Board 8 > Do you think lazy people exist?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I like how we've distorted the definition of lazy to content or non-ambitious

Overcorrecting much

Lopen posted...

I like how we've distorted the definition of lazy to content or non-ambitious

Overcorrecting much

I mean you also distorted it to self-neglectful multiple times as well.

Is that a distortion though? I disagree. Lazy has negative connotations inherently. If you're oversimplifying it to avoiding using energy on anything, why does that have negative connotations.

Lopen posted...

Is that a distortion though? I disagree. Lazy has negative connotations inherently. If you're oversimplifying it to avoiding using energy on anything, why does that have negative connotations.

Definition: disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous

Being lazy doesn't mean you are self-neglefctful, just means you prefer not to do stuff. And a lazy person doesn't have to be lazy 100% of the time.

I would consider someone who waits until 3/4 light bulbs go out to change any of them lazy, but not self-neglectful if it's not impacting them. Procrastination is a form of laziness

I know what the definition says

But there are subtleties in how we use it in speech that implies that being a lazy person is a bad thing. In that sense I don't think I'm distorting as much as you're not reading into the nuance of the use of the word when used to describe a person as "lazy"

Is it necessarily a bad thing to wait for 3/4 light bulbs to go out to change any? If it doesn't bug you why would it be. You save money and energy (electricity and your own) doing so.

Lopen posted...

I know what the definition says

But there are subtleties in how we use it in speech that implies that being a lazy person is a bad thing. In that sense I don't think I'm distorting as much as you're not reading into the nuance of the use of the word when used to describe a person as "lazy"

Is it necessarily a bad thing to wait for 3/4 light bulbs to go out to change any? If it doesn't bug you why would it be. You save money and energy (electricity and your own) doing so.

you literally just described a lazy person. Justifying spending less energy. All laziness is someone who is more apt to not do something.

Also you may view a lazy person as a bad thing but I don't.

Basically your not molding your argument with the definition of laziness. you are trying to mold the definiton of laziness to fit your argument

I feel like this is the exact same discussion Lopen and I just had

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Also you may view a lazy person as a bad thing but I don't

This is actually you altering the definition from what society typically uses it as I hope you realize this while you're busy of accusing me of doing this

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

how is it not? there's 8 billion people in the world. he's basing his claim that people aren't lazy on the incredibly small sample size of people he's met as a therapist.

Your sample size is 1

Mine is like 1000

Lopen posted...

This is actually you altering the definition from what society typically uses it as I hope you realize this while you're busy of accusing me of doing this

Raka_Putra posted...

Yes, I know him.

He is me.

jcgamer107 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/2/AARTUoAADV0Q.jpg

_PandaMaster_ posted...

Too lazy to answer.

I don't know where you have been but a lot of people have no problem admitting to being lazy, or even embracing it. Sure some people view it with a negative connotation but that really doesn't matter. Like a lot of things, the word has a gradient.

If someone is extremely lazy to the point of being neglectful thats a bad thing. But if someone is moderately lazy (like in the light bulb example) people are ok with it.l

Lopen posted...

So he's a liar, a bad therapist, or biased, or something else. Or maybe he's not. We don't know.

Listen if you want to jump a lot of hoops we can make you equally qualified to speak on this topic. Or you could just have some humility and realize yes he probably does know what he's talking about a bit more than you do here.

I'm not saying "just accept what he says without considering alternatives" but perhaps just assuming "naw it's this cool logical fallacy his experience means squat and we're on equal footing" isn't the best way to think about it and you should consider whether what he's saying may have some merit over your anecdotes and re-evaluate and challenge yourself on what you think the truth on the matter is.

He's much too lazy

pezzicle posted...

Your sample size is 1

Mine is like 1000

i've only met 1 person in my life? what?

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

no, he's arguing people aren't lazy. that's why he put the word in quotation marks.

I'm arguing lazy is not a character trait

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

i've only met 1 person in my life? what?

