On the Committee in My Head

A few weeks ago I was on my way back from the other side of the state riding with one of my colleagues. We were about five hours into a twelve hour drive and she asked me a question about something about which I don’t currently have a strong opinion. There was a moment of silence, and then she said, “Well obviously you don’t agree with me.”

“Why do you say that?” I asked.

“Because you didn’t answer.”

I didn’t answer, as I explained to her, because the committee in my head was still discussing the merits of the opposing viewpoints and were trying to decide if I (We/They) could support any firm position on this particular issue. It’s not that I believe that I’ve got a bunch of people in my head or that I hear voices, it is just that my mind tends to have interior discussions about issues before taking a stance.
The advantage, of course, is that I very rarely mouth off about something. Usually, the internal dialogue goes on long enough to avoid precipitous position declarations. The disadvantage is that I rarely can provide an immediate answer to difficult questions. Either I can verbalize the internal debate with something like, “You could see it this way…. And you could see it this way…..” or I can remain silent until I come up with a satisfactory answer. The more tired I am, the slower the thinking/arguing and the slower the answer is given.

That leads me to the disadvantage: Decisive people (people with less or more rapid interior sorting systems) tend to run over me. They will answer a question poorly and precipitously often before I can even set up a framework for looking at the alternating positions. Often, by the time I’ve formulated a well-crafted response, it is several weeks out of date. So, in terms of time sensitive matters I may not be the person to come running to. On the other hand, if you want a well thought –out, long term view on a subject, I’m your man/committee.

I’ve run my idea about the committee in my head by several of my friends and loved ones. A few have told me that it does explain a lot about me. Some have joined me in the metaphor and helped me to extend it so that it fits everyone in some way. And so, for your enjoyment, I propose the following:

Most everyone is born with just one viewpoint (I’ll admit to possible exceptions, but won’t deal with them beyond this parenthetical). As we interact with other people with different viewpoints, we develop cognitive strategies (with varying success) that allow us to attempt to see the world from the viewpoint of the other. At some point, we begin to limit the viewpoints that we incorporate. For example, I might have my Mother viewpoint as a sitting committee member, but my “uncle Fred” who is a violent racist may be forced to go sit in another room unless the group has a need to deal with someone with a similar viewpoint. Some folks might just attempt to kill off the uncle Fred perspective tool, but they would then lose some of their ability to understand the way someone like Fred came to be and how people like him think.

In my head, the controlling self has allowed a large number of these “personas” or “cognitive perspective interpretation templates” to continue to exist side by side, so that when I encounter a policy position or an ethical question about which I haven’t yet taken a position or about which my position is still unclear), my brain begins to work through the conversation of the issue (examples: Stance on Abortion, thoughts about so-and-so as a co-worker, opinions about subsidies for solar projects, etc.). It usually takes a while for the give and take between the varying voices, but eventually we come to a working solution.

One friend of mine said that his committee life was more like having a panel where the one who was nearest to the mike at the time and quickest and most decisive took control of the mouth and spurted out whatever was being most strongly thought or felt at the moment. In his case, the committee doesn’t seem to be working together toward consensus, but instead wrestling for control.

More decisive people, I think, either never allow a large number of the dissenting voices to emerge, or they have killed off most of the committee members because they couldn’t tolerate the delay and the internal dialogue.

And so, my friends. If you ever ask me a question and I get a faraway look in my eyes, ask me once more to make certain that I haven’t died suddenly (or turn off the TV and ask me again because I didn’t hear you in the first place). Then give me some time and we will get back to you.