Intrapersonal Collaboration????

I was watching The Price is Right on TV the other day. Ok, I have to admit watching is a strong word; I had The Price is Right on in the background while doing other things. All of a sudden I started paying attention when Drew Carey said that a dog shown on screen was the contestant's seeing eye dog because the contestant was visually impaired. He went to his spot in Contestant's Row with the guidance of an usher, and the item to bid on was presented. It was a set of kitchen equipment. The description was given as usual, and afterwards Drew made a comment about the the number of items on stage for the contestant who was visually impaired. I have to admit my first thought was that at least nobody would bid $1 more than him, because that would just be mean. It turns out that it wouldn't have really mattered, because he got the price exactly right and won both the kitchen equipment and a $500 bonus. I wondered if his disability was not a handicap in this situation. Maybe not seeing flashy models and brand names emblazoned on these items made him able to make a more honest judgement. Maybe relying more on other senses made him listen to numbers that the crowd was yelling. Or maybe he just got lucky.
Somehow this got me thinking about collaboration. What about intrapersonal collaboration? Ok obviously it's not quite voluntary; your eyes don't have a choice in whether or not they will participate in decision making. The model for interpersonal collaboration isn't fully applicable, but could thinking about decision making as "intrapersonal collaboration" be an effective model? I'm not suggesting that anyone pretend there are little gnomes running around inside his or her body having meetings that share responsibility and have mutual goals (though that wouldn't be a bad idea for the next big Disney movie). I do think that maybe applying some of the characteristics of collaboration to our senses could lead to better, or at least more consistent, decision making. As I already mentioned, obviously this is not going to be voluntary. I think it's safe to assume that all of your body parts and senses have the shared mutual goal of your preservation. I think resources are shared in the sense that different senses work together to add to experience. For example, a very large component of a taste is the smell of a food. Also when tasting a food, you are feeling the texture with your tongue and seeing the food before it goes into your mouth. I think that this could be considered sharing resources. Next is parity. Maybe this is something that we don't have enough of. I know when I'm shoe shopping parity goes out the window. Too many times I've given my eyes more say than my feet and gone home with a pair of shoes that I regret wearing after an hour or two. The next characteristic is shared responsibility. Maybe this is like parity. We try to leave tasks up to one sense when they are best shared by many. For example, I know I often try to do math problems in my head. I know I am capable, but if I used my hands to write the process down I would be more likely to consistently get the correct answer and I would most likely save time as the process would become more efficient. Finally is shared accountability. I think this is another one where the failure to work together can be judged as inadequacy of one sense.
It might not be perfect, but this idea of thinking about internal processes as intrapersonal collaboration could be helpful. Considering what every sense brings to the table could help a person make better and more well rounded decisions.