I'm not sure about that, the more I think about things the less likely I am to come to a firm decision.
I have gotten to the stage now where I just accept the decision may turn out to be wrong but it won't be the end of the world if it is, I'm not in charge of anything that dangerous.
More than likely it's because you understand the world works on probability and very little certainty.
Things that are potentially deadly, like flying an aircraft, attempt to remove as much probability as possibly. You make checklists of behaviors before the emergency happens so you think as little as possible.
Or a more inflammatory statement I've been known to say to others "Certainty is for the religious and conmen alike".
The trouble is in learning how to distinguish between unhelpful overthinking and the [right kind].
I think it's necessary to balance thought with awareness of emotions and intuition. To listen to the gut, which is also an intelligent signal, but doesn't translate to verbal thought.
Thinking more and thinking harder often creates an illusion of some kind of progress or of triangulating on the best decision. And this can be the case, but can also lead to a kind of decision paralysis and/or overconfidence in a decision (I thought really hard about this, so it must be better) when we don't actually have enough underlying knowledge to justify the decision.
If we could measure such a thing, I'd love to see a plot of decision accuracy vs. time spent reaching the decision. This will highly depend on one's deeply ingrained biases. I'm overly pessimistic, so thinking more helps me temper my pessimism and reframe when needed, but thinking too much eventually leads me back to where I started.
I find that writing my thoughts is my antidote to this problem. Circular paths of thought are quickly squashed and I have something to visually audit when I ask myself if spending more time thinking will likely enable me to make a better decision.
