Over-analyze and over-think are fallacious terms.

Post Reply New Topic

Yes you are right. Assigning weight to business performance indexes and strategic goals is absolutely necessary. And in my application of flagging and reflecting, these weights are considered. The flag itself gets a weight based on indices and goals. Therefore the amount of time spent reflecting on a flag also varies based on these weights.

We are more closely aligned than I thought, then.

So do you believe that analyzing in the way I have described it in this thread, is a weakness?

After reading the rest of this thread, do you still think I am over-analyzing?

Too much of anything is too much.

Tallyrand, the Napoleonic era diplomat and notorius intriguer and double dealer was said to have replied to hearing the news that "the Turkish ambasador has just died" by asking "I wonder what his MOTIVE could be?".

I think its safe to say that that is an example of "overthinking".

That is only one question. One thought.

According to the Oxford dictionary, overthinking is:


I think it would require more than one thought before we can call it overthinking.

What you could say about that guys question is that its probably a useless question.

Every so often there exists things that can be taken on their face. Not often, but it does happen.

ruveyn

Or, better yet, "analysis paralysis".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

Analysis paralysis includes a very specific quality in whereby decisions are not made. I agree that this is debilitating.

But I'd like you to read my posts on this thread again. I've clearly stated that decision making is not prevented.

It's possible to analyze something long enough that the answer is no longer relevant when you arrive at it. If you spend too long thinking about what to have for breakfast, soon it'll be time for lunch.

It's also possible to spend a lot of time analyzing something and still come to the wrong conclusion. In that case it would be better to make the wrong decision sooner so you could change course faster.

Breakfast is not a problem. Nonproblems don't need analyzing.


This situation is a case of miss-analyzing, not over-analyzing.

Decisions can only be made based on the best available information, not the actual truth.

I see what you mean. This is the way a philosopher said it:

http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity

Redacted

Last edited by nat4200 on 19 Apr 2012, 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is better to conduct a simple experiment than to engage in lengthy analyzing. Between the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method, a question such as: "Which freezes the faster, hot water or cold water?",... a simple experiment would give the answer quickly, while using the Socratic Method would take a couple thousand years, with only a 50-50 at best chance at giving the correct answer.

In most "Yes or No" situations involving many unknowns and a lack of practical knowledge of histories of similar situations, often flipping a coin works better than the Socratic Method. While the basic scientific analysis to carry-out the Scientific Method is not much longer than a coin toss, gives much better odds at a successful answer that can be used for getting practical results, the philosophical memorabilia of the Socratic Method results not in the truth of practical matters, but only in polemical victory at best, which Benjamin Franklin quickly discovered while becoming satiated of the folly of such a verbose debate-analysis method (It's much easier to win the argument to go to war, than it is to win the war).

With lengthy over-analysis, practical trial-and-error attempts are often precluded with endless word-games, that might result in the status of being a "popular" & "famous" debater, but a near total dunce with getting useful results with practical possibilities. A famous example (besides airplanes making the Socratic Method (its determining the impossibility beforehand), look stupid) is the Solar Engine, with the simple version of Crookes Radiometer resulting in the Scientific Method giving birth to Statistical Mechanics. But where the abstract is still second to the practical, as experimentation reveals the unexpected "opposite spin" with different air densities, the continued failure of philosophical theories and abstract theories is frustrating, giving no hint prior to hindsight after the hint from the scientific experiment. Both types of theories continue to fail at directing improvements and explanations of improvements discovered by using the Scientific Method.

In subjects that are not easily observed for application of the Scientific Method, the Socratic Method of analysis still stumbles, as if it is only fit for "Grad School jargon, at grade school depth". Involving the subject of Autism, the notion of "Nature versus Nurture" becomes nothing but an absolute word game which hides behind the assumption of the "unknowable" to try to stymie science with ignorance. This reminds me again of Erasmus's classic work "In The Praise of Folly", where the Goddess Folly dictated her greatness inherent to the wrought of Classical Philosophy. (One recent book citing the Socratic Method, declared the notion of "The Blank Slate" discredited, as evidenced by philosophical debate. Then, the issue of whether if "instinct" was necessarily learned, or acquired from the environment, by each individual, was poised for philosophical debate, which an "affirmative" would make "nature" & "nurture" identical concepts in order to reject evolution, as if it is not known that pierced ears of adults will not result in babies born with pierced ears. Next "innate attributes were philosophically established, despite the previously disproved "Blank Slate"). Socrates must of wanted his cake and to eat it too!! !

"To have one's cake and eat it too!! !" What a great and powerful philosophy for "HOT AIR" results!! !

Tadzio

Then there is "underthinking" aka being obtuse and not getting an obvious point.

Its not "one thought", but a universe of thoughts.

A guy who murmurs about the "motive" of someone else dying is obviously running through volumes of scenarios in his mind about geopolitics, the military balance of power, and his knowledge of all of the court intrigues, on the continent, and about his own theories of alliances and double dealing that he doesnt know for a fact exist, and how all of that is impacted by the guy dying- and by the by the fact he choose to die on that date, on not dying some other date etc etc.

And he's projecting himself onto others- his own propensity for double dealing and intrigue onto the actions of others.

When you or I would we see the obvious- that the Turkish embassador had no control over the fact that he croaked, and when he croaked, and could have no 'motive" for it.