Talk:Laziness

Poetic?

Maybe something poetic like "Laziness is the strongest emotional feeling human being can experience..." ?

REPLY: Except that many would disagree. :) Laziness is not an emotion, but it does CAUSE emotions -- mainly the emotions of depression and guilt. (That's what researchers into happiness have found.) I do know what you mean though -- the writing could be improved. I'm working on it. I visit this page every day. Wikidudeguy 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Wikidudeguy

Laziness is a major term, so I was surprised to see that this article is still a stub. I thought I would extend it and improve it a bit, but then I realized I couldn't possibly bother. Haakon 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have expanded this article, but I can't be arsed. 86.56.48.12 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Procrastination

Hey, if you get a chance, could you take a look at procrastination? -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it? We all know this is an important article, but we're too lazy to make it half decent. I'll add that laziness is often connected with procrastination and a generally unconcerned paradigm.142.179.73.102 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No wonder this article is a stub

'cause everyone is just way too lazy to write about laziness :) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.186.19 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you. :P I came in here to write the exact same thing.Martian Kyo (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

attempt at definition

Laziness is the tendency ...

• 1) to prefer smaller immediate rewards to a potentially greater, future ones.
• 2) to seek the satisfaction of "lowly" animal desires instead of morally superior (usually cultural) ones.

DUDE there is much more on the subject of laziness, but whoever wrote the main page was too lazy to finish it. hardy har har.

to do something in a lazy, laid back manner, but does not indicate the person is being lazy - 'I was mooching around town whilst trying to come up with ideas for my new book', for instance

mooch can also mean a person who feeds off the resources of another without contributing for example "that mooch always eats the pizza but never pays for any"

Webster's Third New International Dictionary describes lazy as disliking physical or mental exertion, and not energetic or vigorous; moving slowly and without or as if without energy; not easily aroused to responsible, purposeful activity; an aversion to work and a habitual tendency to idleness. The word describes my natural energy-level; yet has been used all of my life as if it were wrong. Such dislike of me I consider threatening. Welfare to Work and other policies that try to get everyone to keep up with the hyperactive and the larger-than-life are a major injustice and the #1 cause of homelessness, and an article on laziness ought to point that out. -- Chuck Marean 07:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, this is what we call original research. You are taking a verifiable fact (Webster's dictionary definition) and drawing your own conclusion from it. That is not the conclusion that the vast majority of people would draw; Welfare to Work is nothing to do with laziness and your conclusion about homelessness is obviously wrong: homelessness predates the Welfare to Work act by at least thousands of years. You cannot add your own personal interpretations of facts to articles. Gwernol 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Welfare to Work ( a U.S. welfare program that requires people to work for their welfare checks) is an expression of uninformed prejudice against the lazy, an attempt to force weak people to work harder than they can. I also think if someone finds something published that agrees with compassion toward the lazy it should be included in an article on laziness. What the vast majority thinks is not always as important as the truth. -- Chuck Marean 07:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck you need to distinguish between an inability to do work, for example because of disability, and people who are capable of work but decide not to. The latter category is generally regarded as "lazy". Welfare to Work, along with other similar programs, generally recognizes medical conditions as a reason not to require people to work. Your assertion that Welfare to Work is "uninformed prejudice against the lazy" is simply your opinion and should not be added to the article. Gwernol 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom and showing proper respect are more reasons not to require people to work. -- Chuck Marean 08:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - the freedom to earn money without having it stolen and given to the lazy. Good point, Chuck. 72.144.198.53 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Overcoming Laziness" blog seems to think laziness is procrastination by people at work 65.214.186.214 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there laziness?

