Overthinking

[Dr. Percival Cox]

Much like in all my threads, I make it a point to leave a disclaimer that if there is a thread already like this, then I apologize.

I noticed that there are alot of threads on this website that go in depth about topics that range from everyday things to philosophical mindsets. Dreams, domestic violence, racial prejudices, reality, the importance of truth, government rule, relationships, etc. To the people who make or reply to these types of threads, do you ever feel like maybe you put too much thought into certain areas of discussion? I'm in no way saying that it's a bad trait to question everything. I understand the importace of stimulating debates and creative thinking to keep your mind from going to waste. But do you ever feel when writing something out in a post that maybe you're putting in too much effort into coming up with an intelligent answer to the question at hand? I'm both impressed and confused by many of the answers that I see in the Sleeping Forest section of the site. I've seen answers that are so detailed that my vision actually goes blurry from trying to read it (that, and some of you use really small text). I don't know, maybe I'm just not as smart as alot of you (HA! Maybe... ). There are some questions that require a well thought out answer, true. But I think that too a degree there's giving a good answer and then there's just trying to outsmart someone, which is the point of a debate. But not every single thread is one. As you can clearly tell, I RARELY overthink.

 

[coffeecup]

I don't know about you, but I prefer people overthinking about something rather than underthinking. I do believe that some things are pretty impractical or useless to think about (a lot of philosophical problems out there are just moot to focus upon imo), but I could be wrong. I just read over the replies and don't participate in discussions that I either have nothing to contribute or those that I find to plainly be uninteresting.

But in short, nothing wrong with people giving drawn out replies to something. If it's a meaningless reply, then you just read it and move on. But it could be brilliant, so you should take a quick read since it doesn't take too much time. Either way, no harm done right?

 

[Pandora]

I always overthink, and I absolutely hate it. I normally try to tell myself the things we worry about the most never happen - and sometimes I'm right, but other times if I underlook it, I may be in a heap of trouble. When it comes to debatable topics, I can state my opinion evenly, so I don't have to worry about what seems to obvious or if maybe my opinion is too strong. But its the normal things in life that I - and most likely the majority of people - overthink about. Like maybe how a person really feels about you (in friendship or in a relationship.), what they think about you deep down, if they're saying anything about you behind your back. Even though that's something I normally don't care about in general, its more about the people I deeply care about that I somehow gets these questions in my head. And I always have to try and make myself stop thinking otherwise I may act differently around them. So yeah, sometimes overthinking is understandable, other times we just have to stop.
​

 

[Dee]

I don't know about you, but I prefer people overthinking about something rather than underthinking.

I'm gonna go with this statement; however, within reason (meaning things I deem are important to "over think" or "over analyze"). As a human being, I am curious and there are things in this life that amaze me that I instinctively want to know more about. It's just my nature. While not everyone is like that, I don't believe it is a bad thing if you tend to go one way or another. For me, I would rather over think a subject and explore it if it is important to me or if I can offer a clear view for someone looking for a new perspective.

Like just today, I was having a conversation with my friend in the car about how I thought Altair from Assassin's Creed was different from Ezio (he was basically saying I was over analyzing something that shouldn't be over analyzed--video games--because they are meant solely for the purpose of entertainment). I told my friend the two are not the same people and he said he thought they were more similar. I asked (not told him he was wrong) if he thought Desmond was more like Altair or Ezio to which he proceeded to tell me he thought Desmond was more like the former, ultimately testing his statement that he did not like to analyze video game plots or characters.

Basically, my point here was that if it is an important thing to me, I have more of a reason to analyze and over think in comparison to something that may have no importance. So really, I can't say a person is wrong for over thinking something because it might be important to them. In which case I would be a hypocrite since I over analyze things that are important to me.

 

[Valvalis]

I personally don't see any problem with overthinking or overanalyzing, so long as the result is that the person ultimately makes the correct choice regarding the reason or reasons for something. I.E., if someone you talk to regularly is cold to you one day, and you don't know why, I do think it's okay to try to analyze all the potential reasons for their coldness; however, if you outright assume it's because they "randomly started hating me because I looked at them funny the other day while I was wearing a purple sweater that they can't stand! " then that's not a healthy use of thinking, when really they could have just had a stomachache or something. I tend to do this sort of thing all the time because I have OCD, but when I have a third party try to explain to me how ridiculous I sound with some of the conclusions I come to, I do wonder sometimes if maybe overanalysis is not always a good thing :/

However, critical thinking in general is completely invaluable, and is the only way we have any hope of solving problems in the world. I mean, the way things are now, a lot of issues that affect everyone in the world are left up to a handful of mere governing and advising professionals, and there are so many other brains in the world that are constantly producing new ideas that it's a shame there's not more encouragement of collaboration and thought pooling when it comes to such things. I mean, just look at even our own Sleeping Forest section here--so many different ideas are presented on each topic just from a handful of us, if you multiply that by a few billion, the brainstorming potential is astronomical. Which it's not to say *everyone in the world* uses their full brain capacity at all times, but there are a great many people who do.

