3 ms·
Although I posted this article (it was referenced in a comment in another thread and didn't get much discussion the first time), I don't necessarily agree with
by mmt 8y ago
Although I posted this article (it was referenced in a comment in another thread and didn't get much discussion the first time), I don't necessarily agree with with all the author's assertions.
In particular, the author seems to extrapolate all of humanity from college students. I'm not convinced that anecdotal evidence, from a sample that's highly likely to be motivated to begin with, is enough to conclude the non-existence of laziness. [1]
I did, however, appreciate the alternate perspective, which may be particularly applicable here on HN, in our professional lives, another area where the selection is more likely to be biased toward those who are highly likely to be motivated, in which case laziness is less likely to be the explanation for inaction.
[1] At least for certain definitions of laziness that include, for example, a preference for "fun" such as sitting on the couch playing video games or watching tv over "work" such as washing dishes or mowing the lawn.
- Im_back_4_U 8y agoLaziness is non-existent because it is a lack of something, not an actual "thing". Sometimes the lacking item is control over circumstances and I think that's alot of what she eludes to. But it is non-existent in exactly the same way darkness is non-existent, as in it does not actually exists. Can't have a jar of darkness, but you can have a jar of light. What we call laziness is just the lack of energy to overcome forces against us. Some people have more force and refer to others as "lazy", but what they are really doing is blinding themselves to the advantages they receive whether from nature or the system.