Values-in-Action Audit
Infer real priorities from time, money, and consistent outside observations
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 94%
Brunson describes a matchmaking practice that compared a client's self-description with observations from friends, family, colleagues, former partners, and their own behavior. The audit treats stated values as hypotheses rather than facts. Review where discretionary time and money actually went, then compare that record with what trusted observers consistently see. Necessary obligations still count as priorities, but they should be named honestly rather than hidden behind “I couldn't.” The output is a ranked picture of lived values that can guide partner selection, boundaries, and calendar decisions. Use patterns across time, not a single day, and avoid turning the method into a moral scorecard.
Origin
Brunson says his matchmaking agency interviewed people around each client and compared that consensus with the client's stated values and behavior.
Core principles
- 01Stated values can differ from repeated behavior
- 02Discretionary time and money reveal practical priorities
- 03Values compete for finite time and need an honest ranking
- 04Consensus from trusted observers can expose blind spots
How to run it
- 1
Capture stated values
Write the values you say matter most and rank them before looking at behavioral evidence.
Pro tip Use concrete labels such as family time, health, faith, or career growth.
Watch out Do not make the list so long that nothing is meaningfully prioritized.
- 2
Audit time and money
Review recent discretionary time and spending, then tag each choice with the value it served.
Pro tip Separate unavoidable obligations from genuinely discretionary choices.
Watch out A constrained budget or caregiving duty can distort the record if context is ignored.
- 3
Collect outside observations
Ask several trusted people what they believe your repeated behavior shows you value. Look for consensus rather than one person's verdict.
Pro tip Include people who see you in different settings.
Watch out Do not outsource your identity to a hostile or unrepresentative observer.
- 4
Reconcile the evidence
Compare claims, behavior, and outside observations. Rename and rerank priorities where the evidence repeatedly disagrees with your original list.
Pro tip Say “I chose another priority” when that is more accurate than “I couldn't.”
Watch out Do not infer a permanent value from one exceptional event.
- 5
Realign one choice
Change one boundary, calendar block, or spending decision so a neglected stated value receives visible support.
Pro tip Choose a small repeatable action that will create new evidence.
In the wild
A client says health is a leading value, but their free evenings and discretionary spending consistently go elsewhere. Rather than declaring the value false, they acknowledge that other priorities are currently winning and schedule two realistic exercise blocks.
→ The client replaces an aspirational label with an honest ranking and one measurable adjustment.
Common mistakes
Treating aspiration as evidence
Wanting to value something does not show that current behavior prioritizes it.
Ignoring constraints
Care, work, and survival obligations may explain a calendar without revealing every deeper preference.
Is it for you?
Best for
Anyone making relationship or life decisions who wants a more evidence-based view of their priorities.
Not ideal for
Judging necessities as moral failures or assuming one unusual week defines a person's character.
From the transcript
“Where we spend that free time, where we spend our discretionary money, that's what we value.”
“It should be a level of prioritization.”
From the episode
Paul Brunson: "The 70/30 Body Shape Is Scientifically The Most Sexy", "The ONE Question That Predicts Divorce!" & "The Link Between Childhood Trauma & Sex"