I Cannot Imagine...

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

Problems have solutions that analysis provides. Good analysis stops when you solve the problem. Not all workgroups know when to stop. Work is the example that validates the term overanalysis, the fact that you can think of things where there is no such thing as overanalysis is irrelevent and does not refute the validity of the term.

Wiki defines koan well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kōan

Not everything is a koan, is a koan because it breaks into !all = koan or a venn diagram that includes everything such that "koan" has no place, but koans exist so...

If two hands clapping make a sound what IS the sound of one hand?

Can an omnipotent god make a rock he cannot lift?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

Over-analysis IS always bad, by definition, anything that proves to be beneficial is just analysis. The term has a use as I have demonstrated. Just like fatal-wounds always kill the one who is wounded. The fact that some wounds do not kill the one who is wounded does not detract from the term "fatal-wound".

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

The side effect was a growth of a nonsense generation area of my brain that STILL acts up every once in a while and I utter nonsense to people instead of words.

Yeah I noticed that LOL

Great post Rhiz.

I hate that people put so much emphasis on quick decisions. Sometimes things need to be thought through. Sometimes overnight is good. A sensible minimum IMO. Other times a decision shouldn't even be made for day even weeks. What good is a decision if it's wrong? I agree business is obsessed with quick decisions.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ 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

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

Whatever scare quotes are! You still need to 'splain me what you mean.

Over-analysis is a subjective term that, by definition, means too much analysis. It has no overarching use, but is useful in select arenas as I have demonstrated. It is an imprecise term so I see where it might cause trouble for you. It is a poorly defined idea that is meant to be avoided and yet is hard to define in any objective way. You can't write a spec around over-analysis but what we are doing certainly falls into the category of over-analysis (From my point of view) because nothing productive has come from it. Here is the kicker though, if you agree with me then we have succeeded in adding to your knowledge and we haven't been over-analyzing this! (From my point of view at least)

It is corporate speak and is refereed by the manager of the group that is doing the analyzing.

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

It is indeed poorly defined. Hence why I have problems with the term.

If it means 'too much' as in doing it too much then I don't see how that's always bad. What people think is over-analysing is in fact just analysing a lot, seemingly excessively, etc.

How is it actually over-analysing if it in fact leads to more good than bad? The problem is that if it does more good than bad, it is still often labelled as "over-analysing" since it seems quite obsessive to pretty much everyone I reckon.

If over-analysing just means analysing badly, then I say that often what is said to be over-analysing is in fact good in the long run, so in that sense it isn't over analysing because it isn't bad. How can you analyse too much? We can't stop thinking and we learn from what we think about - what on the surface may seem to be 'over-analysis' may in fact be very good in the long run. If you are defining 'over analysis' as the result, as what turns out to be bad analysis in hindsight. Then I'd argue that quite a lot of what is said to be "Over-analysis" isn't actually bad analysis, that's the thing. It's wrongly said so and it's misleading and confusing.

Analysis is either good or bad on the spot, you can't know what happens afterwards - so to label it as 'over-analysis' simply because you're analysing a lot - is premature labeling IMO. This is why I disagree with the term. I'd very much like to scrap that word and just speak of good and bad analysis. How can you really judge when something is or isn't over-analysis? In my experience it often does more good than bad to think things over and over, to such an extent that many people - almost everyone I reckon - would think of it as 'over-analysis'.

Scare quotes = putting something in quotes to show you're not serious about what you're quoting, etc. Hence rather than : Over-analysis I think of it as: 'Over analysis' - because it's a term not to be taken quite so seriously as it often is.

What is so often thought to be over-analysis, in my experience can be very good - in my experience what I see to be a very useful and life-shaping mental exercise, many many people would deem as "over-analysis".

Scare quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

Ok how about this:

Lazy is a simlarly meaningless term but it is useful in a job setting as defining a person relative to the mean labor output of similar workers. There is no definable metric for "lazy" that isn't dependant on the industry the person works for.

Over-analysis can be applied to a group that takes more time to analyze projects relative to the mean output of similar groups. "Good" and "Bad" aren't directly applicable as over-analysis is a metric of time spent. Good and bad enter into the equation when making qualitative assessments between two groups and only then can we know for sure if the group that takes more time is over-analyzing or just taking the appropriate amount of time, hence the group taking less time is under-analyzing.

For the record, I understand your difficulty with the term and only suggest that it has limited use which I have explained. You will have to explain to me what you are refering to when you say, "What is so often thought to be over-analysis, in my experience can be very good..." (By whom?) I can only surmise that you are using a rhetorical device to add credence to your case.

They told me you would do this. Everyone knew you would. /rhetoric

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

Ok, so obviously you are just going to talk past me, so I will leave you with your thoughts.

Rhizo