Is "smart but lazy" even possible?

Is "smart but lazy" even possible?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale
psytech.com/Content/Research/Conscientiousness-and-Intelligence-2004.pdf)
jimkwik.com
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale

4

A common brainlet excuse, not so common in reality though.

Possible, but 99% of the people who refer to themselves as smart but lazy are brainlets.

t. smart but lazy

Think it's called "math", which at times was/is called "disobedience"

>Stephen Smale
>lazy
No.

yes

>is sophomore and junior years were marred with mediocre grades, mostly Bs, Cs and even an F in nuclear physics. However, with some luck, Smale was accepted as a graduate student at the University of Michigan's mathematics department. Yet again, Smale performed poorly in his first years, earning a C average as a graduate student. It was only when the department chair, Hildebrandt, threatened to kick Smale out that he began to work hard.

not really. people who are really smart find most intellectual tasks trivially easy, so being "lazy" isn't an excuse.

the true "smart but lazy" guys are the ones who never show up to class, never do the homework, but still ace the class after perusing the book for 20 minutes.

He wasn't smart back then, ya genius.

Lazy people don't do easy things all the time though.

Yes. In fact conscientiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence, which means more intelligent people are on average less industrious than less intelligent people.

Though the negative correlation isn't that strong (see psytech.com/Content/Research/Conscientiousness-and-Intelligence-2004.pdf)

>tfw NEET
Am I a genius?

>He wasn't smart back then, ya genius.

> Initially, he was a good student, placing into an honors calculus sequence taught by Bob Thrall and earning himself A's.

Possible but unlikely.

It's not that lazy people are intelligent, it's just that intelligent people are slightly more likely to be lazy.

Conscientiousness is not industriousness.

Kek Stephen Smale was smart, then became a lazy dumbarse, then started growing some grey brain mass again. The point is that he wasn't smart Whilst being lazy.

>Conscientiousness is not industriousness.
It literally is per the psychological definition.

(or rather it's a component of it, alongside impulse control, reliability, orderliness, and one other I forgot...)

No, It's a brainlet excuse

Oh Oh You heard conscientiousness is industriousness or at least a component, oh now I believe it mate, now it's settled, now it all makes sense. That was a great argument, you know

black dick

I've linked an article you drooling retard.

And if you don't know the definitions of Psychology 101 terms either pick up a textbook about it or shut your brainlet mouth before trying to correct someone on topics you know nothing about.

Ahahahaha, no, I won't let psychology fuck with real science.

Depends entirely on what you mean by the word "smart".

Do you mean high IQ but lazy? Those people do exist and are surprisingly common.

Do you mean lots of higher education and diplomas but lazy? That one is arguably impossible but there are plenty of people that stick in academia as long as possible and collect student aid to avoid getting a real job.

I'm sure Veeky Forums means to use their special magic definition of intelligence which is completely untraceable and unmeasurable that they invented exclusively s that they could ignore the existance of IQ tests, though.

This has the advantage that they can make any stupid arbitrary claim about intelligence and not have to back it up with data, such as saying "smart but lazy doesn't exist"

And what 'real science' do you propose to use to study the relationship between intelligence and laziness?

tl;dr: fuck off

>Do you mean high IQ but lazy? Those people do exist and are surprisingly common.
literally me
At 138 I feel like I should have enough common sense to do what's best for me, but I don't.

Let's start with just plain consistent Logic, how about that?

I'm talking about IQ and laziness. And I ponder if researchers remember that they have to create an algorithm concerned with the final product and not really the effort, because IQ will basically translate into efficiency, that is, a smart person will be able to do the same thing with less work. Now if psychology researchers are simply taking how many hours of hard work one puts in tasks, which is what I think they are doing, then of course smart people will look lazy. Consider the simple fact that these people are dumber than the people they are researching, isn't that just problematic? A subject might say "Hey this is wrong" and the psychologist might answer with "Hey I'm the psychologist, bro"

If you just want to see some people with 130+ IQ but do fucking nothing with their life and just sit at home playing videogames and watching porn, then what you're looking for is about half the userbase of Veeky Forums.

Even lazy people will tend to take IQ tests somewhat seriously and give it a good try for the sake of their ego, so I don't think being so lazy that they fuck up IQ test statistics.