I question whether or not there is laziness, since it's really a word invented to be an insult. Therefore, I'm changing 'generally considered a negative quality' to 'probably considered by the hyperactive to exist.' -- Chuck Marean 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Yes, there is laziness. I reverted your change becuase "generally considered..." is a much more accurate description of what laziness is commonly considered. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, simply stating "Yes, there is laziness" is not proof to the contrary. This is merely my own thought, wikipedia should not reflect a single users opinion however. Resaebiunne 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am more in agreement with Chuck. What has been historically and popularly called "laziness" is most likely a form of mental illness, which would indeed be a form of human weakness, or disability. As a society, we don't question the morality of a person who is confined to a wheelchair, yet, we persist in condemning those who are too "lazy" (irrational; insane; mentally-handicapped) to even get a job to avoid going to jail (such as is the case for those on probation, not paying child support, etc.). Do we condemn people for jumping off buildings because they are so troubled they really think they can fly, because suicide is still the result, and all that ultimately matters are the consequences of our actions, the end results? I'm going to sign this now because what I typed before (perhaps on the "Workaholism:Talk" page) was thoroughly obliterated (deleted) and I can't even find it on the "History" section.Shanoman 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think laziness does not exist as it's own problem, but that it is simply a symptom of other problems. Problems such as fear, anxiety, etc. --SRG805 10:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dean Moxham

I have never heard of anything laziness-related named 'Dean Moxham' and am removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.202.169 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Laziness in the Bible

81.145.242.139 (talk · contribs) just removed the bible section, and i restored it because i think it's valuable and relevant. If anyone else thinks it should go, please let me know what you see as wrong with the section, and i'll do my best to fix it. Foobaz·o< 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is irrelevant to everyday life, as it is not a scientific document. As of yet, there is hardly information associated with the Bible other than a mild declaration that the Bible has few lines against laziness. Unless you have particular anecdotes therefrom which are a worthwhile read, then the Bible section should be removed. EDIT-- Line removed. The intro sums up the Christian stance against laziness already. I hardly see the need to waste time with a section devoted to three sentences. --70.136.192.141 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the section is valuable, especially for those who don't know much about the Bible. However, since two people have now removed it, i won't attempt to go against popular opinion by putting it back. And if you think only scientific documents have relevance to your life, what do you believe about philosophy, ethics, art, and religion? Do you believe science is complete, a finished system describing everything? It's very much a work in progress. Foobaz·o< 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is an historical document, and arguably a sociological one as well. It's a decent enough source, if the intent is to show how a particular culture or group of cultures has viewed laziness. In any case, I fail to see where its lack of merit as a scientific document has any relevance to this article. Last I checked, such sources as the New York Times were not scientific documents, either. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it belongs. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I readded this as part of a larger "In Philosophies and Religions" section, merging the lead's comment on Christianity there (diff). I believe this addresses the objections apart from User:70.136.192.141's personal opinions about the Bible. Please add other notable philosophical stances, within the normal standards. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs 18:9 says, "One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys." This is a much stronger statement than any in the article. 206.123.253.82 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia style

"An example of laziness would be a perfectly healthy person living at home with ones parents until the age of thirty years without the desire to get a job or find a career in ones life being in all ways dependent on ones parents for support." This seems to be written as an attack on a particular person, and at least contributes nothing to the article. Removed until anyone sees fit to add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.192.141 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a Note

Does anyone else find it nearly as humorous as I that the article is very short? In fact, the discussion dwarfs it considerably... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.187.58 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Christian the only philosophy represented in this "definition"? The cultural opinions of everyone else are ignored. The definition is too simple. What's with the creepy personal discussion in attempt a definition? Something went wrong here when Dean Moxham couldn't be knocked off. I think its funny, but since most people aren't on the inside of that joke, it should be removed. $$$/132.198.240.170 04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good research proposal: Is laziness considered negative behaviour in other religions? Go for it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to structure the "philosophy/religion" content so as to make this easier. A philosophy that promotes laziness as very desirable behaviour would be an especially interesting addition, if anyone knows of any. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Recluse link

I don't think this artical should link to recluse. Just because someone is reclusive doesn't make them lazy. I don't see the connection. Could someone explain this to me? I'm going to remove the Recluse link for now.

