Why do some of you guys claim there's no such thing as "Smart but lazy"?

Mine is: smart but depressed.
>If you were smart you would realize that there is no excuse to be lazy
depression doesn't work that way. There's no lack of understanding that hard work goes a long ways, there's a lack of motivation to do anything, including getting out of bed.

What if I'm just disappointed that no matter how much I study there's so much to know that I know that I can't memorize everything? What's the cure for that?

If that person did everything that was tasked of them, no one would ever accuse them of being lazy. You don't see laziness, you see incompetence.

No because that idiot can't see how important his gift is

That "smart" child cannot understand how important his efforts could guide the world. Hence he's an idiot

The only way out of it is if he's actively trying to go against humanity

no one is born smart, you become smart by making smart choices; ergo smart people can't be lazy because lazy people never actualize their potential.

nobody on /a/ has ever managed to figure out what that scene with the gun actually means

maybe Veeky Forums is smart enough?

if you were smart you wouldn't be lazy

it's not a real thing. it's only true if you get an official public accolade from the scientific community for being "smart but lazy".

but if you self describe it, or your friend describes you, or your family describes you as smart but lazy, they're really just saying "get a job you piece of shit"

What if I think I'm dumb and I'm also lazy? I also think I'm dumb because smart people are out there making billions.

> you become smart by making smart choices
if you say so...I thought it was because I'm obsessive and can't sleep if I don't know the answer to that one problem.

I don't believe that intelligence precludes a lack of motivation. If somebody wants to become financially successful and doesn't put effort or planning towards it, then you could say that they aren't smart, but if they don't have any goal that they aim to accomplish they have no need to exert any effort. It's not like being intelligent requires you to have a desire to further/change the human race as a whole.

Still, I suppose a person devoted to educating oneself would end up more intelligent than somebody originally identical who didn't have the same effort. You could say, then, that hard work can contribute greatly to intelligence and is almost always necessary for being intellectually/academically advanced.

I still think she wanted to kill herself.
It might be the absurdity of searching for the book only to find it hollowed out, but a gun? Why a gun unless the gun means something? Also the tone the whole skit had wasn't a funny one either, it was depressing and somber.

Because sci and everyone in this thread makes stupid unjustified claims all day everyday. Note:

There are two kinds of laziness.
The first kind, which people, and especially normies, think of immediately is better known as sloth. Sloth gets you nowhere. You just don't do things. Lots of stupid people claim that they're ``smart but lazy'', but in reality they're merely stupid and slothful.

The second type of laziness is merely cost reduction. Smart people who have a strong understanding of the fundamentals of a subject and can flexibly apply ideas to new situations are able to realize that they can get away with doing less work.

So in short, ``smart but lazy'' most often describes stupid and slothful people, and very rarely (if at all) smart and productive people who constantly perform cost reduction measures in their daily lives. The term `lazy' is a misnomer for these kinds of people and is undoubtedly a source of confusion for stupid people everywhere.
Like here.

webmd.com/depression/guide/detecting-depression

there ya go bud. I assume most people know the symptoms of something so common but I guess I overestimated sci, somehow.

This post is right.
I've known a lot of people who scored top marks in exams but didn't feel they worked that hard for it, in all likelihood because they are just efficient at learning things and studying due to natural ability.

wtf kind of bullshit amateur level reasoning is this? I didn't know they stacked fallacies that high.

A nice example would be NGNL

I am not a clever man.

However, I am not so unclever that it could account for my lack of success in life. Even if I appear lazy, I am in fact strongly motivated.

I can't keep up. Tasks pile up as I get more fatigued. I cannot process fast enough. I can't keep friendships. My life is shit.

It's strange, because even the most stupid people I know are more succesful.

>life is meaningless meme
oh god, yes!

i know they are required, but i haven't been able to make it my routine.

I considered myself smart but lazy. Then I got ADHD meds, now I consider myself hard working and about as smart as the rest of my peers.

If you're "smart but lazy" and not just "dumb but duning kruger", you might have brain damage like me

The "brain damage" that makes you resistant to negative emotional reinforcement by communication (aka "socially stupid") can actually be hugely beneficial for learning advanced concepts. It's just that those people are so darn difficult to manage. Because well... they don't respond to any of my favourite steering tricks.

It could be that he is smart enough to realize all the obstacles for him in helping out so he just loses motivation to try. What good is it for me to build awesome stuff if it will just be used by superficial egoistic pricks to make money or powermad barons in building deadly weapons or abusive surveillance equipment.

If I don't do anything at all, at least I won't give the evil people the tools to be more efficient in their evildoing.

Why are you guys so hung up on what people claim? Yeah people are liars, who cares?

Point is, there is no reason someone cannot fall under your that bracket as "smart but slothful" because being motivated and being unintelligent are not mutually exclusive.

I would consider myself a procrastinator, still about to get my msc degree tho

There is smart buy lazy. I'm a math major. I go to school with a guy who is the biggest stoner ive ever known but he's got a very gifted brain. He doesn't know much bevause he never does work, but he's very adept at problem solving. He is very good at Putnam problems and problem solving in general... Skims notes two hours before class and aces tests (this was in senior year algebra, graduate analysis, not just lower year undergrad classes). He won the genetic lottery.

Yet he wastes it in weed, while the rest of us suffer through life being a brainlet. Life truly is nothing but suffering.

this might be one of the stupidest things i've ever read and i'm desperately hoping it's bait

>Why do some of you guys claim there's no such thing as "Smart but lazy"?