Have you had intricate detailed conversations about their internal world and psychology and why they do the things they do, behave the way they behave, and think the way they think, for hours at a time over months at a time?

The only person I am assuming you've done even remotely close to that amount of studying of is yourself.

I'm not trying to appeal to some authority I have but my sample size is significantly larger than yours is.

I am by no means some infallible expert, i am not suggesting that I am 10000% correct and that you aren't allowed to challenge what I am saying. I don't think you saying "your lens is anecdotal" is really all that fair when I've engaged with a significant amount of people over my years as a therapist which is helping me to have the lens I have, and if THAT is anecdotal, then your lens is most certainly more so than mine is.

The experience I have tells me that lazy isn't an inherent quality in a person, but is actually connected to something else that is influencing a person to be lazy.

I'm also not talking about a person who just doesn't do the dishes tonight. That's not what I mean, and a lot of this conversation may be muddy simply due to semantics

Colegreen_c12 posted...

If someone is extremely lazy to the point of being neglectful thats a bad thing. But if someone is moderately lazy (like in the light bulb example) people are ok with it

I think if you're the lightbulb guy and think that makes you SO LAZY you're a Garfield fanboy who wants to be lazy more than actually being lazy. I don't think most of society is going to call that particularly lazy.

crap it's 3 AM and I haven't done the dishes

tbf I was busy not lazy tonight

edit: actually I was working because I put it off to the absolute last minute, so in the end it was still a result of laziness. curse you laziness

pezzicle posted...

I'm also not talking about a person who just doesn't do the dishes tonight. That's not what I mean, and a lot of this conversation may be muddy simply due to semantics

The conversation is definitely muddy due to semantics.

If you mean lazy to the point of being neglectful I 100% buy that. If you mean more mild forms of laziness I would but most people don't even bring those up in therapy cause they don't matter that much.

Like to me:
-Too lazy to apply to jobs when you need money to live=neglectful
-Too lazy to apply to jobs when you could use some extra spending money in high school=lazy

Imo its a slider with how much you prioritize the absence of exertion against the benefits of what something gets you. For example I never make my bed cause I don't see a point but others see it as being lazy. Same with the lightbulb example.

Colegreen_c12 posted...

If you mean more mild forms of laziness

I also just would never use the word lazy to describe most of these things

not making your bed just....isn't lazy to me. that isn't a word i would ever use to describe that kind of thing

in addition to that, the original idea was "do lazy people exist". I am engaging with this, and yes, semantically, as asking "are people INHERENTLY lazy" or "is lazy a character trait"

I don't believe so. I believe that you can "be lazy" every so often for a multitude of reasons and not be "a lazy person"

I sit on the couch all day sometimes and play video games and neglect doing the dishes tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm a lazy person. at least, that's how I engage with it from a language perspective.

and yes, if you are "lazy" with such consistency that it is impacting your ability to take care of yourself in really important, basic ways, then I would argue that something else is going on

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Too lazy to apply to jobs when you could use some extra spending money in high school=lazy

This is cost benefits analysis more than lazy

You value free time more than extra spending money. That's not lazy imo.

Lopen posted...

This is cost benefits analysis more than lazy

You value free time more than extra spending money. That's not lazy imo.

and this is where I think some of the muddy semantics are coming into play

I suspect that a lot of people who are challenging me would suggest that is something they would call lazy and it's just not a word I would use. Because yes, I agree, that is something else entirely. You're jus valuing your time differently. That doesn't mean, imo, that you are lazy

pezzicle posted...

not making your bed just....isn't lazy to me. that isn't a word i would ever use to describe that kind of thing

That's the thing though, it's not lazy to you but it is to someone.

Another example might be washing your sheets every week. Sure its better to do it but usually I put it off and do it every other week because.

