cos like, not thinking before doing stuff always helps you to do it right. I mean, im shure the base jumper didnt think about checking his gear, the fireman didnt think about the best way to attack the problem.

what a pile of shite.

dont think, and you will make adverts like this

And cheerfully, as the parent of three children, my girls were the ones jumping off of the house. My son liked to read……

The dominant school of thought in film criticism is that films should be analyzed based on everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, in the film being intentional and having an artistic purpose. A late-model Chevy drives by in the extreme background of a Western? The director’s comment on the juxtaposition of traditional and modern cultures, or the illusion of recreating the past, etc. The problem arises when the analysis is used outside of the world of film criticism; the mainstream audience of the film sees that as a goof, or something that couldn’t be eliminated without spending massive amounts of money, and ignores it.

The same problem comes up with sociology. The layperson’s perspective isn’t necessarily wrong; for 99% of the world, this blog IS overanalyzing things. So are the film critics. So are botanists, or any other specialty. But inside the discipline, per the rules that the discipline uses, whether it’s that the director intended everything to be on the film or that the smallest part of the image is reflective of societal conceptions, the analysis is the point and is both useful and desired.

I would imagine that most sociologists feel the same about other disciplines overanalyzing film, or plant reproductive methods, or whatever. A single person can’t analyze every facet of existence with the level of attention needed for a single specialty. You’ll run into accusations of overanalyzing any time someone not involved in a discipline runs into an analysis written by someone who is.

I’ve engaged in some activities that have made extreme sports enthusiasts tell me I was crazy but I’d explored and analyzed the risks very carefully before I crossed the point of no return. I like to drop off waterfalls on a foam riverboard (a boogie board for rivers), so ‘point of no return’ is very literal, like with BASE jumping or hang gliding. To an outside observer unfamiliar with the activity, it may look reckless and possibly even stupid. Judging the risk based on my previous whitewater experience and after working my way up to the largest rapids as I became comfortable with using a board instead of a boat makes the decision to drop a particular waterfall much less risky in actuality than it might appear to someone else, though there are still myriad ways to get killed doing it; the most likely is driving to the river. Commercials can’t show years of dedicated practice and effort that go into making those peak moments possible (and less risky).

Oddly enough, humans are such lousy assessors of risk that we can’t bring ourselves to get a narrator with a deep gravely voice to mention commuting to work in the morning: “This is more statistically likely to injure or kill you than hang gliding.” I guess the more mundane life-threatening activities we do don’t count because there is no corresponding adrenaline rush or intention to push any limits; getting obliterated by a cement truck thanks to being distracted while trying to talk on the cellphone and drive is apparently not Wrangler-worthy even though it’s probably the riskiest behavior of the bunch.

And whether running Class V rapids on a small piece of foam, jumping motorcycles insane distances, or climbing an extreme pitch on a cliff face, there are moments when thinking WILL get you killed. Thinking is ideal right up until you enter a rapid, open the throttle for a jump, or climb at the limits of your ability but once you take that step out on to the Razor’s Edge you need to react much faster than thinking allows. There is no time to analyze anything; thought and action must be simultaneous, and if you have the wrong thought you get injured or killed. It’s a sublime feeling, and well-worth the risk IMO.

Anyway, as I understand it Wrangler makes jeans for women, too and I’ve found women to be just as able to stop thinking as men. When I first ran the biggest water I’d ever run on my board, my risk analysis dictated it’d be better to go with someone who had experience running that river on a board since it handles differently than a kayak. I asked around and met a very experienced raft guide that boarded it, and I talked her into showing me the routes which is why I didn’t get killed (I had to bribe her with a quart of moonshine). I was taught how to hang glide by a female instructor, and one of my ex-girlfriends taught me how to be a mountain bike mechanic. Is there an ad for women’s jeans like this one for men?

Frankly, the only thing all these activities have in common (and it’s true for both men and women) is that jeans are among the absolute worst choice of attire while actually doing them.

Oh, and one more thing (a reply to Fangirl above):
It becomes over-analyzing when you analyze something further or deeper than the person who accuses you of over-analyzing. It doesn’t mean that either party is more or less likely to come to inaccurate conclusions. In fact, it doesn’t really mean much of anything; an analysis is either valid and insightful or it’s not. You’d have to have perfect powers of flawless analysis to know exactly when that line between ‘just enough’ and ‘too much’ is being crossed.

Stop thinking indeed….if you overanalyze your life, you will sit paralyzed in front of your computer. Get out there…..

I mean, I’m a thinking person – I want to be an academic when I grow up – but I also want to jump out of an airplane. I’ve actually put a lot of thought into the logistics of jumping out of an airplane. Thinking and risk taking are not mutually exclusive; I’d argue that they’re a great combination. Too much thinking and too little risk taking can lead to stagnation, but too much risk taking and too little thinking can lead to easily avoidable mistakes.