Rhizo:
By whom? By me. I am quite frequently told I 'over-analyse.' And basically anyone who know's me will say I fit the definition. And I, on the whole, agree; I do - everything about the definition of 'overanalysis' fits me...except the part that this is somehow necessarily "Bad" - except the negative connotation; it is often mistaken. Someimes my so-called 'over-analysis' is negative, but quite often, in my experience, analysing things to death/out of existence is a mental exercise that does a lot of good for me in the long run. I have improved greatly as a person through thinking about things obsessively, through analysing them to death. But by pretty much everyone else's standards this would be 'over-analysis' - this is why I consider the term a mistake to have such negative connotations, because in my experience: Analysing obsessively is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's not always black or white. I could imagine you coming back to say that it's 'by definition' not 'over-analysis' then if it does good for me. But the problem I have with the word is that it can be misleading, what is so often thought as 'over-analysing' is just the brain getting a lot of practice IMO...I'd say that one problem is that the prefix 'Over' has a connotation of being able to somehow analyse 'too much', just like the term 'thinking too much' - I don't think there is a such thing as that in and of itself. There isn't thinking too much, we think all the time - there's only thinking or analysing badly. You can think a tiny amount, a moderate about, or an amount considered obsessive - and the thoughts you think can still be good/worthwhile, good for your future, etc. And you can also think a tiny amount, a moderate amount or an amount considered obsessive - and those thoughts all be bad/not worth your time, bad for your future etc. It's not about 'under' or 'over' thinking, or 'under' or 'over' analysing. It's about the quality of each thought.
I'd say that thinking about things obsessively, if done right, can in fact be very good even though others so commonly seem to think that it necessarily fits the definition of 'over-analysis' - which supposedly somehow necessarily="bad" simply because of what is generally considered to be an excessive quantity of thinking and an excessive depth of it. So I think the term 'over-analyse', although at times may be useful a term - on the whole it is misleading and doesn't really get to the issue of what good thinking is about; IMO. I think it would be better if generally we all just talked about whether we're analysing correctly and constructively or not, rather than this whole 'over' or 'under' analysis malarkey. I think 'over' or 'under' analysis should be used only in contexts where it's more appropriate if a great deal of focus is required, but not too much or two little because that makes the task at hand difficult. I don't think it should practically always be used simply because someone is analysing an awful lot more than the usual, because sometimes that can be a good thing. Which hopefully I expressed above.
EvF
By whom? By me. I am quite frequently told I 'over-analyse.' And basically anyone who know's me will say I fit the definition. And I, on the whole, agree; I do - everything about the definition of 'overanalysis' fits me...except the part that this is somehow necessarily "Bad" - except the negative connotation; it is often mistaken. Someimes my so-called 'over-analysis' is negative, but quite often, in my experience, analysing things to death/out of existence is a mental exercise that does a lot of good for me in the long run. I have improved greatly as a person through thinking about things obsessively, through analysing them to death. But by pretty much everyone else's standards this would be 'over-analysis' - this is why I consider the term a mistake to have such negative connotations, because in my experience: Analysing obsessively is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's not always black or white. I could imagine you coming back to say that it's 'by definition' not 'over-analysis' then if it does good for me. But the problem I have with the word is that it can be misleading, what is so often thought as 'over-analysing' is just the brain getting a lot of practice IMO...I'd say that one problem is that the prefix 'Over' has a connotation of being able to somehow analyse 'too much', just like the term 'thinking too much' - I don't think there is a such thing as that in and of itself. There isn't thinking too much, we think all the time - there's only thinking or analysing badly. You can think a tiny amount, a moderate about, or an amount considered obsessive - and the thoughts you think can still be good/worthwhile, good for your future, etc. And you can also think a tiny amount, a moderate amount or an amount considered obsessive - and those thoughts all be bad/not worth your time, bad for your future etc. It's not about 'under' or 'over' thinking, or 'under' or 'over' analysing. It's about the quality of each thought.
I'd say that thinking about things obsessively, if done right, can in fact be very good even though others so commonly seem to think that it necessarily fits the definition of 'over-analysis' - which supposedly somehow necessarily="bad" simply because of what is generally considered to be an excessive quantity of thinking and an excessive depth of it. So I think the term 'over-analyse', although at times may be useful a term - on the whole it is misleading and doesn't really get to the issue of what good thinking is about; IMO. I think it would be better if generally we all just talked about whether we're analysing correctly and constructively or not, rather than this whole 'over' or 'under' analysis malarkey. I think 'over' or 'under' analysis should be used only in contexts where it's more appropriate if a great deal of focus is required, but not too much or two little because that makes the task at hand difficult. I don't think it should practically always be used simply because someone is analysing an awful lot more than the usual, because sometimes that can be a good thing. Which hopefully I expressed above.
EvF