So yes (after a blatant act of recursion elaborating on a discussion about the ethics of elaboration) I do think overthinking is generally a good thing.

 

[blakstang98]

Not being an intellect, I tend to take a more simple approach to answering debate threads. I'm pretty direct with just giving my thoughts without going into a deep area of thought. This might be a big reason why my posts in such threads go completely disregarded. Though I can never understand how my posts get misinterpreted. I think they're pretty straight forward, but others don't see this the same way, I guess.

In the religious debates, that deeper, more philosophical thinking seems to be more common. I think when putting forward an arguement for such matter sort of requires that though. Because I'm not a deep thinker, I don't debate religion, nor do I have an interest in it.

I don't have a problem with either train of thought. I can naturally think along better with a simple thinker, but I can at least understand the arguements a deep thinker is making. If a person is going to take a side in an arguement, if they can at least make their point, I don't have an issue if they make it simple or complex. Giving the opinion on the topic at hand is the important, no matter what method they use to drive the point home.

 

[Shu]

It has nothing to do with being smart or not, it has to do with how well you relay your points. A lot of times, short responses make the points too.. broad. So for me for instance, I like to reinforce my points by giving stronger examples and such. If that makes it longer, then so be it, and bless folks that have read most of my long winded posts.

Some people write way to much sometimes and I say this because instead of directly addressing the points, they dance around them until people are a bit confused about it, or just no longer care to read through the rest of the post.

Hence the... comes up.

 

[Dr. Percival Cox]

Some people write way to much sometimes and I say this because instead of directly addressing the points, they dance around them until people are a bit confused about it, or just no longer care to read through the rest of the post.

That's kinda what I'm talking about. Half the time, it seems like people are adding extra shit just to make their posts seem drawn out. I've been known to go off topic but that's usually because I like to add examples in my posts and I've noticed that sometimes my off topic statements seem like I'm just trailing off. But I'm usually just trying to enforce my point.

 

[L]

a tad bit. I frequently find myself trying to reply to a topic but usually withdraw my post because I don't think I will gain much from the discussion. It usually becomes apparent that I've put too much thought into it once it's a wall of text and I can see I'm kind of derailing the subject of discussion by taking a detour to help someone better understand my point of view, because then the thread becomes about that point of view instead of the actual subject itself.

 

[Dr. Percival Cox]

I frequently find myself trying to reply to a topic but usually withdraw my post because I don't think I will gain much from the discussion.

That happens to me too. I try to reply to a post but I find that what I just wrote isn't very well thought out and I just leave the thread. I think it's some kind of insecurity and that I feel what I just wrote isn't on par with what others have written.

 

[Tmoo]

an instructor once told me, "the mark of true intelligence is being able to convey a very complicated concept in a few simple words."

if i look back at some of the replies i've made in threads, there are a few that could be short essays. i guess i haven't quite reached that level of intelligence that i can post short, simple sentences and hit the mark. i think most of the time it comes down to people not fully understanding the main idea of the thread before replying, hence delving into several tangents before coming around to their point near the end of their post. it's a learning process.

 

[Martel]

I suppose I overthink things, although I've never really looked at it that way. I don't think there is such a thing as "overthinking" something, because I don't think there is such a thing as a satisfactorary answer to a question. As long as there is an alternate perspective on something, it is always worth thinking about it, and there is always an alternate perspective you can take.

I prefer to elaborate my points because, whilst there is something quite nice about explaining a complex idea in a few words, it leaves far too much room for misinterpretation. You could argue that misinterpretation is more likely to occur the more you say, but...well, exploring those misinterpretations that people will inevitably draw up is part of the fun. I participate in discussions because I enjoy it, so I like to put the time into it to get the most out of it. If I'm going to think about something, I like to consider it from every possible angle, and I like to be precise as possible in conveying my opinion, which usually requires at least two or three paragraphs =P

...I will admit that I am one of those damnable people who takes a paragraph to say what could probably be said in a sentence sometimes, though. I love discussing things ♥

 

[Demon]

Nobody overthinks and nobody's smart. Being smart is a continual process, and one can't overthink if they don't know everything.

Being smart is also a paradox, because to be smart usually means realizing that you don't know anything.

 

[Shu]

Being smart is also a paradox, because to be smart usually means realizing that you don't know anything.

So being ignorant or "not knowing anything" is the new smart?

Now wonder our kids are screwing up in school with this logic. No offense but that is malarkey.

I agree acknowledging one does not know everything is a form of wisdom. It has nothing to do with intellect though. I would rather go to someone that has more experience about a certain subject than someone who has book smarts. People who only "learn" without hands on experience, don't really have room to talk.

That's like asking a mechanic to take a look at your car, but he/she has only had a day's worth of experience. He then gives a price estimate of $2,000.00 saying your alternator is messed up, when you actually have a sludgey oil build up near the engine.