>130+ IQ
>userbase of Veeky Forums.

It's the most common. Most smart people are just slightly successful because they are lazy.

Well, I took this after work the other day, and I work part time for minimum wage at 26 years old because I'd rather spend my day shitposting on Siberian chocolate making forums than busting my balls so Mr. Noseburg can buy himself another yacht.

There's plenty of people smarter than me out there, and plenty of people lazier, but I think I tend more towards smart than dumb and more towards lazy than industrious.

I unironically think that the average IQ of Veeky Forums is somewhere around 120

brainlets aren't ever going to click on a science and math board. Even the trolling "pretending to be retarded" here shows above average knowledge and reasoning skills.

I really don't think you are on the 98 percentile

>on the
tooshay

...

considering 80% of the posts on this godforsaken board, I'd put Veeky Forums average IQ at 95 at best

>Is "smart but lazy" even possible?
only if you know how to do things your co-workers don't know how to do.

in college no, its bullshit because everyone knows how to do at least as much as you, and you're not getting paid.

Yes it is. I'm a really smart guy, but I absolutely hate doing practical work. Either I get someone to do the work as I say, or I just don't finish it.

That's fine, I've never claimed any sort of vastly superior intellect. I'm pretty solidly in the top 20% of intelligence and bottom 20% of motivation, though.

I'm also a little curious what gives you the idea that you can exactly pin down my relative intelligence based on two sentences that I wrote.

intelligent? sure.
plenty of people are intelligent but unable to act on it due to mental illness.

internet and phone IQ tests don't make very much money when they tell people they are stupid.

what Im trying to say is youre stupid.

If Mensa is just looking for membership dues, why not skew the paper tests as well?

>what gives you the idea that you can exactly pin down my relative intelligence based on two sentences that I wrote
Like you said, you are lazy. I mean, consider the information that you just gave me: "20% of intelligence" you meant percentile/percentage not percent here which suggests you are not familiar with all this; "20% of motivation" I don't think there is an inverse relation, my friend, which is what you are suggesting here. You literally pulled this out of your Ear, do you expect anyone to take it that you are one the brightest minds in the world?

>somehow this brain is really smart but it can't figure out how to move much

>doesn't know how brains and bodies work
the brain literally has its own section for handling that completely different function.

>what is hierarchy of parts
This fucking guy kek

Yeah I'm sure the moving part of the brain works on its own, it's just out of your control

That's retarded and you type like a moron to boot.

>I don't think there is an inverse relation, my friend, which is what you are suggesting here.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that I personally have well above average intelligence and well below average motivation. My point isn't that most or even many intelligent people are unmotivated, it's that intelligence and motivation aren't inextricably linked in such a way that it's impossible to be smart and lazy at the same time.

OP posits that all swans are white. I point out that I am, in fact, a black swan, without making any value judgements regarding blackness or swanness. You say that I'm actually a duck and I'm trying to claim that all swans are black. It's so far from anything that I actually said that I'm struggling to understand your position.

>You literally pulled this out of your Ear,
Sort of. I based it on a test that put me in the 98th percentile, and I figured claiming ">80th percentile" would allow me sufficient margin of error for purposes of shitposting on 4chinz. Is it my estimation of my relative laziness you're contesting?

>do you expect anyone to take it that you are one the brightest minds in the world?
Well, no, not really. There's at least 150 million people more intelligent than I, and many more that are less intelligent but better educated. There's also a lot of people less intelligent and less educated that are nonetheless far more creative and innovative than I am.

If you want to make the claim that I'm some sort of special snowflake and I'm ruining the world by not applying myself, go ahead, that's your prerogative. Just keep in mind that you're the one fetishizing IQ, not me.

Sure, but "smart but lazy" might as well be synonymous with "useless"

>You say that I'm actually a duck
No, following your Aristotelian axioms I'm saying you are a white swan.
>Is it my estimation of my relative laziness you're contesting?
Yes.

No, I think that you are not as smart as you think, nor as lazy. You could be thinking you are really lazy when in fact you are not so lazy. I think you make choices according to what you would expect someone with your intelligence to take, but have you ever thought that you are very close to the median of your age, sex, and race group scores?

who is stephen hawking? are you even trying?

Black holes don't exist. Hawking isn't so smart now huh?

