4 ms·
The person's point is likely that you spent a lot of energy on something that probably doesn't matter. This might be subjective, of course, but it is possible t
by rtpg 6y ago
The person's point is likely that you spent a lot of energy on something that probably doesn't matter. This might be subjective, of course, but it is possible to think about something for longer than you should.
Navel-gazing isn't a virtue. Though ideally you probably want to be with people who think that the same stuff is important.
- imbnwa 6y agoImmediate action isn't a virtue either, and trust me, I grew up with people who think their immediate action is virtuous enough, and no, you're not gonna get much community from that in the last resort as reassuring as it appears in real-time; most people do not recognize their own anxieties spurring them into some form of immediate action or other. Also, we don't know what the subject was between OP and whoever, so its kinda hard to gauge what kind of lesson to derive from it
- Cyph0n 6y agoEveryone has spent a longer time than necessary thinking about something that is subjectively useless. Mocking someone for doing so demonstrates nothing more than a lack of self-awareness.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoBut everyone spends time on stuff that doesn't matter. At least thinking about a topic of discussion is better than watching the 18th season of the Bachelor (as an example)
- manigandham 6y agoLonger than you should? There is no such thing. Of course it's possible to spend thought without resulting in any new discoveries but that's not really a problem because thoughts are interconnected and build upon each other to create better mental models for other situations. It doesn't matter how petty or insignificant the topic is, it's the act of thinking deeply about something that's important. Anyway, I understand the social context of the phrase, but my point is that it's used so often in place a real argument and is a sign of the greater superficiality of most discussions today.
- sn41 6y agoBut brooding for a long time is not really healthy. I don't know the exact issue on which you got mocked, but there are these unproductive loops of thought into which you can slip into, spending many days. It takes some other pressing issue to snap out of this.
- hilbertseries 6y agoOverthinking and dwelling on things is a real problem, particularly for people with anxiety disorders. And the suggestion that you can’t think about something for too long is ridiculous.
- manigandham 6y agoWhat's too long? Explain that reasoning. Clearly a disorder is something else other than healthy deep thought. Overthinking, dwelling (and brooding as the other commenter said) isn't the same as contemplative or investigative thought about a topic. Rather, it's the opposite and isn't very thoughtful at all.
- dmoy 6y agoToo long is so long that time spent thinking on the thing disrupted or took away time from some other higher priority thing / task / whatever. Or so long that it delayed the decision / outcome / whatever enough that it had materially negative impact compared to making a suboptimal, but earlier decision.
- Bakary 6y ago>It doesn't matter how petty or insignificant the topic is, it's the act of thinking deeply about something that's important. That concept is not clear to me at least. There is a limited physical aspect to life and there are steep opportunity costs
- stickfigure 6y ago> Longer than you should? There is no such thing. Try getting a toddler to clean up his toys.
- Fordec 6y agoAnd Jobs spent too much time on calligraphy than he should. And yet, that experience was tinder for the start of font rendering in computing. Whether it is naval gazing or creating unique insight, it's only known in hindsight.