What should be the basis for your decisions? Values, norms and subconscious

What should be the basis for your decisions? Let's quickly recap: Most of your decisions are automatic. But what if you could influence the course of the game? And yes, you can—you just need to find common ground with your subconscious.

What factors guide your conscious and unconscious decision-making? The subconscious mind's job is to take care of the basic needs we require to live; the conscious mind can present requests to the subconscious, asking if it will grant permission to do something.

It's important to note that not everything we consciously wish for gets approved by the subconscious. A person can consciously put their own life at risk—though that's not recommended—but most of the time, the subconscious steps in and slams on the brakes.

The danger zone doesn't necessarily have to be among wild beasts; it can just as easily be public condemnation and disapproval. This was the practice for criminals before the advent of prisons. Of course, public condemnation of people is still common in many places—it happens on social media, journalists write their columns, and public trials are held with the suspect in handcuffs and shackles.

Social pressure is immense. There is legislation that sets broad boundaries for life, and violating them results in fines or imprisonment. Then there are the invisible norms—the unwritten rules—which most often manifest as customs; stepping out of line leads to arguments and disapproving glances. In some cultures, this is much more pronounced.

All animals have their own unwritten rules. Humans have taken this to a whole new level with their thick law books. Laws and rules provide a certain kind of support you can lean on if you're unsure of what you should or ought to do.

From a decision-making perspective, having a framework is a good thing, because too many options can tie your brain in knots. On the other hand, rules are based on morality—that is, whether a certain behaviour is considered acceptable or not. As a result, no rule is absolute and can always be challenged and questioned.

Everyone has their own unique moral compass

Everyone has their own unique moral compass, and everyone has their own understanding or view of how life should be structured and how people should live and behave. This is why laws are broken all the time, and why norms are challenged. However, it takes courage to publicly go against prevailing practices and rules.

Let's take an example. There is a major sporting event. An athlete about to compete realises that a loved one's funeral is scheduled to take place during the competition. What should the athlete do? Two things that are extremely important to them are in the balance, and they cannot have both.

It is clear that, in some cases, the sport may excuse a brief absence. The question is which the athlete values more: personal relationships, or sport and success. The decision depends entirely on the individual's values and priorities. An athlete can always choose not to take part in the competition; no one can force them to do so. What makes the choice difficult is its uniqueness; and when one cannot be in two places at once, one is forced to choose one over the other. There may well be more sporting competitions in the future, including major ones, but everyone's funeral is a once-in-a-lifetime event – there won't be another one.

Experience may make the choice easier; in other words, if someone has already taken part in many major competitions, they do not need to worry that they might be missing out on what could be their only chance to compete. On the other hand, someone who has never experienced the atmosphere of a major competition may find themselves in a quandary when it comes to making a choice.

Every case is always unique, and it is difficult to apply any general principle to how one should act. However, one's own set of values is a good starting point for considering the order in which one should prioritise one's actions.

We often act as we are expected to, or rather, the rules force us to do so. If we act contrary to expectations, we may be labelled as oddballs, eccentrics or misfits.

It's easy to judge and criticise from the outside. The problem with this approach is that an outsider doesn't know the whole truth – often just a crumb of it, if that. The big question is: Who is each of us living for?

Conforming to the will of the herd or the freedom to choose

Life is anything but black and white; situations come and go, and you can't choose them. Should everyone choose and shape their lives according to the will of others? One could do so, but I doubt it would satisfy very many people. What is the point of life's uniqueness and of unique individuals if life has to follow a single, predetermined path?

It can be hard to say no to temptations, honour and fame – people will settle for anything. In the times we live in, feeling important and successful has, in many places, taken precedence over the basics.

Is it better for an individual to let themselves be swept along by others, so that others decide how they should live? From the herd's perspective, yes, because then people's behaviour can be easily predicted, which promotes a sense of security and keeps the system on track.

From the individual's point of view, the answer is no. People want to fit in, but everyone is only prepared to conform up to a certain point. Although we may desire some sort of homogeneous society – which is not possible – we would not even have reached our current situation had we not made use of diversity and uniqueness – or had those countless unique individuals not performed exceptional acts.

Behind all innovation lies the courage to do things differently; progress requires the courage to act contrary to expectations. Shortcomings often go unnoticed unless someone brings them to light, which frequently requires bold action and breaking the silence.

Regret is an unpleasant feeling. Of course, you can't have everything, which is why choosing between two important things can be a difficult dilemma. In life, everything is unique; in other words, no two situations in life are exact copies of one another.

For whom does the individual exist – for themselves or for the community?

The fundamental question is: Who serves whom? In other words, who is expected to serve whom; is it society and the community that the individual serves, or the other way round? Agreements can be made, and one can cling to them tooth and nail, knowing full well that someone will always break the agreement. In practice, an agreement is almost always a constraint and an expectation of a certain course of action; in other words, the parties to the agreement do each other some sort of favour.

In life, agreements are constantly made without asking for consent; in other words, it is assumed that the parties accept the terms. In this situation, it is very difficult to make your own choice; a proper and transparent agreement requires that the parties are fully aware of the terms of the agreement before signing.

Unfortunately, this principle is not always upheld, particularly in relations between citizens and the state, where, by virtue of being born in a particular country, you are expected to comply with the terms – that is, the laws and regulations – over which you have had no say: This model is known as a unilateral contract, in which one party enters into the contract on behalf of the other without consulting the latter's opinion.

Before signing a contract, everyone considers whether it is suitable for them and reviews the terms and alternatives to inform their decision. If, on the other hand, the contract is so complex and contains so many terms and conditions – like the Finnish Statute Book, which nobody knows inside out – nobody would agree to sign a contract with the state.

This presents a major obstacle to decision-making regarding one's own life; as has been said, there are many things that one cannot control, or is not allowed to control. It is true that together we are stronger, but only if we have a common goal; otherwise, the jigsaw cannot be put together.

Collective strength is based on the assumption of a common goal and shared values; this may well be the case, but it is by no means a given, and, moreover, a group remains united only as long as its members are striving towards the same outcome.

In other words, only a united group is strong. In principle, no one can be forced to be part of a group, although attempts are constantly made to do so by enacting laws that apply to everyone living in a particular area. It is a misconception that these moral laws enjoy the unwavering support of everyone, but they survive as best they can because the majority are unwilling or unable to do anything about the matter.

I do not doubt that, as part of a group, one can be content with life; one often draws strength and support from other people. However, it is by no means automatic; for many, other people are a source of anxiety, especially if there are a lot of them around at the same time.

So, should a person sacrifice their own values and desires for the common good, or in accordance with the will of the majority? Who is to say how one ought to be and live? Where is the respect for the individual and their unique life? Freedom is the greatest gift and asset we possess; fortunately, as a human race, we are not under foreign rule.