the cost of not understanding your values and acting in alignment with them.

Individual level: Decades of “success” in someone else’s life. The mid-life crisis is really a values-awakening crisis where you suddenly realise you’ve been climbing the wrong mountain. You reach the top and discover it’s the wrong summit. Health breakdown, relationship breakdown, career breakdown. You feel the regret of: “I spent my whole life living how I thought I should instead of how I actually wanted.” Thoreau wrote in Walden about “lives of quiet desperation.” He was describing values blindness in 1854. Most people live lives of quiet desperation because they never examine what actually matters to them. They just followed the script (college, job, marriage, house, kids, retirement) without asking if any of it aligns with their values.

Relationship level: Marriages end because of unspoken values conflicts that appear as conflicts about money, time, parenting, but underneath are fundamental values incompatibilities that nobody names. Friendships fade when values diverge, and you don’t have the language to discuss it. Family estrangement when values clash, but no one identifies the real issue. Everyone just knows “we can’t get along” without understanding why. 

Organisational level: Hiring disasters when organisations and employees have misaligned values. The person isn’t “bad,” they’re just serving values the organisation doesn’t reward. You see this in high employee turnover when the culture doesn’t match individual values. “Quiet quitting” is often values misalignment. These people aren’t lazy, they’re serving none of their core values at work, so they do the minimum required. Failed mergers due to cultural incompatibility, which is really values incompatibility. Two companies with different values hierarchies try to integrate, and everything breaks. Ethical scandals when institutional values conflict with individual values. Good people making terrible decisions because organisational incentives violate their principles. Think about Wells Fargo creating fake accounts, or Enron, or any corporate scandal. Usually, it’s not evil people; it’s values-misaligned systems creating perverse incentives.

Societal level: Political polarisation is partially values polarisation. Security and Tradition values versus Self-Direction and Universalism values. These map onto conservative versus progressive political divides pretty cleanly. Not perfectly, and there’s lots of individual variation. But the pattern holds. Conservatives tend to score higher on Security, Tradition, and Conformity. Progressives tend to score higher on Self-Direction, Universalism, and Stimulation. Neither is right or wrong, they’re just different values hierarchies applied to governance questions.

Generational conflict: Boomer generation’s emphasis on Conformity and Achievement versus Millennial emphasis on Self-Direction and Universalism. This isn’t “kids these days” or “boomers are out of touch”, it’s different values hierarchies shaped by different historical circumstances.

Culture wars: Culture wars are values wars. Abortion debate? Tradition and Security versus Self-Direction and Universalism. Immigration? Security and Tradition versus Universalism. Gender and sexuality issues? Conformity and Tradition versus Self-Direction. When you understand the underlying values conflicts, the culture wars make more sense. 

The rising mental health crisis is partially explained by modernity forcing all of these values compromises. Everyone pursues generic “success” that isn’t actually success for them. Conformity to arbitrary social scripts. The burnout epidemic. Existential emptiness despite material abundance (we’re richer than any generation in history but more depressed, anxious, and medicated). This is just values misalignment at scale. Relationships of convenience, not compatibility. Work divorced from meaning. Lives of quiet desperation. 

The system we live in was built by and for certain values. If your values differ, the system feels oppressive.

This can seem depressing, until you realise that you do actually have agency and you can design your life in a way that aligns with your values. You just have to identify them and work to make choices that are aligned with your values. This is the hard labour of freedom. You actually have to exercise your freedom; otherwise, you are not truly free.

Triage Values Assessment Tool Conclusion: Living The Examined Life 

You now have something most people never get: clarity on your unique motivational hierarchy. You know why certain choices feel right or wrong. You know where your life aligns with your values and where it doesn’t. You know how to make values-based decisions. You know your values are valid even if different from others’. You know why you click with certain people and clash with others. You know what energises versus drains you. You know where tensions in your system create difficult decisions. You know there’s an authenticity tax (living your values often costs money, status, and convenience), but misalignment costs your soul. This knowledge changes everything if you use it. 

Carl Jung called the process of differentiating your values from collective expectations “individuation”. This is becoming who you actually are rather than who you’re supposed to be. That process never ends. It’s lifelong. But it starts with the clarity you now have.

Nietzsche wrote: “Become who you are.” Not who your parents want. Not who society expects. Who you actually are. That requires honest self-knowledge. You now have that knowledge. Sartre said you’re “condemned to be free.” Now that you know your values, you’re responsible for living them. You can’t claim ignorance. You can’t blame circumstances. That’s the weight of this knowledge; freedom and responsibility are inseparable.

Unfortunately, this isn’t one-and-done. Values awareness is a practice, not an event. Alignment is a process, not a destination. You won’t achieve perfect congruence and maintain it forever. Life changes. Circumstances shift. You’ll have seasons of better and worse alignment. The goal isn’t perfection. The goal is direction. One degree of course correction maintained for years puts you in a completely different place.

However, you do now have the map to help you on this journey. Most people navigate life without this map. They make decisions based on what they think they should want, what others expect, what sounds impressive, or what worked for someone else. You don’t have to do that anymore. Understanding your values can help you navigate life in a congruent manner, and allow you to build a life you don’t need to escape from. That’s the ultimate goal. A life that feels congruent when you’re alone with yourself. The life where Sunday night doesn’t fill you with dread. Where you wake up and the day ahead energises you. Where your choices make sense to you, even if they confuse others. The life that reflects who you actually are, not who you thought you should be.

Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. You’ve now examined your life through the lens of values. You’ve identified what drives you. You’ve mapped the gap between your values and your choices. Now that you know what actually matters to you, what will you do differently?

That question is yours to answer.

If you need help creating a plan of action, with regards to your values and your health and fitness, we can help you do this. You can reach out to us and get online coaching, or alternatively, you can interact with our free content. 

If you want more free information on nutrition and exercise, you can follow us on Instagram, YouTube or listen to the podcast, where we discuss all the little intricacies of exercise and nutrition. You can always stay up to date with our latest content by subscribing to our newsletter.

Finally, if you want to learn how to coach nutrition, then consider our Nutrition Coach Certification course, and if you want to learn to get better at exercise program design, then consider our course on exercise program design. We do have other courses available too. If you don’t understand something, or you just need clarification, you can always reach out to us on Instagram or via email.