Someone told me quite recently, "You think too much". It was their way I guess of saying I overanalyse things and perhaps form erroneous or unnecessary conclusions? But feeling leads to thinking and thinking leads to feeling and feeling and thinking create words, do they not?

How much thinking is just enough? Descartes concluded - interpreting the Latin phrase 'Cogito ergo sum' - that "I think, therefore I am". Meaning I guess, if one has the ability to think, then one must exist?

So do you exist more if you think more? And vice versa?

Is a brain not made to think? I ask. Because if we exist because of this brain - which forms the basis for our thinking - then how do we quantify less or more or just enough?

That this 'thought' came about as a result of my trying to escape thinking? I lay down with the intent of lucidly dreaming about a gondola ride in Venice, with an imaginary 'someone' alongside, listening to an overweight Italian belting out a bad rendition of "O Sole mio..."

Which of course suddenly had me sitting up, realising I didn't know the meaning of those words. Then a "Huh!" as I read the translation: "My sun." Words so beautiful I will never again hold them against any Italian, no matter how bad the rendition.

See, my simple gondola ride distraction led me to words of beauty, such as "But another sun, That's even brighterIt's my own sun That's upon your face!"

Funny thing is this someone who accused me of overthinking, was challenged in turn by me to 'a leap of faith'. Now this leap of faith implied 'believing' or 'trusting' in something, without 'empirical evidence'; that is without concrete proof of the outcome. The exact opposite to what this person insinuated - because this 'leap' meant doing away with the act of thinking and self-reflection totally, and trusting instead on 'action' purely based on something unprovable or intangible. This person then replied they "needed to think about it." Funny that.

I am not digressing in my usual style, there's reasonable reason here. I held two extremes see; one the consequence/risk of overthinking and the other, blind, unquestioning faith. Were these two then each an end of the thinking spectrum? And if so what lay between them and what constituted 'just enough' thought?

I feel like Goldilocks; but also unlike her in that I only have one too-large chair and one chair too small. The third, the 'perfect' chair is missing.

Can one adjust or turn down thoughts? Can another act without thought altogether and can these two opposites ever meet in some compromised middle ground?

I met up for a coffee with two friends recently. They are a couple - maybe. I say maybe because of this thinking business. She has a tendency to over-analyse everything: "What if I let him in too deep and then he dumps me and damn it I'm already invested as it is!" He's more the "Meh, what will be will be, who knows how I'll feel tomorrow."

She wants to think about everything. She needs to think about everything because 'rational' thought is her way of dealing with his apparent lack of care about the future.

"He doesn't think about me... or... or at least he never tells me. So I have to read between the lines see. I hate this uncertainty. He says he likes the way things are between us now."

He on the other hand has no such qualms. He says he is enjoying their time together but he doesn't want to be pushed into anything ahead of time. "Maybe things will change one way or the other, but I'll deal with any decision when the time comes."

They came to me for advice, quite possibly the worst person to turn to because I too am caught up in this 'overthinking' regime. As writer, and one who speaks in Non-Fiction, I err on the side of thinking too much. Always.

Which brings me to an interesting point: All of the greatest philosophers throughout time have been men. Men who have done little else but spend entire lives engrossed either in deep thought or in discourses with similar others. So how come we revere these thinkers yet today we - and by that I mean to a larger extent women - get told we 'overthink'?

We waffle apparently? Where men 'get to the point' in a single sentence, we write paragraphs? We waffle? We use too many words - these words by-products of excessive thought?

So do men philosophise and do women waffle? And what exactly is the difference? Have any of you women out there accused a man of 'waffling' or overthinking or been accused of these yourselves? And have you men used these same terms when desribing women?

It intrigues me. Am I waffling now?

Communication, communication... Lack of communication... I hear this bandied about between couples as they struggle for this middle ground. "She talks too much." "He never listens." "I don't know what's going on in his head." "She has to know everything."

I think. Circumstances allow me this because I have that rarity: Time alone, time to myself, time to ponder, investigate, dissect and analyse. I have no partner or 'significant other' so I tend to observe those who do. And I note this common thread running through all conversations: Women 'overanalysing' and not trusting and men 'not thinking enough' and relying on 'what will be, will be'.

Baffling really, because I search in vain for that common ground, where there is just enough thought and just enough 'blind faith' on both sides of a relationship. I have yet to find it.

Have any of you acted on pure impulses, i.e. taken leaps of faith? Where there is no thought involved - akin to belief in a God - where you implicitly trust in a person or an action without thinking of consequences and future outcomes?

Do you have to think about every action and decision? Do you have to analyse every prospective outcome ahead of every decision?

Is there such a marked difference between the sexes?

More importantly have any of you found this 'hallowed' middle ground - just the right amount of thinking and blind faith?

Do we think because we fear living in uncertainty regarding the future? Do we not think because we place trust in this future working itself out?

Too many bloody questions right?