Another way to view it might be laziness could just be described as a difference in priorities. The lazier someone is the more they value lounging/not doing anything.

pezzicle posted...

in addition to that, the original idea was "do lazy people exist". I am engaging with this, and yes, semantically, as asking "are people INHERENTLY lazy" or "is lazy a character trait"

I mean if the question is are people born lazy, no they probably aren't. That doesn't mean they aren't lazy. People aren't necessarily born mean either but they can definitely become mean. It's a product of their experiences making up who they are. I would say this qualifies as a character trait because it makes up their character. Character traits can change though, most people are significantly different as an adult then they were as a kid.

And yes therapy can help with some character traits, for example if they are lazy because of some kind of trauma or something else, you can help unpack and understand those experiences that make up who they are and help them move past them.

But I would also argue that this isn't exclusive to being lazy or even negative traits in general. For instance I bet some people are seen as driven but that too is a product of their experiences. Maybe they couldn't get any love from their parents as a child without getting straight As and it led them to work really hard at everything just to get praise and it became a trait of theirs. If they went to therapy and understood this they might dial this back if they desire to. Just like someone might be less lazy after therapy if they desire to

So to me, and imo society based on how the connotations typically are, laziness is only a problem if it's hindering you in some way. It doesn't have to go to outright "self sabotage" but if there's something you want to do or need to do and you choose to veg and watch YouTube or play video games for an extended period instead that's a problem. In the lightbulb example if you don't care about the lightbulbs it's not a problem until you actually care about the lightbulbs. (or your guests/co-habitators care) Not rushing to do things because they're there to be done doesn't make you lazy in the boogeyman stigma sense that society puts on it. Decompression time is good and healthy.

You can say that's me projecting a definition I think that's you failing to read between the lines of a definition. Either way it is semantics, yes.

that depends on agreeing upon a framework in which laziness is defined

It 100% depends on what you value

Do you value professional advancement? Do you value creativity? Do you value cleanliness? Do you value physical exertion? Do you value contribution to political movements? Do you value adherence to or spreading of religion? Do you value charity? Do you value human connection? Do you value production of goods and services?

Someone who neglects any one of those categories could be earnestly described as lazy by someone else who has a certain set of values

I do think this topic is a smaller slice of a greater discussion about free will, communism, etc etc

Lopen posted...

So to me, and imo society based on how the connotations typically are, laziness is only a problem if it's hindering you in some way. It doesn't have to go to outright "self sabotage" but if there's something you want to do or need to do and you choose to veg and watch YouTube or play video games for an extended period instead that's a problem. In the lightbulb example if you don't care about the lightbulbs it's not a problem until you actually care about the lightbulbs. (or your guests/co-habitators care) Not rushing to do things because they're there to be done doesn't make you lazy in the boogeyman stigma sense that society puts on it. Decompression time is good and healthy.

You can say that's me projecting a definition I think that's you failing to read between the lines of a definition. Either way it is semantics, yes.

By your own words you consider someone not getting a job if they don't need the money and can live off of food stamps is a cost-benefit analysis but to society it is 100% being lazy.

For the lightbulb example you can care slightly about the lightbulbs (because its less light) but not enough to change them that is 100% lazy. You would definitely prefer to have them changed them but would prefer more to not go to the effort to do it.

I feel like you have a very narrow view on what society thinks but fail to consider what individuals and actual people think. 99% I hear someone unironically calling someone else lazy its old people complaining about kids today. And it's never about people being self-neglectful or anything like that, its more like "nobody wants to work today". Which by your definition may not even be lazy.

Being lazy is boring. I would much prefer doing something than just sitting there/laying there/whatever.

Using that language I would argue generalized laziness exists when doing what you feel like doing compromises any of your other values in a meaningful way.

That's sort of what I was getting at when I said I would call "productive members of society" lazy. Say you had someone who was really into their job. Like they loved programming.

If they never stopped programming even when it was more necessary they did other things they do not like to do like basic housekeeping then I would argue they're lazy even if they're technically doing something "useful"

Colegreen_c12 posted...

By your own words you consider someone not getting a job if they don't need the money and can live off of food stamps is a cost-benefit analysis but to society it is 100% being lazy.

