The Value of Values: A Conceptual and Empirical Approach to Evaluating SIVH
In this article, we explore a fundamental question frequently encountered at SelfFusion during our work with various companies: Are some values inherently more valuable than others? This question is crucial as it ultimately shapes the broader inquiry: How should one live? Here, we present SelfFusion’s approach to this challenge through a quantifiable model for evaluating values, providing a structured framework for understanding their impact.
Are Some Values Inherently More Valuable Than Others?
When evaluating different values in the Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) of a person, we inevitably encounter a fundamental question:
Are some values inherently more valuable than others?
This question has occupied philosophers, neuroscientists, and behavioral scientists for centuries, generating extensive debate across various disciplines. It is not something that can be settled with a one-size-fits-all answer, as value systems are shaped by culture, cognition, and personal experience. However, modern psychological and neuroscientific research provides concrete ways to assess how values influence decision-making, well-being, and social impact.
SelfFusion Findings: The Stability and Transformation of Values
While the highest values in an individual’s SIVH may shift over time, empirical research suggests that the core structure of a person’s value hierarchy remains remarkably stable. Large-scale shifts tend to occur only during life-altering events—which we refer to as “nodes” in psychological transformation. For a deeper exploration of how these crisis points shape high-functioning individuals, see our article:
Understanding Sudden Crisis in High-Functioning Employees: The Impact of Life-Altering Events
However, intentional self-modification of one’s SIVH remains a challenging and still quite rare phenomenon. Many high-performing employees dedicate significant effort to refining their internal value structures, often questioning whether certain values are objectively “better” than others.
Is there a way to quantify and rank values objectively?
At SelfFusion, our Deep Mind Team has spent decades analyzing this question, and the research data suggests that there is an objective framework that allows us to assess the relative value of values.
The "Value of a Value" (VV) Model: A Quantifiable Approach
Our research has uncovered a key principle:
The value of a value is determined not just by its significance to the individual but by its measurable influence on others.
At first glance, this might seem to align with utilitarian ethics, which prioritize values based on their positive impact on the greatest number of people (Mill, 1863). However, our framework does not begin by measuring happiness—rather, it assesses values based on their capacity to reduce suffering.
This shift in focus is supported by neuroscientific and psychological studies that highlight the asymmetry of human emotions—where pain reduction has a stronger effect on well-being than pleasure maximization (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
Key Example: The Role of a Top Value in Action
Let’s consider two individuals with distinct top values in their SIVH:
Person A has Family as their monotheistic top value.
Most of their actions will be dedicated to supporting, nurturing, and protecting their family. Their decision-making will prioritize long-term security and stability for loved ones. The impact of their actions will directly improve the well-being of multiple people in tangible ways.
Person B has Freedom or Personal Happiness as their top value.
While they may still contribute positively to society, their primary aim is self-fulfillment. Their actions may still benefit others, but in a more indirect and less structured manner. The cumulative effect on others tends to be lower than in the first scenario.
From an empirical standpoint, Person A's value of Family results in a higher aggregate reduction of suffering for multiple people than Person B’s individual pursuit of happiness.
The Formula: Quantifying the Value of a Value (VV)
In our solutions we use the following quantitative model:
VV = (Degree of Suffering Reduction) × (Number of People Affected)
Where:
Degree of Suffering Reduction → How much does this value reduce suffering (directly or indirectly)?
Number of People Affected → How many individuals benefit from the action driven by this value?
This formula aligns with research in neuroscience, behavioral economics, and moral psychology, which suggests that reducing distress in oneself and others is a more reliable predictor of long-term well-being than pleasure-seeking behavior (Gilbert, 2006; Seligman, 2011).
Scientific Evidence Supporting This Approach
The idea that reducing suffering has a greater impact than maximizing happiness is backed by multiple psychological and neuroscientific studies:
Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky (1979) – Prospect Theory
Demonstrated that humans are loss-averse, meaning reducing suffering has a more significant impact on well-being than acquiring happiness.
This suggests that values focused on suffering reduction will have a greater net positive impact than hedonistic values.
Paul Gilbert (2006) – Compassion-Focused Therapy
Found that helping others and reducing suffering increases long-term psychological resilience.
Values centered on alleviating distress lead to greater personal satisfaction and social cohesion.
Martin Seligman (2011) – Positive Psychology & Well-Being Theory
Happiness is best achieved indirectly, through meaningful engagement and reducing suffering for others.
This supports the claim that values maximizing altruistic engagement are more powerful than self-serving values.
Implications for SIVH and Leadership in Organizations
Understanding the hierarchical structure of values in key decision-makers is crucial for corporate strategy and leadership. Research in organizational psychology (Schwartz, 1992; Hofstede, 2001) has shown that:
Leaders with value systems focused on collective well-being foster more resilient organizations.
Companies that prioritize ethical and communal values outperform those focused solely on profit maximization in long-term sustainability.
This means that aligning an organization's value system with principles that actively reduce suffering can lead to higher employee satisfaction, productivity, and overall corporate resilience.
