The Correct Level of Analysis

If there is one thing I have been accused of over the years, it's being too good at analyzing. People often ask me, "why do you overanalyze everything?"I usually choose to take it as a compliment. But then again after long careful considerate deliberation I must conclude that the word over cannot be a positive. Otherwise they would be asking why I always use the correct level of analysis. The answer to that question of course: because it's there [to be used]. Even the best attributes can be overcriticized with the use of over. For example "why do you overachieve?" or "why do you overshoot the drop zone?" or "why did you barbarians overrun that city?"

But wait there's more! Yikes there's so much to look at in this question. Where does one begin?

How about the word Everything? Like I have enough time to even underanalyze everything. So unrealistic. You always exaggerate. That's a joke. I realize it is not meant literally, but every side must be considered.

Secondly, and much more importantly, that question is guilty of the fallacy plurium interrogationum also know as a complex question. It is assuming that I am overanalyzing, a fact yet to be agreed on by both parties. To answer the question directly I would have to agree that I am overanalyzing something without addressing the erroneous assumption. My response in turn should be "why do you always ask fallacious questions?"

Why is underanalyze not a "real" word. I see a lack of dichotomy here. Not good. (BTW there's a word for the opposite of good: bad). But then again, I am using underanalyze now so it is a word. Phew that's comforting.

From Merriam-Webster

Over: so as to exceed or surpass (definition 2 of exceed: to be greater than or superior to)

+

Analyze: to study or determine the nature and relationship of the parts of by analysis

=

Exceedingly study the nature and relationship of the parts (sounds like a compliment to me!).

Besides I think Overanalyze is an oxymoron. If you analyze correctly there can be no overanalysis. We can never reach the limit of analysis. Unless you are omnipotent why would you ever stop studying something (except with time limitations and maybe a need to prioritize but that is more of an issue with the prioritization of resource dedication)? Either way the term overanalysis haters should be using is incorrectly analyze.

Why do I always overnalyze everything! Is this meant to be a rhetorical question? What kind of answer could the inquirer really be expecting? "Oh well, let me ponder that deeply for a moment. I suppose my overindulgence for analysis began when I was a small child. I think it comes from my mother's side of the family. They observed facts and deduced their meaning more than they should. I never listened to my father who always told me to keep one eye closed not to oversee. . ."

What is the goal of said question? Is it to incite annoyance in the hearer, namely me. Or is meant to humble me and make me feel bad enough to change my overanalytical (i.e., incorrectly analytical) ways. Thanks for the lesson, Socrates. Now I know everything should be considered superficially without a deeper context.

OK overanalysis naysayers, why don't you define for me the correct level of analysis. Can you even figure that out? I imagine the "correct" level analysis is something like "uh. . .like don't think too much I guess. I don't know. That's why I collect garbage/push papers/say yes for a living."

Whoa. Let's not get too carried away here. I could spend all day looking at the question in question. But I don't want to risk analyzing too much (as if there is such a thing). I'll stop here at the correct level of analysis. Or should I rather say the correct amount of analysis? Correct manner of analysis?