I agree on members who says that there is a difference between analyzing and diagnosing. I think diagnosing should be left to professionals. However, analyzing is something that we do on a day-to-day basis. We do this when we apply for a job, wondering where and why our friend is late, why boyfriend/girlfriend hasn't return my call... etc... etc... It is not something that we can switch on/off.

Analyzing simply separating what's fact and what's ambiguous or what we know and what we don't. Note that I didn't say "what's not factual"... because the world is not black and white. Just because something isn't visible - it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Thus, ambiguous.

However, how we analyze depends on individuals and very complex. It derives from life's experiences, culture, learning styles, and many other factors. Some choose to pay attention only to certain facts and ignore others. This is why there's a saying... "People only see what they want to see." or "...believe what they want to believe".

How we respond to certain questions for advice depends on all of those factors above. Level of analyzing also different. There are some people who analyzes better than others. You may be good at analyzing a math problem while I'm good at analyzing a biology problem. A few people tried to explain football with me until their face turned blue - and for the life of me... I never understood it and I've watched it a few times.

One of the ways you can polish your analytical skills is by playing logic games or study probability and statistic. A course in Logic is mathematical.

If there are conflicting analytical answers... does it always mean that only one answer that is correct? Remember that not everything is black and white. Maybe both answers are wrong.

But on giving advice to others - I do believe that you cannot give useful advice unless you understand it. My pre-dx is bipolar disorder but the pdoc isn't 100%. One thing for sure I do suffer from severe depression with psychotic features.
(factual: clinical depression - ambiguous: bipolar?)

Just by talking to people - I can tell whether or not they "understand" what I'm going through. It certainly becomes very frustrating for both parties (complainant and listener) when the other gave "useless" advice because lack of understanding. It turns into a hot debate... "But you dont' understand..." or "But if you just do this maybe..."

I also believe that you can understand someone's dilemma without experiencing it. This is where the word "sympathize" or "empathize" comes in. For example - my grandma suffers from severe dementia. I don't have the illness (at least not yet) but if someone who has the illness complains to me... I'd understand. Similarly, when I talk to someone who understands MDD but never had it... they'd know how tough it is for me.

Whether or not you can understand a problem by learning from a book or training - it is up to the individual. For example: psychiatrists do not necesarily have to have all mental diseases to treat them nor do doctors have all illnesses to understand the level of pain a patient goes through. And from what I know... some doctors will never be exposed to certain diseases and yet somehow they'll figure out how to treat it (i.e. bacterial vs. virus).

I'm good at understanding complex concepts. I don't need to have a special training or experience in understanding certain concepts. I love law. There's a lot of analyzing and concepts in law. Many thinks that the penal code is full of jargon. Some question if situation A if added with situation B is against the law or it isn't. But... I don't need to read every law book out there to know what the law is going to say about that particular situation. I understood the law from the very first time I took a law class. Just as some understand chemistry or physics or calculus from their very first class.

In another aspect - I can look at a computer's language for a program and know what they mean or do but can never replicate it.
Or we can listen to a specific song and understand what they mean. Some may think that it's open for interpertation whereas I see it as clear as day.
For example - songs about suicide. Some I get... some I have no clue unless someone rubs my face in it, no matter how many times I've attempted suicide.

So... we cover a lot of grounds to your Qs but I don't think there's one specific answer. Everything we do and say are relative. How we deliver it is also depend upon complex factors. There isn't a uniformity in giving advice. You just do your best.

What did our parents used to say, "Do as I say not as I do"? But don't you also agree some advice need not be said - that some follow by example?

Bottom line: No matter what you do - as long as you believe that you gave good advice then that is all that matter. In reality, did you give good or bad advice? That's relative and up to the complainant/receiver to be the judge of that.

Remember that not everything is black and white and sometimes there's more than 1 correct answer. Maybe you gave great advice but leave a lot of room for improvement.

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it!
Hello? Are you still awake?