Sontag12 —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a big difference (and not necessarily a connection) between "laziness" and "recluse", but because there seems to be a strong correlation in the minds of so many, shouldn't it be included, so that the two terms may be contrasted? I think the reason that so many people [mostly erroneously] associate the two is that "recluse" sounds something like "recline", and they mentally picture somebody literally laying back, or "kicking back". Also, people tend to strongly associate recluses with dilettantes (who only dabble or dilly-dally around instead of "getting down-to-business"), since so much of what is valued in modern western society comes from people working constantly, keeping appointments, staying on schedule, keeping busy, doing what others expect of us, etc., so it is only natural that many would assume that all recluses live in constant leisure and relaxation (I think they might be secretly jealous!) Shanoman (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The mystery of laziness

What is the evolutionary explanation of laziness? It is understandable why a lion would wish to conserve energy by remain idle been hunts. But do mental tasks require much energy? If not, why, then, is there often a greater desire to engage in nonproductive sedentary activities than in productive sedentary activities? ...Why might a student, for instance, choose playing a video game over doing homework? Maybe it has something to do with this, but I would think that people, being incentive-driven animals capable of seeking after long-term payoffs, would still be able to prioritize activities accordingly. Yet often people resort to self-defeating procrastination. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't really answer your question, but I nevertheless would like to point out that a student choosing to play video games instead of studying is hardly lazy—other factors surely are in place here. Evolutionary, the human body reacts to immediate danger and to immediate pleasure; realizing payoffs/dangers which are farther into the future is hardly instinctive, it requires a mental effort. With the said student, s/he has a choice between long-term benefits and immediate pleasure, so the body's natural reaction would be to choose pleasure, no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2010; 18:20 (UTC)

That mechanism certainly would appear to be at work. Indeed, as the deferred gratification article notes, "In formal terms of accounting, an individual should calculate net present value of future rewards and defer near-term rewards of lesser value. Extensive research has shown that animals don't do this, but instead apply hyperbolic discounting, so this problem is fundamental to human nature." On the other hand, enrolling in school at all (except for compulsory education) could be considered deferring gratification, and people defer gratification in many other ways. For example, they put money away in a 401k that they can't access without penalties until age 59½, rather than spending it immediately. And yet, the same people might indulge in some laziness (or idleness, or whatever one wants to call it) from time to time, even though it would seemingly produce suboptimal results. Perhaps it is not so for animals, but I think in the case of humans, there is almost always something to be gained from working harder, and there is almost always something productive one could be doing. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 19:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Humans aren't Vulcans :) Sometimes they defer gratification, sometime they engage in "idleness" instead. Clearly, if humans were perfectly logical, markets would be working just the way the economic theory says they should be, not the convoluted f*k'd up way they are "working" now. Anyway, I wonder if there any studies of this phenomenon exist...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2010; 20:13 (UTC)

Then the question arises, why don't humans behave like Vulcans? How did we come to be illogical? There must be some explanation in nature, nurture or present environment (which maybe is the same thing as nurture?) Presumably, if being logical is the optimal course of action, then logical individuals should have prospered and had greater opportunities to survive and reproduce and thereby beat out the illogical competition. So perhaps there is some advantage to being illogical in certain circumstances. I wasn't able to dig up much on JSTOR, Springer LINK or Google Scholar... Tisane ^talk/_stalk 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Laziness? Or just plain incompetence?

This article meets very few of Wikipedia's guidelines. The Leonard Carmichael quote seems to be misplaced, and the fact that Carmichael's personal wiki page incorporates a single solid source at druglibrary.org does not help the notability. It would take very little effort to accurately ascribe laziness to the (actually demonstrated) factors that cause and sustain it, such as Hyperbolic discounting. There is no such thing as "laziness" in psychology, but all behavior frequently attributed to it has some kind of explanation. It is only appropriate that we provide this explanation. 85.167.119.115 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Laziness as a virtue

Larry Wall says that Laziness is a great virtue for programmers:

"Laziness: The quality that makes you go to great effort to reduce overall energy expenditure. It makes you write labor-saving programs that other people will find useful, and document what you wrote so you don't have to answer so many questions about it. Hence, the first great virtue of a programmer."