How would someone know if they were smart if they were too lazy to prove it?

the base assumption I feel some of you are making here is that intelligence= ability to observe reality and act upon it, absolutely not true. even the simple can exercise wisdom.

Here's what I've personally observed: people from both extremes, incredibly dumb AND incredibly smart, are easily mislead.

Less intelligent people are less likely to successfully discern anything from the world.
They're trapped by their genetic circumstance.

More intelligent individuals may have the advantage of a high capacity for observance, reasoning, and/or association of external information, but it's what they internally do with this information that can lead to being simultaneously smart AND lazy.

in other words dumb people don't have the same ability to see the truth as intelligent people, but intelligent people can be really fucking good at creating internal mental conditions that somehow take truth and, by the times it's gone through their shitshow of a personal ideology, convert it to something like unfettered progressivism.

he's completely correct, however the stoics put it better.

"In he morning when thou risest unwillingly, let this thought be present- I am rising to the work of a human being. Why then am I dissatisfied if I am going to do the things for which I exist and for which I was brought into the world? Or have I been made for this, to lie in the bed-clothes and keep myself warm?- But this is more pleasant.- Dost thou exist then to take thy pleasure, and not at all for action or exertion? Dost thou not see the little plants, the little birds, the ants, the spiders, the bees working together to put in order their several parts of the universe? And art thou unwilling to do the work of a human being, and dost thou not make haste to do that which is according to thy nature?- But it is necessary to take rest also.- It is necessary: however nature has fixed bounds to this too: she has fixed bounds both to eating and drinking, and yet thou goest beyond these bounds, beyond what is sufficient; yet in thy acts it is not so, but thou stoppest short of what thou canst do. So thou lovest not thyself, for if thou didst, thou wouldst love thy nature and her will. But those who love their several arts exhaust themselves in working at them unwashed and without food; but thou valuest thy own own nature less than the turner values the turning art, or the dancer the dancing art, or the lover of money values his money, or the vainglorious man his little glory. And such men, when they have a violent affection to a thing, choose neither to eat nor to sleep rather than to perfect the things which they care for. But are the acts which concern society more vile in thy eyes and less worthy of thy labour? "

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”

Kind of describes me, fampai.

I breezed through high school with a 4.0, and got my bachelors in astrophysics in two years. I described myself as "lazy" because I wasn't use to studying, i took 15 minutes tops on important tests when I was in high school, so I wasn't really familiar with forcing myself to sit down on focus.

So I sort of lacked the willpower to really try in my classes, and often got by with the minimum amount of effort. Sure I'm not completely slothful, but I was very lazy at times.

You are correct that being smart and slothful are not mutually exclusive, but the problem is that you are trying to apply the statement "smart but lazy" as widely as possible.
You need to think about the people who use the statement. They make claims that they ``could get good grades in class'' if they really tried, but are afraid to put in actual effort in fear of failure, so they simply do the minimum to pass.

This would be perfectly fine if this phenomenon was limited to themselves. The actual problem is that people buy into this crap and think that they can and should be stupid and slothful as well.

I do think work ethic is distinct from intellect, but at the same time a lot of people use it as an excuse.

I thought I was smart but lazy. It turned out I was smart but had crippling OCD.

jury is still out on lazy

Because anyone who calls themselves "smart" is usually quite far from the truth.

A smart person knows they aren't really "smart" until they understand everything they could ever want/need to know, and how to use that knowledge to its fullest potential. Since those goals are literally impossible (especially if you truly hunger for knowledge), a smart person would never consider themselves "smart" because they know there is always more to learn. You can't go showing off your trophy before you've finished the race.

Anyone who thinks they're "smart" usually sees it as an accomplishment. They're smart, so they don't need to learn anything. They already did their learning, and it made them smart. Smart people already know lots of things, so they don't need to learn! Learning is for dumb people who aren't smart! Then when they get called out on their shit, they bust out the old excuse "Well I'm smart, but I'm really lazy :)"

In actuality, smart and lazy (I wouldn't use the word 'but') people exist. If you've ever heard of someone who works smart instead of working hard, that's smart and lazy. Sure, the smart guy COULD have rolled up his sleeves and put his back into it, he COULD have put in the hours of overtime to get it done, he COULD have trained for hours or days beforehand to tackle some obstacle, but the smart guy is lazy and doesn't like hard work, so he finds/makes a tool to do the task with little effort. He managed to achieve the same result with less effort, not necessarily because it was simpler or easier, but because it meant he didn't have to get sweaty.

For example, you can get up and walk over to the TV to change the volume, but who's going to cheer for that extra work? Where's your extra reward for the extra effort? Where's your pat on the back for doing it the hard way? Where's your thanks? If it's all the same, why not just use the remote? Because it lacks "honor" or "dignity"? That just says you never had those two things to begin with.

Prioritization of memory.

If you just stop thinking about and forget a bunch of useless bullshit (seriously, do you really need to remember the proper timing for Zangief's ultra combo? Is that really helping you in life?), you tend to have more "working space" for important things. If you just focus on the stuff you have to study and just think about it all the time, it all suddenly fits together. It all "makes sense" because you know exactly why one thing results in another thing, and how that resultant thing affects further related things etc. From there, you only need a hint at one piece for the rest of the puzzle to link together in your mind.

For instance, you could memorize multiplication table after multiplication table and fill your working space with rote memories of every individual instance of one number multiplied by another, OR, once you've gotten a good handle on the concept, you could just know how multiplication works, and then you don't need to remember the tables, you can just slap any two numbers in there and you know what will come out the other side, or at least how to get something to come out the other side.

It would be more accurate to say, "Laziness is a kind of stupidity."