| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | Psychological Conflict | |
<
< | The pattern of fogginess when thinking about what I want in the future can be seen with an even simpler thought exercise. For instance, if asked to pick what meal I’d like to eat for dinner in precisely 3 weeks, it is difficult to imagine in a similar way. In one sense it seems easy to just pick a meal I like and move on, but in another sense, it feels daunting. At first, I thought that this may have to do with feeling constrained. However, just as imagining what I’d like to be doing 10 years future in the future is a temporary mental commitment, so is imagining the food I would like to eat in the future. Imagining this does not force me to commit and is not actually constraining. Instead, it is difficult because different personality states want different things. Making a choice about the future thus requires making a choice about a personality state in the future, which involves resolving a current conflict between states. When it comes to imagining my future self, one state cares deeply about the meaning of the work I am doing (and believes that representing indigent people accused of crimes would be quite meaningful), and another state cares more about the experience of making a lot of money and the meaning I can find outside of work. Additionally, one state is more willing to take risks than other states. Eventually, these states will reconcile, but the thought of reconciling them immediately with a decision about my future is intimidating, and refusing to reconcile them with a state of fog is the more immediately comfortable approach. | >
> | The pattern of fogginess when thinking about what I want in the future can be seen with an even simpler thought exercise. For instance, if asked to pick what meal I’d like to eat for dinner in precisely 3 weeks, I feel a similar sense of fogginess. In one sense it seems easy to just pick a meal I like and move on, but in another sense, it feels daunting. At first, I thought that this may have to do with feeling constrained. However, just as imagining what I’d like to be doing 10 years future in the future is a temporary mental commitment, so is imagining the food I would like to eat in the future. Imagining this does not force me to commit and is not actually constraining. Instead, it is difficult because different personality states want different things. Making a choice about the future thus requires making a choice about a personality state in the future, which involves resolving a current conflict between states. When it comes to imagining my future self, one state cares deeply about the meaning of the work I am doing (and believes that representing indigent people accused of crimes would be quite meaningful), and another state cares more about the experience of making a lot of money and the meaning I can find outside of work. Additionally, one state is more willing to take risks than other states. Eventually, these states will reconcile, but the thought of reconciling them immediately with a decision about my future is intimidating, and refusing to reconcile them with a state of fog is the more immediately comfortable approach. | | |
Inactive Mental States | | | One option this examination has revealed for me is that I could just push past the conflict and pick something that I know part of me wants to do. Realizing that there are separate states shows that there are futures that individual parts of me desire. Part of me thinks I would enjoy being a public defender after school and for the foreseeable future. Even though another part of me has concerns about this, I could push back these concerns for the benefit of having something for which I can begin planning. This however, feels problematic. As nice as it would be to have a clear path forward where I feel confident about what I want to do, if I have not actually reconciled my competing states, pretending that I have would only allow me to start planning for something that my eventual more reconciled self will not want to do. | |
<
< | While there are parts of me that are still in conflict, this examination has also helped me realize that there are some things that I have already decided about where I see myself in 10 years. I wish to be living in New York City and I wish to be doing work for individual clients rather than businesses. There is still some reconciling left to do, but as I begin to expand my experiences in and and out of law school, thinking about my future should become easier. For instance, before moving to New York, I was not sure where I saw myself living in 10 years. | >
> | While there are parts of me that are still in conflict, this examination has also helped me realize that there are some things that I have already decided about where I see myself in 10 years. I wish to be living in New York City and I wish to be doing work for individual clients rather than businesses. As I begin to expand my experiences in and and out of law school, thinking about my future should become easier. For instance, before moving to New York, I was not sure where I saw myself living in 10 years. | | | Additionally, I realize the importance of not letting difficulty imagining the future prevent me from doing what interests me now. This summer I am working at a public defenders office, and next school year I’ll be doing a full year criminal defense externship and the Jailhouse Lawyers Manual. Although I still feel conflicted about my future, I trust that along with thought exercises like the one in this essay, doing the activities I find meaningful in the short term will give me the experiences I need for further self reconciliation. |
|