I accept the term but don't personally believe there is such a thing as what it seems to absolutely be implied as, due to the common negative connotations.
I agree that you can 'over-analyse' or think to much in the sense that you think more than you need to about a subject and move on. But the whole usage of the whole term often seems to give across an implication that I see to be incorrect: It so often seems to be thought of with these negative connotations as if it's always bad. I don't see how this is necessarily the case because sometimes actually straying further and digging deeper, while deviating from the matter at hand -might actually turn out to be useful and also be a good exercise.
So what I don't agree with is the notion that over-analysis is necessarily always bad. And I'm not going to use it in a positive sense because that's misleading, that's why I disagree with the term and say "there's no such thing" because the negative connotation doesn't always follow and yet it seems to be part of the definition. I'm being eliminative about the term here because I notice that when I'm reductionist about it and I dig deeper, the implication that it's necessarily always bad doesn't necessarily follow. So I'd rather just reject that overly generalized connotation. It's easier to just deny the term that constantly have to explain that when you say "over analysing" sometimes you mean it in a good way.
So even though the term exists, I think it's confusing and the connotations aren't necessarily correct ones. I think it's misleading for me to use it considering how much I've analysed the connotations and that I've end up disagreeing with them more or less.
I hope that wasn't 'too' overly analytical for you
EvF
I agree that you can 'over-analyse' or think to much in the sense that you think more than you need to about a subject and move on. But the whole usage of the whole term often seems to give across an implication that I see to be incorrect: It so often seems to be thought of with these negative connotations as if it's always bad. I don't see how this is necessarily the case because sometimes actually straying further and digging deeper, while deviating from the matter at hand -might actually turn out to be useful and also be a good exercise.
So what I don't agree with is the notion that over-analysis is necessarily always bad. And I'm not going to use it in a positive sense because that's misleading, that's why I disagree with the term and say "there's no such thing" because the negative connotation doesn't always follow and yet it seems to be part of the definition. I'm being eliminative about the term here because I notice that when I'm reductionist about it and I dig deeper, the implication that it's necessarily always bad doesn't necessarily follow. So I'd rather just reject that overly generalized connotation. It's easier to just deny the term that constantly have to explain that when you say "over analysing" sometimes you mean it in a good way.
So even though the term exists, I think it's confusing and the connotations aren't necessarily correct ones. I think it's misleading for me to use it considering how much I've analysed the connotations and that I've end up disagreeing with them more or less.
I hope that wasn't 'too' overly analytical for you
EvF