-- http://www.hhhh.org/wiml/virtues.html

It seems like this should be mentioned somewhere.

RichMorin (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Laziness in computer science

Computer science has notions such as Lazy evaluation (sometimes implemented, as in Clojure, by "lazy data structures". This should be mentioned on this page.

RichMorin (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Add here?

• A map of sloth; Counting the world's couch potatoes July 18th 2012, regarding July 18th Lancet (journal) paper.

99.112.212.152 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary perspective of laziness

http://www.kortexplores.com/node/46

This is a well written article on why laziness (together with greed, although humans are evolved much more towards laziness and out of greed) gives rise to high level function of human intelligence and evolved thereafter.

Can someone contribute an evolutionary perspective of human laziness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otivaeey (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Pathology ?

Laziness may also be a by-product of many underlying mental health issues and forms of psychopathology such as depression, ADHD, sleep disorders, and schizophrenia,[3][4] in which case it is known as avolition. Are you serious as weed will lead you to heroin ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.137.29 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Freud reference

The second paragraph begins with a reference to Freud's pleasure principle. The linked article says nothing about laziness. Is the implication that "laziness" does appear in the table of contents of one of Freud's books? Which one? Even so, that fact seems not to merit the "despite," for the claim to which it counts as counter-evidence is that "laziness" does not appear in the tables of content of most technical books. So, it's a confusing reference and I think should probably be removed. Or at least clarified. Or am I just being thick? dweinberger 13:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

Psychology Citations

Several of the citations included the Psychology section are unrelated to the topic. The statement "Thomas Goetz, University of Konstanz, Germany, and John Eastwood, York University, Canada, concur that aversive states such as laziness can be equally adaptive for making change" does not link to any research from Thomas Goetz and John Eastwood, but instead links to a YouTube video of "Who Moved My Cheese."

The next line includes a quotation with no citation: "being mindful and not looking for ways out of it, simultaneously to be also open to creative and active options if they should arise."

The line following states: "They point out that a relentless engaging in activities without breaks can cause oscillations of failure". This sentence contains a grammatical error, it should read "They point out that a relentless engagement in activities..." In addition, "oscillations of failure" is a phrase I can find no meaningful definition of. Perhaps this behavior does cause failure in some way, but how has not been explained. This section links to a TED video regarding fairness perceptions in primates.

--Jspain90 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Misoponia

Misoponia redirects here, but the term appears nowhere on the page. Seems like it should. 136.62.144.170 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

citation 8

what is meant by 'Peter, University of Calgary'? Is Peter just some guy who used to go there? I can't find any article relating to ADHD with this Adhiyana (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

False, hidden equivalence of indifference and schizoid personality dsiorder

In the phrase "It has also been shown that laziness can render one apathetic to reactant mental health issues such as anger, anxiety, indifference, substance abuse, and depression." each thing from anger to the end is a hyperlink to their respective Wikipedia page, except indifference, which is a hyperlink to the page for schizoid personality disorder, thus making an equivalence between pathological indifference and SzPD. While it is true that the DSM-5 conceptualisation of SzPD (not the psychoanalytic conceptualisation) involves indifference to others and to the outside world in general, equivalating it with pathological indifference is reductionist to the point of being wrong. I'd be interested to hear any justification for making this equivalence. Anditres (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

World's laziest person

Basharat aziz dar is the worlds laziest person according to the oral history of the native village as well as the survey of district administration kupwara.currently he is living in srignar in sepration. Jk Nasir khan4233 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)