Value Conflict Decomposition

Overview

Goals often serve multiple intrinsic values that conflict with each other. This procedure helps detect these conflicts, understand their structure, and find navigation strategies that don’t require abandoning either value.

Key insight: Most value conflicts are not “pick one” situations. They are tensions to be navigated, not problems to be solved.

Steps

Step 1: Detect Conflict

Use the detection questions and symptoms to identify if a value conflict is present. If goal chain analysis has been done, review the intrinsic termini for conflicts.

Output: Conflict present? (yes/no/maybe). If yes, initial naming.

Step 2: Name the Conflict

Match the conflict to core tensions above, or create a custom name. Use format: “[Value A] vs [Value B]” Be specific about what each value wants in THIS situation.

Output: Named conflict with specific descriptions

Step 3: Analyze the Conflict

Use the decomposition questions to understand:

• Nature of incompatibility
• Temporal patterns
• Whether it’s really one conflict or several
• Historical patterns
• False dichotomy check

Output: Completed conflict analysis in output_format

Step 4: Select Navigation Strategy

Review the navigation strategies above. For each, ask: Does this apply to this conflict? Often multiple strategies combine.

Output: Selected strategy or combination with rationale

Step 5: Design Specific Approach

Given the selected strategy, design concrete approach:

• What specifically will you do?
• How will you know if it’s working?
• What are the risks and mitigations?
• What would cause you to try a different strategy?

Output: Concrete approach with success criteria and pivot triggers

Step 6: Integrate into Goal Plan

The conflict navigation becomes part of the goal plan. Add check-in points to assess if navigation is working. Document the conflict and approach for future reference.

Output: Updated goal plan with conflict navigation integrated

When to Use

• Goal feels stuck between two directions
• Strategy selection paralysis
• Recurring oscillation between approaches
• Sense of “damned if I do, damned if I don’t”
• Goal chain analysis revealed multiple termini

Verification

• Both values are named and described specifically
• The specific incompatibility is articulated (not vague)
• False dichotomy check was performed
• Navigation strategy selected with rationale
• Concrete approach designed, not just abstract strategy
• Success criteria and pivot triggers defined
• Plan includes check-in points for the navigation