I think when people say that they overthink what they actually mean is that they misthink.
The key difference comes from how their actions is perceived. Imagine the following scenario:
I text my friend “goodbye” and they respond “bye”. My inner monologue says “that’s curious. They normally respond with ‘goodbye’”. I fret for hours about the discrepancy until I confront my friend and they tell me that all is ok. They had to catch a bus and had little time to respond. I would likely be told I was “overthinking”.
Alternatively, consider a scenario where my partner is increasingly unresponsive and withdrawing. My constant ruminations about the cause drive me to uncover their cheating and deception. My cunning and perception would rightly be called astute and aware.
This to me underpins the distinction between overthinking and misthinking. We judge thought not on the process itself but on its outcome. If I am right, I am perceptive. If I’m wrong, I’m crazy.
Personally, I reject those labels. I neither misthink nor overthink (as much as I can help it). Rather, I think the appropriate amount for the given problem. To borrow an engineering analogy, complex systems require more analysis of their inputs and outputs in the same way that complex decisions require more analysis of their actions and consequences. In this way, I analyse until I reach the correct decision and then I stop (hopefully).
In principle, this can be a useful rubric through which to view the world, but I think it often falls down in the case of complicated reality. I think that the gut is an underrated decision-making facility and one that I often neglect. It can be intellectually satisfying to analyse until one reaches a conclusive answer but I think that in most cases, this answer does not exist, and that even if it does we would be better off listening to what our internal daemon is telling us.
I think it can be tempting to neglect the gut as a decision making facility because of the following paradox: people are simpler than we expect and people are more complex than we expect. In the first case, we see everyone governed by the same basic emotions and impulses, slaves to their desires. In the second case, we see infinitesimal complexity, an inability to distil any one person to a mere description. We all have a unique narrative to tell that informs how we arrived in this position. We are all governed by unique and compelling impulses.
These two facts seem to be in tension. They are clearly not both true, but yet it seems as if both are true. Using the gut for decisions benefits the first case, but a recognition of people as irreducibly complex requires a more thoughtful nuanced approach. I’m not sure what the answer is. Maybe to carefully consider a decision until you give up and go with your gut?