I would say, as someone who unwillingly has experience with this kind of budget, if someone is content to live off foodstamps there is something wrong with them mentally somewhere and it still plays to what Pezz was saying.

It's kinda like when blur mentioned his uncle who lived with his mom for 60+ years it's like "are you SURE they're just lazy here"

Lopen posted...

I would say, as someone who unwillingly has experience with this kind of budget, if someone is content to live off foodstamps there is something wrong with them mentally somewhere and it still plays to what Pezz was saying.

Sure, but you could have someone who gets 40k a year from a trust fund that refuses to work because they can afford to play games and eat (and not much more). You'll find someone who 100% agrees with him and someone who 100% thinks he is a lazy bum. It's all relative to your own personal values. I would view this person as lazy, but not quite neglectful. Sure he has enough to live off now but he's choosing to not be forward thinking. This might (and probably would be) a sign of something therapy could help with but this is kind of an extreme example.

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Sure he has enough to live off now but he's choosing to not be forward thinking. This might (and probably would be) a sign of something therapy could help with but this is kind of an extreme example.

Keep in mind Pezz never said laziness doesn't exist (technically he did but I'm getting at meaning here)

He said when it does exist it's a symptom of something else deeper down affecting the individual and not just "something that is."

Lasa actually made a perfect analogy to illustrate this unwittingly. An obese person becomes obese due to some other problem. An obese person is not obese because that's a core part of their identity.

It's the same with laziness. I agree with you on the 40k person. I think eventually the 40k person would become discontent or would have something to resolve in therapy or something else as you said. I can't say this for sure, no, but there is enough merit to the possibility that every case of genuine laziness could trace back to an actual issue in the person somewhere that I am considering it cause it does potentially make some sense in every case I personally have experienced in my life.

I think laziness is when people feel good doing one thing and are expected to do another. This expectation can come from themselves or others

I had a coworker who paid a cleaning person to do their dishes for them, and I viewed them as so damn lazy. I don't particularly enjoy doing the dishes, but I do them anyway. That makes me not lazy, right?

In the past, I devoted a lot of energy into professional work that I thought was incredibly boring and pointless, all out of fear of running out of money. I would kick myself for not being more passionate or accomplishing as much as my peers who fully drank the kool-aid. I considered myself lazy.

But is it really lazy to carve out space for yourself, rather than devote your entire brain to internet ad-tech infrastructure? Was it lazy to get into such a pointless field in the first place? I argue no- I was on a mission to earn money and survive, and I accomplished that

Is it lazy for a sick person to take a day off from work?

Back to dishes- I've discovered I'm happier in a relationship when I can identify the chore my partner hates the most, and then make it my job to do that chore. Is my girlfriend lazy for never taking out the trash or doing the dishes? I wouldn't say that. She just dislikes taking out the trash and doing the dishes. Am I lazy for rarely cooking or scrubbing the bathroom? I don't know if I'd say that, either

Is a minimum wage worker lazy for not immediately taking my order? Am I lazy for buying a coffee rather than brewing my own? Am I lazy for driving to work instead of biking? Am I lazy for not being a bodybuilder?

I worked since I graduated from college. I worked long enough to accomplish my goals. I then quit my job. Now that I'm not working, I could qualify for food stamps. Am I lazy if I do that?

I've also been told I'm lazy for not starting a family, which I think is just wrong. Those people have such a different concept of laziness than I do

Yes, because the fact that this has reached 130 posts obviously means people are protesting too much

Lopen posted...

Keep in mind Pezz never said laziness doesn't exist (technically he did but I'm getting at meaning here)

He said when it does exist it's a symptom of something else deeper down affecting the individual and not just "something that is."

Lasa actually made a perfect analogy to illustrate this unwittingly. An obese person becomes obese due to some other problem. An obese person is not obese because that's a core part of their identity.