Quantifying and Qualifying Suffering
It is self-evident that suffering is an intrinsic part of life. In many cases, human choices are not simply between suffering and happiness, but rather between degrees of suffering. At SelfFusion, we have conducted an extensive analysis of the essence of suffering, and for the purposes of evaluating values within SIVH, we define suffering according to the following core characteristics.
1. Unnecessary Suffering
Suffering qualifies for value assessment when it is unnecessary—meaning it could be avoided under different circumstances. While some suffering is inevitable (e.g., illness, natural disasters, aging, etc.), unnecessary suffering is artificially prolonged or intensified by human actions.
Examples of Unnecessary Suffering
Deception & False Hope
Suppose a global pandemic spreads, causing suffering and death. While this suffering is tragic, it is not inherently unnecessary—it arises from natural causes. However, if individuals or institutions spread false hope, deliberately mislead people, or exploit the crisis for personal gain (e.g., selling fake cures for profit), this introduces avoidable suffering. It prolongs distress, amplifies fear, and exploits human vulnerability (Hoffman et al., 2020).
Sadistic Infliction of Psychological Suffering
The behavior of certain individuals with antisocial and psychopathic tendencies exemplifies how deliberate cruelty amplifies suffering beyond necessity. Serial killer Richard Kuklinski, for instance, once claimed he left a praying victim alone in a locked room for a while before executing him — telling the man that if God existed, he would be saved. Such premeditated psychological torment does not merely end life but transforms a tragedy into a form of hellish suffering, far beyond what was necessary to achieve the same outcome (Hare, 1999).
Betrayal-Based Suffering (Abortion Without Partner’s Knowledge)
Consider a scenario where a woman undergoes an abortion without informing her partner, deceiving him about the pregnancy and health issues. While abortion is a complex ethical issue, the element of deception introduces unnecessary suffering, as the partner is denied agency, manipulated, and emotionally harmed by a false reality. Research in moral psychology suggests that lies systematically erode trust and create cascading emotional distress, which eventually collapses as truth surfaces (Ariely, 2012).
Thus, unnecessary suffering does not just exist—it is artificially constructed, prolonged, or intensified by human action, making it a key metric for evaluating the value of values.
2. Involuntary Suffering
Suffering can be neutral or even positive when it is voluntarily chosen—for example, hard work, sacrifice, and self-discipline often lead to long-term personal growth (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). However, involuntary suffering—when suffering is imposed by others against one's will—meets our criteria for measuring negative value impact.
Example of Voluntary vs. Involuntary Suffering
Voluntary Suffering for Growth (Positive)
A student choosing to attend university, enduring financial hardship and long study hours, is undergoing suffering voluntarily because they are working toward a higher goal in their SIVH (e.g., education, career growth, self-actualization).
Involuntary Suffering for Exploitation (Negative)
If the student's wealthy landlord raises their rent excessively during their studies for the sole purpose of financial gain which makes no significant tent is their net-worth, despite the student already struggling, this suffering is both unnecessary and involuntary—as it serves no higher purpose and is imposed externally.
When both conditions (unnecessary and involuntary suffering) work together, we get conditions for the limit cases of suffering, where the harm is maximized.
3. The Limit Case: Inflicting Suffering at Personal Loss ("True Evil")
A critical factor in quantifying suffering-based value assessment is the willingness of individuals to harm others even at a cost to themselves. This signifies a shift from selfish behavior to malevolent intent.
Example of True Evil: The Malicious Landlord
Imagine a wealthy landlord refuses to let a hardworking student register their address legally at the rented apartment. The landlord is aware that:
Registration would provide benefits to the landlord (e.g. substantial government aid per such program).
Registration would provide benefits to the tenant (e.g. access to better financial services, aid etc).
They would not lose money by allowing registration, but get a significant gain.
Denying registration actively harms the tenant for no practical reason.
If the landlord refuses purely out of resentment, believing that the tenant represents a version of their younger self that they failed to become, then they are not just indifferent to suffering but actively seeking to increase it.
If a person deliberately chooses to harm another, even at a cost to themselves, their actions transcend self-interest and become malicious suffering creation — what we might term "true evil" (Baumeister, 1997).
This principle has strong parallels with research on “Dark Triad” personality traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), which show that individuals with high sadistic tendencies derive pleasure from inflicting suffering, even at personal expense (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
The Dual Forces of Suffering: Maximizing Suffering for Value Measurement
When both forms of suffering (unnecessary and involuntary) work together, we get a limit case scenario, where suffering reaches its peak intensity.
Final Formula for Evaluating the Value of Values (VV):
VV = (Reduction in unnecessary + involuntary suffering) × (Number of people affected)
Values that lead to actions reducing both unnecessary and involuntary suffering are inherently higher in the hierarchy than values that serve only individualistic or pleasure-seeking purposes.
Why This Model Matters
Not all suffering is equal — only unnecessary, involuntary suffering qualifies for measuring the value of values.
True evil exists when harm is inflicted with intentionality, even at personal cost.
