The Three Levels of Decision-Making in the Face of Neuroticism: Structured Value Hierarchies and the Rational Leap of Faith
Full article: https://www.selffusion.com/education/three-levels-of-decision-making-for-individuals-with-high-neuroticism
Introduction: The Hidden Power of Non-Decision
When it comes to career transitions and major decisions in personal or academic life, a profound internal tension often arises between two competing forces: the biological undercurrent of neuroticism and the extraversion-driven excitement toward novelty.
In our corporate consulting work, we have consistently observed that, in the majority of cases, neuroticism gains a "silent victory" — manifesting as a rationalized choice not to pursue change. Yet this avoidance is deceptive: choosing not to decide is, in itself, a decisive act.
This article proposes a three-tiered model of decision-making, particularly relevant for individuals with high neuroticism. We conclude with a structured defense of the “leap of faith” as the third and most generative level of decision-making — one that transcends inhibition and reorients the self toward meaning.
Neuroticism vs. Extraversion: The Conflict Within
In any significant career or life decision, two opposing psychological forces are typically at play:
Neuroticism: emotional volatility, rumination, withdrawal, risk aversion.
Extraversion: drive toward novelty, ambition, and reward-seeking.
The internal conflict between these traits escalates over time and often persists even after decisions are made. In our empirical observations, neuroticism tends to win, especially among older individuals and women — not due to inherent sex differences in the trait, but due to greater perceived familial responsibility, which discourages change and reinforces the status quo.
Three Levels of Decision-Making: Managing Neuroticism through SIVHs
To address this tension, we present a three-level framework for decision-making, which reflects escalating levels of internal coherence and philosophical sophistication:
A. Pure Rationalization
(Selective treatment of facts)
B. Deterministic Normative Narrative
(Selective treatment of values)
C. Rational Leap of Faith
(Alignment with external normative moral structure)
Level I: Pure Rationalization – The Illusion of Objectivity
High-IQ individuals often construct rational-sounding arguments for opposing choices. These are factually valid, but emotionally pre-filtered — used not for truth, but to justify emotional biases.
Three hidden forces drive decision-making under rationalization:
The Big Other (institutional norms, peer pressure)
Nihilistic Coin-Tossing (passive randomness)
Subordinate Drives (impulse cloaked as intuition)
“Pure rationalization creates the illusion of agency while disguising emotional passivity.”
Without a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH), this level rarely produces transformation — only internal justification for avoidance.
Level II: Deterministic Normative Narrative – Values Without Will
Here, the individual abandons fact-weighing and turns to value-based reasoning: “What is right, noble, good?”
Yet many frameworks invoked at this level — from spiritual systems to self-created ethics — negate true agency. Whether through the mystical surrender of self (common in New Age or yogic systems) or the subjective construction of values (common in secular therapeutic culture), the decision-maker outsources responsibility to a structure that may lack coherence or transcendence.
“Without accountability to a value system larger than the self, autonomy becomes illusion.”
This level is more sophisticated than pure rationalization, but it often masks avoidance behind metaphysical language.
Level III: Rational Leap of Faith – Axiomatic Moral Commitment
Unlike the first two levels, this approach acknowledges the limits of reason and voluntarily submits to an external moral architecture with:
Clear top values (often monotheistic or universal), and
Clear behavioral limits (boundaries of conduct and conscience).
Despite the absence of metaphysical certainty, this level is the most rational, because it:
Provides existential orientation under uncertainty
Anchors decision-making in tradition and civilization-wide coherence
Enables meaningful sacrifice and long-term consistency
“Faith is not irrational. It is reason recognizing its own boundaries.”
As Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Kant all noted, the leap of faith is not blind — it is the only structure that sustains coherence when facts and feelings fail.
SIVHs as Scaled-Down Moral Systems
At every level of decision-making, value hierarchies are present:
LevelTop ValueIInstinct / Drive AvoidanceIIFreedom (as moral self-justification)IIISubmission to the Greater Good
Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) mirror religious frameworks at the individual level. They provide:
Psychological containment
Self-stabilization
Decision integrity over time
As Jung predicted, everyone has a religion — even if unconsciously formed. In secular contexts, SIVHs are micro-dogmas — often more coherent the more they align with long-standing traditions like Christianity, Judaism, Stoicism, or Kantian ethics.
Reframing Karma through Kant
The principle of karma can be interpreted as a noumenal structure of causality:
Kant: We experience phenomena, not ultimate causes. Some effects may exist that we cannot cognitively access.
Jung: Archetypal resonance (guilt → shadow → symbolic externalization).
Religious traditions: Divine justice and providence.
Evolutionary psychology: Elimination of maladaptive traits over time.
Biopsychology: Psychosomatic breakdown under chronic guilt or unresolved trauma.
“Karma is not a mystical ledger, but a descriptive principle recurring across biology, psychology, and moral philosophy.”
The Three-Step Argument: Choosing a Decision-Making Paradigm
Step 1: Do You Believe in Free Will?
If yes, then your actions matter — you are causally responsible for your life.
Step 2: Do You Know the Reach of Your Actions?
No. You cannot calculate every consequence. Therefore, you live with causal opacity and moral uncertainty.
Step 3: Is It Worth Doing Good, Even If You Don’t See the Results?
We do not know — but meaning still demands acting as if goodness matters.
This is Pascal’s wager reinterpreted: Not a gamble for reward, but a rational commitment to moral causality, despite incomplete data.
The Limit Case: Abraham and the Weight of Value
When all lower frameworks collapse — as in the biblical case of Abraham and Isaac — only one question remains:
“Do I have a value structure capable of carrying the weight of this choice, even if it costs me everything?”
This is the ultimate test of Level III decision-making. It produces not comfort, but existential orientation, not success, but moral endurance.
Final Words: Faith as Reason’s Highest Form
In our work with high-performing individuals and executive teams, the most resilient, coherent, and transformative decisions emerge from those who:
Have clearly articulated SIVHs
Align them with transcendent value structures
Accept the leap of faith as both rational and necessary
“Faith is not the opposite of reason — it is reason anchored in something higher than itself.”
This third-level paradigm is not just a model for decision-making. It is a blueprint for moral clarity in an age of noise.