People don't just become smarter and then dumber back and forth

>You could be thinking you are really lazy when in fact you are not so lazy.
I think we'll need to define laziness to continue this discussion.

>have you ever thought that you are very close to the median of your age, sex, and race group scores?
I'm objectively not, and this one internet test isn't my only evidence of that. That said, I understand that you have no reason to believe me, and I have no way to prove it.

What I find far more interesting is that you seem to think a 130+ IQ is so rare and transcendent that it couldn't possibly be wasted on an uneducated philistine like me. Out of the >100 million internet users with a 130+ IQ, you don't think it's likely that there's one that is both lazy and posts on Veeky Forums?

Not an argument.

No, actually intelligence is a biological function of time, and since we are talking about general intelligence, getting good at a general subject like math implies getting smarter. If you are a kid you are a lot dumber than the average college male 25 yo adult. Your tactics might change as well, at some point you might be using your instinct to save time and at other moment you might be really evaluating statements. From the average experience you can tell the brain might be saturated just like a muscle is sore for days, your diet might condition your brain to have less mitochondria. You might have skipped a cup of coffee a few days and now your abnormal number of adenosine receptors from the habit's antagonistic up-regulation might be making your brain to not halt while solving a math problem, turning what would be an above-average grade into a lousy failure.

>you don't think it's likely that there's one that is both lazy and posts on Veeky Forums?
Nope, I don't.

This is all just a convenient way to say "people who are lazy aren't smart by definition" which is bullshit. Intelligence is potential, whether it's realized or not.

And we're back to needing to define lazy. I guess that's my fault.

You have a job, I guess you mean you don't have ambition when you say lazy

Sort of. I work about 400 hours a year. I've literally built my life around working as little as possible.

>140 iq
>add
>memory problems from concussions

Intelligent, but hopeless to do any university level studying.

Yes, however truly "smart but lazy" people are still way above the average when it comes to success in mentally demanding aspects of life (e.g. academic performance). If someone says they are smart but lazy, yet have nothing to show for their supposed intelligence, they are just brainlets in denial.

>Is "smart but lazy" even possible?
Obviously, especially when you consider that lazy people tend to get bored very easily, and struggle to fulfill menial, "useless" tasks. They just need to find an outlet to divert their intellect and figure out their "purpose." But if you are still very lazy well into your 20s or 30s, you might as well be a 100 IQer. In fact, it would benefit you. That way, you can stop thinking of "wasted potential" and developing nihilistic, depressive thoughts while doing nothing. Many intelligent people are underachievers anyways, even if they try - they just get a bachelors and some job they might not like, then live out the rest of their life. You should expect more out of them

But nobody who is genuinely intelligent actually says "I'm smart but lazy" online or (even worse) in public. These are usually just brainlets in denial. The only thing that matters in life is that you're smart enough (120+) and utilize your intelligence. IQ is a meme

>when you consider that lazy people

*smart people*

Alternitavley, there are some intelligent people who are incredibly bad judges about the time and effort they put into something. Whether it's through genuine enjoyment or autism, they don't recognize the extent of their hard work, and thusbdeem themselves lazy. This makes them terrible teachers, as an aside.

im 111 though

wow what a wasted post

>Is "smart but lazy" even possible?
No. Smart is physically idol while being mentally active. Our brains need glucose and if we're expending our nutritional intake on physical exercise we are less able to think on an exponential curve.
Most people keep physically busy, but they never do anything of consequence; hence, their only life is a cell phone and drugs.
Smart is figuring out who we are, how we came to be, how we can be and who will we be. And most of you are far from able to answer on your own without "extra" help from some male who is the smartest male. Obviously we're not waiting for an actor, weightlifter or shopkeeper to solve our problems by "showing" smart that others can "mimic" (copy someone smarter without first being smart).
The fulfillment of our plan is near.

Good bye Veeky Forums. Your CAPTCHA shows you will one day fail and never again be remembered.
I am for more permanent truths.

>idol

jimkwik.com

You're welcome.

You probably get fooled by bait easily. This board is smart enough

Intelligent but lazy

the smart thing is to not be lazy

Genuinely "smart" people have a synthesis of intelligence and drive

I would guess lower. But, not too much lower.

