Over-analyze and over-think are fallacious terms.

Post Reply New Topic

(I wrote this so that I could help my employees understand why they should not tell me that I am over-analyzing. I think I analyzing as much as I need to.)

These terms over-analyze and over-think only exist in slang dictionaries. They are not real words. If this is the case, then why do they exist in our slang vocabulary? Why do so many people use these terms?

Consider that you have a problem and you are working towards creating a solution. If you say that you are over-analyzing then you probably feel confused and you think that you should move on to the next subject or step in the process because you’ve lost hope in the fact that you can create a solution to the problem. Your unconscious is inadvertently sabotaging you by attempting to relieve this feeling of confusion. This is Cognitive Dissonance theory. But this is not a rational reason to quit thinking about a solution to the problem. You should only quit thinking once you’ve solved the problem and you no longer feel confused. Or, put a flag on that issue and move on; then later check that flag and reflect on that issue again and again with the intention of eventually solving the problem and removing the confusion. By using the terms over-analyze or over-think, you are giving up, and it is your unconscious that is convincing you (your conscious) to quit solving the problem in order to relieve the feeling of confusion, when instead it is your conscious (you) that should be overriding your unconscious by realizing that the only rational approach is to Socratically reflect on the subject until the problem is solved thereby leading to no more confusion.

A friend responded to one of my statements: "If you say that you are over-analyzing then you probably feel confused and you think that you should move on to the next subject or step because you’ve lost hope in the fact that you can solve the problem."

Last edited by rombomb2 on 11 Dec 2011, 4:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Are you calling the Oxford Dictionary a "slang" dictionary?

OVER-ANALYZE (v): to analyze (something) in too much detail

OVER-THINK (v): to think about (something) too much or for too long

Oh I was wrong.

But what do it mean by 'too much'? Too much for what?

I read some of your other posts and saw that you self-identify as diagnosed AS. We are by nature much more anylitical than the average NT. So it is "too much" for them. It seems, they let their emotional response and "intuition" ( a combination of emotional and anylitical intellegence that operates on the unconcious level) kick in and help them make decisions, solve problems, etc. We consciously grind over the facts and logic to come to conclutions and it drive them nuts.

I am not saying you are wrong as far as doing what you need to do for your own process. But you might not be cutting them enough slack for the fact that they don't work the same way. It would be like asking you to be more emotional when it really is not in your capacity to do so.

Err, that's what I think.

I think you are over-analyzing this.

Let analyzing take up your life if you want, don't listen to the critics.

I disagree that it is not in our capacity to make decisions based on emotion. What is true is that aspies don't unconsciously learn social cues and the meaning behind them, or rather that we don't do it very well. But we can consciously learn them with systematic reflection and with the insight from non-aspies. So if we aspies can learn emotional decision making, then non-aspies can learn analytic decision making. What do you think?

And back to the specific point about 'cutting them slack.' Remember that they are the ones trying to tell me to stop thinking. I'm not telling them that they must keep thinking. They are trying to stop me. I'm not trying to make them think analytically. So what ends up happening is this. An employee brings an idea to me. I always consider that idea a potential good idea. I ask questions to determine its merrit. And I get others opinions instead of trusting only my opinion. And we continue this process until there is agreement between the parties involved. And sometimes we end with disagreement, and so we hold a vote. But telling me that I should stop thinking, is a no no. I'll stop when I'm no longer confused. And if the employee doesn't want to continue discussing the idea, then they can stop and the idea is shelved until a future date or forever. What do you think?

Oh. There are critics on this issue? I'd love to read it. Please provide a link. Thank you in advance.

And what do you mean by 'take up your life?' Do you think that the time that I spend analyzing should be replaced with something else? If so, like what? And why do you think that I should?

Last edited by rombomb2 on 11 Dec 2011, 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think so. When I showed my employees my argument, they stopped trying to get me to stop analyzing. And now they analyze with me in as much detail as I bring forth. I've taught them the Socratic Method and they love it.

The invention of the term"over-analyze" should be self-evident that there likely people that see a weakness in over thinking. If you want evidence just google the phrase "problems with over thinking"

It's about diminishing returns. cost-benefit ratio inverts.

As my grandfather used to say, "Boy, when I ask you for the time, don't start telling me how to build a watch!"

It's like asking someone how many people attended a rally, and being given their names and reasons for being there instead.

It's like going to the store for a loaf of bread, and coming back with a dumpload of groceries that you have no room to store.

It's like worrying about whether or not the person who picked the beans for your coffee is being paid a fair wage and receiving a comprehensive health and pension plan.

Have I over-explained the concept yet?

I think you've miss-analyzed it. I can see how miss-analyzing would be a problem. But my post does not suggest that we should miss-analyze. Only that we should continue analyzing until a suitable resolution is found to the problem. Btw, to be clear, my analyzing involves the use of the Socratic Method. With the Socratic Method, we do not employ fallacy.

Furthermore, in order to analyze, we must first have a problem. None of your examples are problems. They are only trivial tasks and questions. Tasks and questions do not require solutions so they also do not require analyzing.

A good example of a problem is like this:
We are not experiencing a high degree of customer referrals like this other industry does. How can we increase referrals?

I was serious about my answer. My career is quality control.

I feel like my job is to prevent customer service issues. Because customer service issues harm the product reputation and cost money and customers.

But the axiom in QC is that your QC efforts should never exceed the cost of the trouble you are trying to prevent.

You do not test to perfection because perfection is (a) nigh impossible, and (b) really damn expensive. The FAA are the only people who test software to perfection that i know of, and they say that it takes a team of experienced engineers a month just to set up the automated test harness for ATC software. And they make the programmers justify every element of every line of code individually. Because lives and billion dollar business segments are on the line.

So, in my line of work, we analyze software as best we can with the resources available, and ship when we feel reasonably confident that there are no unforeseen issues that will cause the customer to curse our lineage.

To do otherwise - in either direction - would be irresponsible.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Oh I'm sorry blauSamstag. I didn't reply because I agreed with you. And I still agree with you. I'm sorry my explanation was ambiguous but I didn't mean that the flag halts the action plan.

The flag is only there as a marker for what to pay attention to. It would be used to reflect on the issue later. The reflection will reveal errors, which are then corrected. With this sort of error correction, we have minimized the entropy of the system, which decreases longterm costs.

QFT.



I disagree--I think you are failing to properly incorporate the issue of materiality into your assessment. While you properly distinguish trivial tasks and question, you still seem to be predicated on the notion that there is a binary classification: tasks are either trivial or substantive, the former should not be analysed, the latter should be analysed until a solution is found. In reality, nothing is so clear cut--one of the most important roles of managers (and that which distinguishes them from supervisors) is the function of setting organizational priorities, and making decisions about what's important and what can be left to the side.

I prefer to see importance on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum are the strategic goals. These should, of course, be carefully analysed, and regularly reviewed.

But a question like "how can we increase referrals?" is not necessarily a strategic priority. Until you know the degree to which the question at hand directly aligns with a strategic priority, you cannot assign a weight to how much attention it deserves. If a business is going to fail without customer referrals, then it seems clear that resolving the question is a clear strategic priority (or, at least, it ought to be). But if customer referrals are a benchmark that doesn't really link to the business' performance or it's strategic goals then it does not merit a great deal of attention.