One of the big debates in popular culture is over whether you can "follow your bliss" and survive in the world, or whether most people will always have to do things for work that make them unhappy. The former is generally adopted by the far left of the US political spectrum, while everybody else accepts some version of the latter, with some exceptions.
I believe what the debate boils down to, is over how important decisions should be made in an individual's life. One side (the majority) says fear and caution should always take precedence. If that paralyzes you, just do what other people do.
The other side believes positive motivation is important for real success. And indeed, how can anyone who is unhappy consider themselves successful? In order to consider themselves relatively successful, they have to disbelieve the possibility of being happy. Everyone knows on some level that they can be happy. I believe that is so, because of the phenomenon of newborn infants "failure to thrive" if they are not held in someone's arms and given human love a certain amount of time each day. It makes sense to me that love and happiness are a necessary foundation for physical life.
Following the practical thinking of the one's society is certainly (or at least probably) safer. Of the minority who take more risks to do what they want, a higher percentage are dead at the end of each year, than others. That makes it an open-and-shut case for most people. Only people who have less fear controlling them than others, can take such risks.