It's the same with laziness. I agree with you on the 40k person. I think eventually the 40k person would become discontent or would have something to resolve in therapy or something else as you said. I can't say this for sure, no, but there is enough merit to the possibility that every case of genuine laziness could trace back to an actual issue in the person somewhere that I am considering it cause it does potentially make some sense in every case I personally have experienced in my life.

Yea I would concede extremely lazy people that are actually causing significant self-harm are likely due to other issues. But I would argue you could be moderately lazy (at least from someone else perspective) just due to valuing being lazy (or taking it easy) more than others.

And I would also argue that most character traits could be traced back to something in the persons past.

banananor posted...

I do think this topic is a smaller slice of a greater discussion about free will, communism, etc etc

Laziness was invented by Protestants to sell more capitalism

Kenri posted...

Laziness was invented by Protestants to sell more capitalism

Capitalism existed way before Protestants my man

masterplum posted...

Capitalism existed way before Protestants my man

...I never claimed it didn't?

(Also this is arguable.)

(Also it's a shitpost.)

Colegreen_c12 posted...

And I would also argue that most character traits could be traced back to something in the persons past.

True. But the destructive ones can be diagnosed or treated and do have a root cause somewhere. I believe that was the point Pezz was ultimately making here.

it was, maybe not wonderfully articulated

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

the idea that you're not allowed to make a judgment* about a person you know well if you're not a therapist with 12 years of experience is fucking preposterous.

"i think this person's opinion should be given credence considering many years of professional experience" =/= "if you don't have years of professional experience, you are not able to have any valid opinion on this topic"

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Also you may view a lazy person as a bad thing but I don't.

i think a lot of people view lazy as a bad thing? that's why we're talking about the connotation it has.

if you tell me "my friend greg is a lazy person" i'd be like "oh okay that doesn't sound good, i probably don't wanna rely on greg for stuff he's not gonna come through" and then you say "what no i mean he does his work perfectly fine its just he doesn't change his lightbulbs until they're all out" i'd be like "oh yeah idc about that"

people are talking a lot about the mental judgments made on "is it worth it for me to do this thing that takes effort" and the only thing i think is missing is that those judgments are not even necessarily all conscious. which is why i think a lot of "i'm lazy" comes from societal expectations, hence the example of getting a job even if you don't actually need one. you may think "i'm lazy" because you've got so many external messages saying "not having a job = lazy", but your internal calculation leads to you not getting one because, obviously if you're this trust fund kid then it's better to stay home and do something more enjoyable.

that's why "but people in this topic are admitting they're lazy!" is a bad argument - people can be wrong about what they are. like, just imagine a kid with really strict parents who works 5 hours a day on homework and extra-curriculars but their parents tell them they should be doing more, they might say "yeah i'm lazy, i don't even help with the dishes after my 5 hours of bonus study" because they've internalized it, doesn't mean they're right.

Dels posted...

that's why "but people in this topic are admitting they're lazy!" is a bad argument - people can be wrong about what they are. like, just imagine a kid with really strict parents who works 5 hours a day on homework and extra-curriculars but their parents tell them they should be doing more, they might say "yeah i'm lazy, i don't even help with the dishes after my 5 hours of bonus study" because they've internalized it, doesn't mean they're right.

this. i've had clients who work a 10 hour day, go work out, get home and just eat garbage food and make internal judgments about themselves about it as being "too lazy to even make myself proper dinner" when in reality it's because they are exhausted from how hard they push themselves and the internal narrative of "lazy" is causing a lot of harm

Dels posted...

"if you don't have years of professional experience, you are not able to have any valid opinion on this topic"

seems to me that's exactly what lopen is saying, actually. he's essentially saying my opinion is anecdotal bullshit because i don't have years of professional experience.

Nope. I'm saying you shouldn't consider your opinion to have equal weight to his (you were suggesting this, I didnt go there out of nowhere) and you're being incredibly arrogant or obtuse to even suggest it.

That doesn't mean it's worthless input, just that you're being ridiculous to suggest that I should give you equal authority here.

