If water chooses the path of least resistance, humans are attracted to the course of greatest complication. We do it to ourselves. Trading clarity for complexity and flash for function when neither serve our vision or our goals. How do we ensure that we aren't over thinking our processes and missing out on our opportunities? 

Analysis paralysis
We over think. We over analyze. We freeze when if we would begin moving in a direction we will find that we can still steer our ship in a different direction. We are so afraid of failure that we fail to seize upon an opportunity. Something to remember is that failure to act is often more detrimental than failing while we act and learning as we go. 

Have a vision.
Put your plan in motion. 
Adapt as you gather new information and experiences. 

Inability to adapt
In contrast to failure to launch, what happens when we are making progress but we refuse to receive information, analyze results and adjust our course? Darwin's concept of survival was built upon a species ability to adapt. Adaptation does not mean that you are the smartest, strongest or most capable but that you are willing to respond appropriately to new data along the way. Having vision and momentum does not guarantee success. 

Do not lose sight of your vision.
Do not lose your thirst for knowledge.
Do not lose your hunger to improve. 

The attraction to complexity
If something can be made more complicated we will find a way to do it. There is a fine balance between too much and too little information and both can be deadly. 
Break things down to their most basic functions and ensure that the core values are provided the greatest measure of operational energy. Fine tune but don't be so attracted to being flashy that functionality is sacrificed. Regularly ask, "Are we missing something?" while also asking, "Are we making this harder than it has to be?" 

Keep it simple. 
​Be clear, consistent and accountable. 

How does one avoid being an idiot in the analysis and conclusions drawn from information gathered? Do not trust anything that one cannot confirm for oneself, right? Under such a premise, one must trust one’s own ability to discern information and draw appropriate conclusions. If one trusts one’s own abilities to filter through multiple points of data and infer correctly from the information drawn from, how consistently can the self-source evaluation be trusted? If one trusts one’s own self some/most of the time this may only be a safe bet some of the time at best. If one trusts one’s own self always, one can safely self diagnose one’s own self as an idiot.

If one does not want to be an idiot by way of self trust, then one may conclude that they should seek out the input and knowledge of others. When wise counsel is sought, one must still, at some point, rely upon one’s own internal discernment abilities to determine whether the analysis performed by others is reliable. Even smart and reliable people have limitations and can be wrong from time to time, so no one person can be trusted 100% of the time. If one trusts others some/most of the time this may only be a safe bet some of the time at best. If one trusts others always, one can safely be diagnosed by others as an idiot.

The only option that remains is a hybrid of the previously discussed options, inform one’s self while learning when to trust the input of others. Yet the paradox continues, can one trust what we ubiquitous analysts call the YOATKTD metric – Your Own Ability To Know The Difference.  As it turns out, in the effort to avoid being an idiot, the only options are to trust one's self or to trust others and in the final analysis one very likely will find that there is little than anyone can do to avoid it.