Truly stupid people don't really have an interest in STEM, or really much of anything sophisticated. But, smart people could also choose not to come here for any number of reasons. While we shouldn't assume we need to necessarily be avg IQ 100 because we understand our population isn't representative of the whole, we also shouldn't assume that we necessarily have superb intellects by nature of being a unique subgroup.

If anything I feel like you could more convincingly make a broad correlation with intelligence and Veeky Forums-use in-general, much like you can make a correlation between intelligence and listening to heavy-metal. Being weird rejects who have an unhealthy love of irony, I suspect you'd find nearly every board to be at least slightly above-average.

(although maybe not /pol/)

If you can't project what your success or failure rate will be based on your moment-to-moment decision making, you aren't smart. Someone who can't see that they'll be living in a van down by the river because they are 2 kool for skewl, literally, they aren't smart.

If you were smart you wouldn't be lazy

this

if you were smart you WOULD be lazy.

Maybe those that are here regularly, but there's lots of shitposting crossboarders who make it painfully obvious they are not that smart (especially from that one certain board)

Smart people typically has the incentive to work hard.

Smarter people tend to discover new ways of doing things because they are lazy to do the laborious work that everybody else is doing.

If you are smart you can be lazy.
If you are wise you wouldn't be lazy.

Oh that's a good way to put it, that's what I was getting at

This

'Smart' and 'Intellegent' are for the most part relative. People are good at different things. No one can know everything.

Even memorizing subjects will not get you far if you can't apply/use that knowledge.

This is a multifaceted question to which there is not one response.

Personalities also play a large role. If you know an answer very well and are very introverted, it won't matter because your answer could be drowned out by extroverted people, making it seem like you didn't put in enough effort (because you were drowned out. )

Complex question - complex answer.

Depressed people can be mistaken for lazy but other than that, not really

Yes there's nothing rational in working, any stupid can mindlessy work towards something and achieve it by "bruteforce".

Any person smart enough have already disconnected itself of the pleasure and status seeking triggers in his mind, with that out its hard to find something that motivates you enough to work hard.

No, this is shit. Only a fucking retard would give this kwick chink some money

So I was always the "smart but lazy". (GPA rank is 170-sumthing out of 300, SAT is 1520/1600). I don't actually think I'm super lazy, I just absolutely despise the education system. I'm an ocd-esque perfectionist so when I do something, I do it all or nothing. When I was learning shit, I would learn it properly or not at all. The problem with that is that American public education rewards how well you subscribe to the system, not your capability in the course. I probably knew the shit better than most in my classes, yet my grades were some of the worst. Idgaf though, just gonna go to state college and transfer into big name school.

t larping highschooler

See, this guy gets it. We're being graded on how well we are highschoolers versus how well we know the shit. Millennials love being graded on larping highschooler and they hate the real world. I'm the other way around.

Are the characteristics "smart" and "lazy" mutually exclusive?

>1520 SAT
>smart
Your grade might have dropped since you started slacking out

>Smart but lazy
Yeah it's just called wasting your potential. In most cases if you work harder you'll do better.

"Smart" is subjective.
The Animal Kingdom has loads of "lazy" animals that survive just fine compared to some industrious humans.
Industriousness and intelligence are not the same thing.
Stop posting false syllogisms.

No because smart people aren't lazy.

>"Smart" "is" "subjective". "The" "Animal" "Kingdom" "has" "loads" "of" "lazy" "animals" "that" "survive" "just" "fine" "compared" "to" "some" 'industrious" "humans". "Industriousness" "and" "intelligence" "are" "not" "the" "same" "thing".

Well since smart is not subjective, you can already sign your name on the lazydumbs list. I am not posting a false syllogisms, I'm simply making a question, my irrational dogmacuck friend

>If anything I feel like you could more convincingly make a broad correlation with intelligence and Veeky Forums-use in-general
No.
Most of the media boards are more or less braindead.

He has a point. Ultimately your communication style is an ugly mess of old, regurgitated memes stitched together with some strange desire to mindlessly insult people which is basically an expanded form of throwing shit like a dump ape. Of course then if someone actually starts to think and interface at a higher level, you either result to calling that person a fedora or autistic while completely oblivious to the fact that you are poorly adapting to your inability to have a conversation and reluctance to develop basic social skills.

Your "question" is dumb. Face it.