Values that reduce suffering on both metrics (unnecessary & involuntary) are empirically stronger than those that merely maximize pleasure.
By understanding suffering’s mechanics, we refine decision-making in ethics, leadership, and organizational structures.
The Application of Suffering Theory in Leadership & Decision-Making
This framework is not just theoretical — it has direct applications in corporate ethics, leadership psychology, and moral decision-making. Understanding how values impact suffering at scale allows for better governance, more ethical leadership, and the development of sustainable, morally coherent organizations.
By clarifying what type of suffering we are reducing, we make better decisions, align values in organizational settings, and enhance long-term resilience in both individuals and teams.
Final Thoughts: The Future of Value-Based Decision Making
In the era of AI-augmented human intelligence, understanding and structuring value hierarchies will become increasingly crucial. The ability to quantify and rank values based on their actual impact on reducing suffering offers a pragmatic framework for:
Personal development and leadership training
Corporate ethics and decision-making
Assessing societal progress beyond traditional economic measures
By applying this framework, individuals and organizations can optimize decision-making structures that maximize meaning, ethical integrity, and long-term stability.
Conclusion
Not all values are equally impactful — some create a greater reduction in suffering and a broader positive influence.
The Value of a Value (VV) Model offers a scientific and empirical framework for ranking values.
Understanding and modifying SIVH structures can lead to better leadership, stronger organizations, and more meaningful lives.
By embracing the quantification of values, we not only refine individual SIVH structures but also pave the way for a more resilient, value-driven society.
Scientific References for "The Value of Values: A Conceptual and Empirical Approach to Evaluating SIVH"
1. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Key Insight: This seminal work on prospect theory demonstrates that humans are loss-averse, meaning that people feel the pain of loss more intensely than the pleasure of gain. This supports the argument that reducing suffering has a stronger impact on well-being than increasing happiness.
2. Mill, J. S. (1863). Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
Key Insight: Mill's utilitarian ethics argue that values should be ranked based on their ability to increase happiness for the greatest number of people. While SelfFusion’s model does not measure happiness directly, it builds upon this principle by prioritizing the reduction of suffering as a metric for evaluating values.
3. Gilbert, P. (2006). Gilbert, P. (2006). Compassion and cruelty: A biopsychosocial approach. In Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychotherapy (pp. 9-74). London: Routledge. ISBN-13: 978-0415438097
Key Insight: Gilbert’s research on compassion-focused therapy (CFT) demonstrates that helping others and reducing suffering increases long-term psychological resilience. This directly supports the claim that values prioritizing suffering reduction lead to greater well-being and stronger interpersonal relationships.
4. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN-13: 978-1439190760
Key Insight: Seligman, a pioneer of positive psychology, argues that happiness is best achieved indirectlythrough meaningful engagement, reducing suffering for others, and cultivating a sense of purpose. His research supports the idea that self-serving values are less impactful than values that prioritize social good.
5. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Key Insight: Schwartz’s research on value universals across cultures supports the idea that certain values (such as benevolence, altruism, and fairness) are ranked higher than others in nearly all societies. This reinforces the notion that some values have inherently greater social and ethical weight.
6. Hofstede, G. (2001). Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN-13: 978-0803973244
Key Insight: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory demonstrates that value hierarchies differ across societies, but that organizations with strong ethical foundations and collective well-being principles tend to be more resilient and successful in the long term.
7. Baumeister, R. F. (1999). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. ISBN-13: 978-0716735670.
amazon.com
In this comprehensive analysis, Baumeister explores the roots of violent and cruel behavior, examining factors such as egotism, revenge, idealism, and sadism.
8. Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x
This study demonstrates that self-discipline is a more significant predictor of academic success than IQ, highlighting the role of voluntary effort and sacrifice in personal achievement.
9. Hare, R. D. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN-13: 978-1572304512.
Hare delves into the characteristics of psychopathy, offering a detailed look at how individuals with this disorder inflict suffering without remorse.
10. Hoffman, S. J., et al. (2020). False information on COVID-19: A public health crisis. The Lancet, 396(10248), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30662-X
This article discusses the detrimental impact of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrating how the spread of false information can lead to unnecessary and involuntary suffering.
11. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
This research identifies and explores the 'Dark Triad' personality traits, shedding light on how these traits contribute to behaviors that cause unnecessary and involuntary suffering.
These references provide empirical support and deeper insights into the concepts discussed in your article, particularly concerning the nature of suffering and its implications within the Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) framework.
Summary of Scientific Support for the “Value of Value” formula
Loss Aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) → Reducing suffering is more impactful than increasing happiness.
Utilitarian Ethics (Mill, 1863) → Prioritizing social impact is key in ranking values.
Compassion-Focused Therapy (Gilbert, 2006) → Alleviating suffering leads to resilience and well-being.
Positive Psychology (Seligman, 2011) → Meaningful engagement and reducing suffering create long-term happiness.
Value Universality (Schwartz, 1992) → Certain values are inherently more socially significant.
Cultural Dimensions & Leadership (Hofstede, 2001) → Organizations with strong values focused on collective well-being are more successful.
