Seven Sins: Laziness is an evolutionary trait, says Todd Elroy

Down To Earth (DTE) speaks to scientists and authors to take stock of what we know so far about the emotions of pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth; the historical debates around them and the critical gaps in our understanding.

In the seventeenth part, DTE speaks to Todd Elroy, an associate professor at the department of psychology, Florida Gulf Coast University, US. McElroy studies decision-making and how psychological processes influence physical activity.

Q. Was laziness a part of our evolution?

A. In my view, laziness is not a bad thing. It is an evolutionary trait. When you look back at our species, you can see that as we evolved, laziness was built into this process. Laziness became especially robust during times of human development. So, the more we developed, the more time we had to be lazy. And by being lazy, we often think of it as just laying around. But in fact, some of the greatest innovations, greatest feats in creativity and the biggest leaps that have ever occurred in terms of human thinking have occurred when people were being lazy.

Some of the world’s greatest thinkers—the 16th century French philosopher René Descartes, for example—were notorious for being lazy. They could not get Descartes out of the bed. But look at what he accomplished. His famous phrase, “I think, therefore I am,” was just a minor contribution. Albert Einstein was known for being indolent. He spent a whole lot of time laying around, but he did accomplish things in his life. So if you look at it from that perspective, as humans became more and more civilised, we had more and more opportunities to be lazy. And when we are lazy, it is an opportunity for us to utilise energy that we normally put into our physical activity into something more important. This is critical because we have a finite amount of energy to spend. So, that energy can be used to do something more creative or innovative.

If we would get away from this negative connotation of laziness, it can be a positive trait, going forward. I think, a lot of the negative connotation has been built in because work became synonymous with physical labour and that happened, probably, during the Industrial Revolution. The idea was that if you were not out there digging the soil, you were not making anything.

Q. You say that negative connotations associated with laziness emerged in recent centuries. How has science affected the view?

A. The Protestant puritanical view of things is still the predominant view in most cultures today. In science, laziness does not have a negative connotation. I am a researcher and I think that most people would definitely classify themselves as lazy because they do not engage in this physical labour. Some of the best researchers might seem like they are being lazy, but they are working on stuff. We are applying our energy thinking. And you cannot see that.

Q. But are there exceptions to this where people might not be actually working?

A. Yeah, absolutely. It is what I refer to as strategic laziness. Strategic laziness can be, in my opinion, one of the most beneficial things that you can add to your life. It is taking away other distractions. It is motivating yourself to focus on specific things. Strategic laziness involves putting other things aside to focus on what is important or paramount.

Q. Is strategic laziness associated with being physically active?

A. I am going to go out on a limb and say those who go out there and engage in exercise and good health, also engage in strategic laziness. We have got pretty good evidence to support that. So, this is all about motivation, energy, people who are putting forth their best sense of self, people who are looking for a better sense of self and expanding themselves. They are likely to engage in purposeful exercise because strategic laziness is purposeful. It is about intent, just like exercise is about intent.

Q. Is there enough scientific understanding of how strategic laziness correlates with an individual’s economic success?

A. Many people who are economically successful share traits that are associated with strategic laziness. You would not think of it that way because, again, we have this negative connotation. We think laziness is bad, but it is about how you operationally define laziness.

I use several case studies on very successful people. Elon Musk, for example, is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He admittedly engages in strategic laziness. He does not call it that; hopefully he will eventually. But just look at the things he talks about in terms of how he says he delegates. He says he will remove other things and focus on particular items at one particular time. That is, essentially, strategic laziness. So, very successful people are big on delegation and getting rid of work. And that is one of the keys to success; it is opening up and freeing this extra time for yourself to be lazy so that you can be creative, so that you can innovate.

Q. There are fears about what increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) could mean for human cognition.

A. Elon Musk was saying the other day that in 20 months, we would achieve some sort of artificial form of intellectual achievement. This is fascinating, but will that take over our cognition? I do not see that happening anytime soon. No one in my field sees that happening. I mean, AIs and Large Language Models [deep learning algorithms that can generate content using very large datasets] are insanely, incredibly impressive. But sometimes they cannot even think the most basic thoughts. They cannot do the simplest math. They cannot create, innovate. Will they be there in five years? I do not know.

But to answer your question, I do not think at all that it is a threat right now in terms of our cognition, our creativity, and our innovation. I do not think anyone believes that it is. Is it incredible at pulling out enormous amounts of information and writing code? I cannot even imagine how incredibly powerful it is at that. But can it solve a basic logic problem? No. A seven-year-old might be able to solve a problem like that, but AI cannot do it. Yet.

So human cognition, creativity, and innovation makes us unique. I think, AI will free up a lot of time by taking over mundane tasks. Most of us professionals are going to start having more hours in the day that are free. That is a time that we can engage in strategic laziness. We can focus on our wellbeing, our creativity, and advancing ourselves. I hope that is what people will do. That is my mission in life anyway, because AI is coming. We just have to be ready for it.

Q. What are some of the gaps in the scientific understanding of laziness?

A. I was a sleep researcher and I accidentally stumbled into the area because I was doing pilot testing. I was using myself as a subject and began to notice the things I was doing. I came out as lazy when I tested myself using laziness metrics. But I knew I was not lazy. I am highly productive and I also exercise. And it created this psychological dissonance in my head. And from there, I wanted to figure this out. I spent a lot of time thinking about it. I started doing this line of research and no one else has really done it yet. And that is why I had to write a book on it because there is nothing else out there.

To answer your question, other people are not studying it as much. The science behind it is not discrepant because people are not studying it.

(as told to Rohini Krishnamurthy)

This is the eighteenth of an 18-part series.

This was first published as part of the cover story of the 16-31 May, 2024 Print edition of Down To Earth