I also didn't ever say anecdote as a reductive term. I just said that's literally what it is (and that Pezz's experience is well outside the bounds of what I'd consider anecdotal) you were the one who was trying to use it to be dismissive (and then literally turned around and used an anecdote to try to give yourself credibility like lol)

Lopen posted...

Nope. I'm saying you shouldn't consider your opinion to have equal weight to his (you were suggesting this, I didnt go there out of nowhere) and you're being incredibly arrogant or obtuse to even suggest it.

let's break this down then.

1. my opinion is that inherently lazy people exist.
2. pezzicle's opinion is that inherently lazy people do not exist.
3. my opinion holds less weight than pezzicle's opinion.
4. ...still, my opinion somehow has merit?

like, you can't say all of these things at the same time. basically, pezz is saying that the sky is blue and i'm saying that it's purple. we can't both be right. if i disagree with pezz, and my opinion holds less weight than pezz's, the logical conclusion would be that my opinion is bullshit.

I'm saying there is more to the discussion than who has more authority. I do not feel you've articulated your side in a convincing enough way that I am doubting Pezz's hypothesis can at least plausibly be correct.

Like say Pezz was saying the sky was purple and was a 12 year expert in color theory but I can clearly see its blue and you present an argument as to why he might mistakenly see it as purple, then yeah. No points you've made really counter anything he's said though. You just have an opinion on the matter and are using anecdotes as your primary point and I don't find it particularly convincing that's all.

There are two points here

1. The discussion, the points being made. You'll note I talked to Cole quite a bit about the nature of society's perception and what is considered laziness. It is not as though I'm just trying to openly dismiss anything and everything because pezz said otherwise.
2. You being petulant about whether his experience matters and whether yours matters as much

You need to take the L on the latter rather than continuing to drag it along and focus on the former if you want to have useful discussion here because on the experience point you're just being patently ridiculous on that. Yes his experience matters more than an anecdote. Yes you were being thoroughly silly to say it didn't. No that doesn't mean you can't talk about the topic.

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

let's break this down then.

1. my opinion is that inherently lazy people exist.
2. pezzicle's opinion is that inherently lazy people do not exist.
3. my opinion holds less weight than pezzicle's opinion.
4. ...still, my opinion somehow has merit?

like, you can't say all of these things at the same time. basically, pezz is saying that the sky is blue and i'm saying that it's purple. we can't both be right. if i disagree with pezz, and my opinion holds less weight than pezz's, the logical conclusion would be that my opinion is bullshit.

this is very black and white

the color of the sky is a very different conversation than "do lazy people exist". The spectrum of thought and analysis on this is drastically larger than that of your example of the sky

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

let's break this down then.

1. my opinion is that inherently lazy people exist.
2. pezzicle's opinion is that inherently lazy people do not exist.
3. my opinion holds less weight than pezzicle's opinion.
4. ...still, my opinion somehow has merit?

like, you can't say all of these things at the same time. basically, pezz is saying that the sky is blue and i'm saying that it's purple. we can't both be right. if i disagree with pezz, and my opinion holds less weight than pezz's, the logical conclusion would be that my opinion is bullshit.

i don't understand why you see it this way. how are you defining "merit"? saying something has merit or holds weight doesn't mean you've locked it in as the correct answer. in a nuanced debate, multiple opinions can have merit.

Dels posted...

i think a lot of people view lazy as a bad thing? that's why we're talking about the connotation it has.

if you tell me "my friend greg is a lazy person" i'd be like "oh okay that doesn't sound good, i probably don't wanna rely on greg for stuff he's not gonna come through" and then you say "what no i mean he does his work perfectly fine its just he doesn't change his lightbulbs until they're all out" i'd be like "oh yeah idc about that"

I feel like you and conflating lazy = unreliable.

I have a super unreliable friend, late constantly but I wouldn't call him lazy. I have a super lazy friend about doing things important to his life but he's super reliable if we're ever going to hang out.

But at this point I think it's clear that its really just a matter of definition and whether something that can theoretically change can be considered a character trait