An ad hoc committee meeting is going on right now, in your mind. Your connected selves Rush to the conference room whenever there is a disruption in your routine. Disruptions occur when expectations are unmet or when multiple interpretations of conditions or events call upon you for a decision. With little or no heads up, the committee gathers to confer. Henry Cloud says,
… we have more than one brain. Or, at least more than one system in our brain. One of them ‘thinks’ emotionally, and subjectively, and the other more logically and with reason and judgment. On a good day, they are partners and work together. It would not be far off to say that they ‘inform’ each other and add to the decision-making of each other. In a balanced character, they are good friends and work a little like a small committee.
The ongoing negotiation between emotion and reason has sparked debate throughout the ages. We have met (been?) the one who responds impulsively to hot triggers that energize action without thinking about the implications. Likewise, underestimating the full human meaning of a situation leads some of us to carelessly run the numbers, tears be damned, to optimize seemingly objective outcomes. How can one of the committee members take control of our mental meetings?
One way is by way of self-affirmation, a natural process whereby we protect ourselves or things we care about from negative feelings and opposition by affirming the opposite. Hard thinking is necessary to get at helpful truths that reveal our personal limitations or unattractive qualities. Countering the real or perceived critics, we recount our strengths and virtues and sometimes tell ourselves slight untruths about our character, abilities, and intentions.
Social accommodation also influences our thinking. Following others is another natural way of making decisions by limiting the amount of energy we must expend to gain the benefits they demonstrate. This is a good shortcut if the issues at hand are unimportant and do not constrain future opportunities. Also, overthinking simple or unimportant situations costs us in terms of time and effort, and may also sow seeds of distrust among colleagues. Sometimes you really should go along to get along. However, if the reward is to be seen as agreeable, to be likable and liked, then it is based in the decision itself, not the outcome.
A third way balanced thought processes are hijacked is through what I call augmented pressure. This occurs when entities outside our mental conference room use our natural thought processes against us for their benefit. Think of advertising slogans and images, product design beyond functional features, “easy” payment plans, free shipping, and unboxing. But also consider office politics. Think of turn-taking in meetings, who speaks first and last, how agendas are arranged and how questions are posed, subtle practices of inclusion and exclusion, task delegation, and whether resources are restricted in certain decisions but not others. Pressure to imbalance thinking is augmented when extraneous factors are brought to bear.
Combined, these 3 influencers are almost irresistible. For example, buying auto insurance should be a mostly rational decision, but for some reason it isn’t. Our natural needs for validation and social acceptance make us vulnerable to pressures that may largely be unrelated to the issues at hand.
How do you ensure balanced thinking in your own life? What clues suggest you may be avoiding uncomfortable information or failing to consider long-term implications? What feedback is out there, ready and available to equip you and make you strong?