@ Rhizo
So If I over analyse and it turns out to be effective then that's good analysis of the matter at hand?? Always? It may be 'true by definition' but I think the definition is misleading and wrong. What is so often defined as over-analysing or 'thinking to much' is in fact just analysing past the point, but effectively - so it's not 'bad' so really I don't think it should be called over-analysis if it isn't in fact bad. So this is what I mean.
So if I analyse the life of a Gecko lizard and get into something completely irrelevant yet 'good analysis' then that's still related to the matter at hand?
I would say that if I end up thinking about Chess Strategy after analysing all aspects of a Gecko lizard and straying from it, then I was definitely over-analysing that Gecko lizard! And yet is it bad analysis if my thoughts on stress strategy that stem from it end up being more beneficial to me? I think that would be an example where the 'over-analysing' wasn't bad. And yes, by definition it's supposed to be - that's why I think the definition is wrong.
There is no evidence for objective values. And what is often described as over-analysing isn't shown to be always necessarily so. It can't be because 'bad' is a subjective matter - so even if it's true by definition that it's 'bad'...I can still disagree with that definition, and say that what people often define as over-analyzing ,isn't necessarily bad. Words are out servants not our masters - the definition is not necessarily right. I think over-analysing isn't always bad, it's said to be, but I am yet to see that this is necessarily so. And can think of examples where I think it is not.
Boy, I'm having to do a lot of analysis to explain this....
Perhaps to put it simply, I think the term: 'Over-analysis' - should often be put in scare quotes!
EvF
So If I over analyse and it turns out to be effective then that's good analysis of the matter at hand?? Always? It may be 'true by definition' but I think the definition is misleading and wrong. What is so often defined as over-analysing or 'thinking to much' is in fact just analysing past the point, but effectively - so it's not 'bad' so really I don't think it should be called over-analysis if it isn't in fact bad. So this is what I mean.
So if I analyse the life of a Gecko lizard and get into something completely irrelevant yet 'good analysis' then that's still related to the matter at hand?
I would say that if I end up thinking about Chess Strategy after analysing all aspects of a Gecko lizard and straying from it, then I was definitely over-analysing that Gecko lizard! And yet is it bad analysis if my thoughts on stress strategy that stem from it end up being more beneficial to me? I think that would be an example where the 'over-analysing' wasn't bad. And yes, by definition it's supposed to be - that's why I think the definition is wrong.
There is no evidence for objective values. And what is often described as over-analysing isn't shown to be always necessarily so. It can't be because 'bad' is a subjective matter - so even if it's true by definition that it's 'bad'...I can still disagree with that definition, and say that what people often define as over-analyzing ,isn't necessarily bad. Words are out servants not our masters - the definition is not necessarily right. I think over-analysing isn't always bad, it's said to be, but I am yet to see that this is necessarily so. And can think of examples where I think it is not.
Boy, I'm having to do a lot of analysis to explain this....
Perhaps to put it simply, I think the term: 'Over-analysis' - should often be put in scare quotes!
EvF
