3 ms·

> I think this opinion demonstrates such a completely bullshit, narrow, entitled, and ethnocentric view of the world it blows my mind. Well you can safely unbl

by libria 13y ago

> I think this opinion demonstrates such a completely bullshit, narrow, entitled, and ethnocentric view of the world it blows my mind. Well you can safely unblow your mind. He used a stereotype broadly applied to a group, but lazy people do indeed make up some portion of the "have nots". Sibling comments show measured, thought-massaged responses that correct the GP. Let's not combat bad generalizations with hyperbole.

visakanv 13y ago
I've always been deeply curious about laziness. What makes a lazy person lazy? Is it predisposition? Is it environment? What are your thoughts?
- famousactress 13y ago
  Ironically (given the context it was brought up in), my answer would be privilege.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  This really is the million-dollar question isn't it? It unfolds in all kinds of interesting directions and has big implications - why are some countries more productive than others? Why are some cultures more technologically advanced? There's a good book on this: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Well worth a read. There are no easy answers here, though being mindful of history is important in arguing this topic - predisposition and environment have historically been used by social darwinists to assert superiority over other cultures and races (see: "tropical climates breed laziness" and "blacks are predisposed to lesser intelligence but greater physical ability"). They're not verboten, but it pays to tread carefully if you want to argue in that direction.
  - famousactress 13y ago
    Guns, Germs, and Steel is a super compelling read. It addresses productivity in the large (not in the small), but not laziness I think. I'm not sure how relevant it is to exploring individuals in a population as it is to looking at productivity of larger populations throughout history. Spoiler: GG&S ends up arguing that the answer to why some countries are more productive than others is historical geographical circumstance, particularly because of access to large grains and domesticate-able animals which propelled some early cultures into agriculture and the rest is history.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      Indeed, GG&S is very much focused on the macroscopic outcomes, but I do believe they two topics are interrelated, at least traditionally where they're discussed. The question of why Africa was largely technologically undeveloped was of some importance to Europeans during the slave trade. The predispositional argument was made to justify the practice of slavery, and post-slavery to justify continued discrimination. Similarly, if you go to East Asia today (see: Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong) you will still see today continued mistreatment of Southeast Asian migrant workers under the guise of predispositional and environment inferiority ("tropical climates breed simple minds" and such nonsense), justified by macro-scale outcomes ("look at all the tropical countries, all of them are a mess, clearly non-tropical climates breed harder workers"). These attitudes are depressingly common. The macro-scale differences in countries is often used as justification for odd micro-scale beliefs.
- y1426i 13y ago
  Nothing wrong with being lazy. It is the root of all innovation, I think ;-)
jljljl 13y ago
Lazy people make up "some portion" of the haves as well, which is why attempting to attribute "laziness" as a defining attribute of a socioeconomic group is "bullshit, narrow, entitled".
famousactress 13y ago
Having been in both camps for significant periods of my life I suspect lazy people make up a very similar (if not larger) portion of "haves". I don't think the GP deserves a measured response. I think the comment deserves outrage, but I get your point. I certainly get hyperbolic.

by libria 13y ago

visakanv 13y ago

I've always been deeply curious about laziness. What makes a lazy person lazy? Is it predisposition? Is it environment? What are your thoughts?

famousactress 13y ago
Ironically (given the context it was brought up in), my answer would be privilege.
potatolicious 13y ago
This really is the million-dollar question isn't it? It unfolds in all kinds of interesting directions and has big implications - why are some countries more productive than others? Why are some cultures more technologically advanced? There's a good book on this: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Well worth a read. There are no easy answers here, though being mindful of history is important in arguing this topic - predisposition and environment have historically been used by social darwinists to assert superiority over other cultures and races (see: "tropical climates breed laziness" and "blacks are predisposed to lesser intelligence but greater physical ability"). They're not verboten, but it pays to tread carefully if you want to argue in that direction.
- famousactress 13y ago
  Guns, Germs, and Steel is a super compelling read. It addresses productivity in the large (not in the small), but not laziness I think. I'm not sure how relevant it is to exploring individuals in a population as it is to looking at productivity of larger populations throughout history. Spoiler: GG&S ends up arguing that the answer to why some countries are more productive than others is historical geographical circumstance, particularly because of access to large grains and domesticate-able animals which propelled some early cultures into agriculture and the rest is history.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    Indeed, GG&S is very much focused on the macroscopic outcomes, but I do believe they two topics are interrelated, at least traditionally where they're discussed. The question of why Africa was largely technologically undeveloped was of some importance to Europeans during the slave trade. The predispositional argument was made to justify the practice of slavery, and post-slavery to justify continued discrimination. Similarly, if you go to East Asia today (see: Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong) you will still see today continued mistreatment of Southeast Asian migrant workers under the guise of predispositional and environment inferiority ("tropical climates breed simple minds" and such nonsense), justified by macro-scale outcomes ("look at all the tropical countries, all of them are a mess, clearly non-tropical climates breed harder workers"). These attitudes are depressingly common. The macro-scale differences in countries is often used as justification for odd micro-scale beliefs.
y1426i 13y ago
Nothing wrong with being lazy. It is the root of all innovation, I think ;-)

jljljl 13y ago

Lazy people make up "some portion" of the haves as well, which is why attempting to attribute "laziness" as a defining attribute of a socioeconomic group is "bullshit, narrow, entitled".

famousactress 13y ago

Having been in both camps for significant periods of my life I suspect lazy people make up a very similar (if not larger) portion of "haves". I don't think the GP deserves a measured response. I think the comment deserves outrage, but I get your point. I certainly get hyperbolic.