I can call someone smart, and it just means they holistically know more about the material through experience and through intellect. They can explain to me in a good understanding how to do a certain thing or how something works. They don't have to dance around the points, they can address the points directly and not bull shit me.

I can relay that with debating and posting as well.

 

[Demon]

So being ignorant or "not knowing anything" is the new smart?

Well if you look at "smart people" and "dumb people" as two separate categories, the problem is already gone.

ie, people from the "smart people" category can do a lot of things and still be looked at as smart. People in the "dumb people" category can do a lot of things and still be looked at as dumb.

The problem is, the things that define "dumb people" may be rules that can be broken by "smart people", since it's undefined what the rulesets are. Either way, we still have the problem of the definition of "smart people" and "dumb people". And personally, I think those definitions are so highly complex and unclear, it leaves a lot of room for speculation.

 

[Dr. Percival Cox]

The problem is, the things that define "dumb people" may be rules that can be broken by "smart people", since it's undefined what the rulesets are. Either way, we still have the problem of the definition of "smart people" and "dumb people". And personally, I think those definitions are so highly complex and unclear, it leaves a lot of room for speculation.

Not really. Being smart is having the mindset and thinking process to overcome issues. Being "stupid/dumb" is just not having any common sense. I.E., risking your life for mindless pleasure. I get a little annoyed (go figure) with this non conformist, "I don't think that someone who is x thinks they are y, but really y is actually x" way of thinking that's meant to deliberately go against what others are saying. I'm not intentionally implying that this is what you're doing. But after dealing with alot of these people, it just kinda sounds like that's what you're saying. No offense intended.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Is this a debate thread or a personal thread?

Categorically Im gonna say this: No one person can judge the thinking processes of another without having there own called into question, and by that token we open our selves up to many and varied opinions on the subject.

Some people struggle to make sense of the most basic maths problem while other can readily quantify the universe through maths, Some people are only interested in the carnal pleasures of life and seek to know nothing more than than.

I dont want to delve to deeply on religion, but its my experience that religion places a ceiling on the knowledge you should seek because to much could shake belief on a personal and eventually an enormous scale.I could be wrong?

If we judge others by the way they think, there would be alot of unhappy people in the world, because its one o those things you cant change bout people, well maybe yo can but it takes extreme measures.

smart and dumb are parallel to intelligence and ignorance: not really IMO, nobody can know everything and even the very dim can see things in a light an intelligence person never could, One mans ceiling and all that kinda nonsense.

I like to over think situation and consider them from multiple perspectives, Video games are an excellent arena for this practice, and it happens organically if you play a game multiple times you seek out new way s of doing things to keep the experience fresh and interesting.

During my final year of high school I helped 3 of my friends pass because they were having trouble with the most basic of words, I didnt care about helping because they were my mates..........

thinking happens on many levels, some even the most intelligent person here could not hope to equal, does it make them superior? does it elevate them above? Is there any need for people of lesser intelligence?

Everyone ha a role they can play, and no one can do everything.
(broad sweeping statements make me feel intelligents)

 

[Demon]

Not really. Being smart is having the mindset and thinking process to overcome issues.

There are a lot of problems that even smart people can't easily solve.

Being "stupid/dumb" is just not having any common sense. I.E., risking your life for mindless pleasure.

So people who are risk-taking and stubborn are stupid/dumb?

I myself might wish that were true, but a lot of geniuses are just awful non-conformist.

 

[Shu]

Here's what I would call someone who is "dumb" as opposed to an "over-thinker".

Someone who is dumb is basing all his facts on assumptions, while someone who is smart has tested scientific/psychological methods in order to actually back himself/herself up. Overly assuming has lead to some of the world's biggest mistakes. Someone can assume only so much, some things are better tested and tried in order to be true. Dumb just means, the inability to grasp knowledge in my opinion. I have seen people so damn stubborn about a subject such as homosexuality, feminism, or racism, that they are the ingrained stereotype.

Which leads to over thinking:

Now coming from a statistical stand point. Well we weigh way too heavily on total accumulation of numbers as per sum, than we do the actual variables and catalysts at play. These variables are seldom looked into and therefore disregarded, because it's the total number that matters to them. They also don't take in mind the geographic and the culture which are key debating points as well.

When debating with a speaking from the hip method, often times people bring their heart into it, rather than their mind. While it all sounds well and good on occasion, but it often times is purely opinionated rhetoric.

I don't buy into it, unless you have your own applied experienced. I have actually had my mind changed a few times on this forums, because of powerful persuasive debates, but like I said, the person displayed his thoughts fluently and efficiently, and backed his points up with his/her own personal experience.

Hence I wouldn't say anyone over thinks when they post, just sometimes can't communicate with the masses, so they dance.

 

[Dr. Percival Cox]

So people who are risk-taking and stubborn are stupid/dumb?

Never even somewhat implied that. I said people who risk their lives for pleasure. In other words, the people from Jackass. While I do enjoy watching these complete idiots, that's exactly what they are. Idiots. Being stubborn and sticking to convictions is nowhere near the same thing.