I think this is what actually plays out beneath the surface of most decisions when people take the time to consider them properly.

I think so too. In my view, though, becoming aware of the "inner stage" is only an approximation of what happens in a matter of seconds, similar to artificially slowing down the rapid processes of particle currents in a physical experiment, because only then can we observe them at all, as if in slow motion. If you then also go over to real time, it is difficult to make a consistent observation and we only see the result of a procedure, not its process.

As soon as the analytical mind uses this slowing down method, i.e. the person examines his decisions by considering different perspectives (voices, personality traits), a situation naturally loses its spontaneous nature and the observer can in turn become the observed, if you know what I mean :) Slowing down, for example, can lead to no longer being able to handle the real situation because the very act of observing is a process that influences the outcome. To the point of distortion.

I would think that most of the situations in which we humans find ourselves every day, we deal with automatically and in the way we have become accustomed to. For me, having a good intuition in this context means being able to break through automatism and habit, for example. Because, for instance, one tries to counteract certain trigger moments, which can be feelings of a very enthusiastic nature or the opposite. For example, the impulse to want to buy/have something you see in a shop (although you don't need it) or to meet a statement with great anger (although the statement itself was not aggressive).

A frequent phenomenon is being too self-aware, it leads to very unpleasant sensations because the person already tries to assess the reactions of his fellow human beings in his mind's eye and is afraid of them, etc. The opposite, not really being aware of oneself at all, but always reacting impulsively, allows little depth.

I think that what is commonly perceived as unpleasant is to be caught in this field of tension. = Too much analysis versus complete self-forgetfulness.

there was no intention to equate homosexuality with schizophrenia at all. There is no medical, scientific, or another basis for this. I simply gave one persona certain character traits and the other persona ones that may differ from the original and cause an additional ideological divide.

I don't understand. Homosexuality didn't even cross my mind when I read your story. Even if there was some medical, scientific, or another basis for this, I would meet it with doubt. When it comes to people and their characteristics it's in my worldview impossible to treat those qualities like materials and predict the outcomes. The moment you try to pin down human behavior it's going to surprise you or will be met with resistance, LOL
Of course, to give life to your story you needed the very contrast of Emily and Max.

As Nickydee commented (and I am still catching up with replies !LOLZ) ... Max seems like she could be a lot of fun under certain circumstances.

I agree. There is nothing inherently bad or destructive in total to every character, no matter which one, in the same way there is nothing inherently constructive and saintly. It depends on the self and the environment which traits are being triggered, motivated, activated and focused on. They are only ever of temporarily nature, I think.