Seven Sins: Laziness is not necessarily a scientific term, says Michael Inzlicht

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 fifteenth part, DTE speaks to Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Canada. Inzlicht uses tools such as social psychology and cognitive science to unravel how humans use mental efforts to reach their goals.

Q. If people choose to exert less effort, would it be right to characterise them as lazy, or is the term being loosely used in society?

A. “Lazy” is not a scientific term. I suppose you could define laziness as the lack of willingness to exert effort for some reward. But it turns out that all of us are lazy; not just humans, other animals too. All of us would rather exert less effort than more for the exact same reward.

However, some of us have a greater appetite for effort. Some of us are more willing, especially depending on likes and dislikes. Maybe, some people are especially willing to exert mental effort. Some people really like doing crossword puzzles, and there is no real reward for that. You rarely get prizes for doing a crossword puzzle or sudoku. But you do it.

Some people have a greater need to think about problems, to think through things, and then get enjoyment out of it. Some people do it less. So, would you characterise the people who enjoyed an activity less as lazy? Maybe, you could. But it can also be that the reward is less rewarding for that person. So, they do not deem the effort worthwhile. Maybe, they do not get much from completing a crossword; so the reward is not valuable.

So, laziness seems to be a bit more of a judgment call or a moral evaluation that we apply on people. It is not necessarily a scientific term, though.

Q. You talked about some people having a greater appetite for effort. Do we understand what drives this?

A. Personality psychologists, over decades and decades of research, have suggested and there is a lot of evidence to confirm this, that human personality falls under five dimensions, some say, maybe, six dimensions.

One of those personality traits is called conscientiousness. A conscientious person is someone who is orderly, follows norms and rules from authority or society, is thoughtful, plans, and has some virtue. Another characteristic is that they are industrious, they have an appetite for effort, they seem to exert effort, and they seem to derive meaning, or even pleasure, from it.

But the question is, where does this come from? As with all personality traits, it is a combination of genes and environment. We do know that conscientiousness, like all other personality variables, are strongly heritable, meaning you get genes from your parents that give you an appetite for effort or not.

But we also learn. We also learn from our cultures. So, some cultures really promote efforts. So, famously, at least in the West, people talk about the Protestant work ethic. This branch of Christianity promotes hard work. The idea is that the more you push yourself, the more goods you gain in this life and the more you have grace in the eyes of god. But it is not just the West. Mahatma Gandhi famously said: “No effort, no glory.”

So, in the real world, animals and humans that benefit the most are the ones who tend to work the hardest. This is not always the case, though. If you are lucky, privileged, and you are born into wealth, you do not have to work that hard and you get benefits.

But think about animals. If you are a squirrel foraging for nuts in a tree, the more willing you are to climb high, the more nuts you will get. The faster or the harder you work, the more you will get and the more you are likely to pass on your genes and have a successful line. So, it could just be an adaptive thing.

Q. Do we understand if humans prefer physical efforts over mental ones or vice versa?

A. I do not think we have an answer to that. It seems people will have different tastes or effort profiles for physical or mental activities.

Even within physical and mental activities, there are different kinds of tasks. So, running very fast requires a different kind of effort than lifting weights or endurance running.

People who have appetites for any one of these things might not have an appetite for the other. So, it is not clear to me that there is necessarily a connection between effort and willingness in the physical and mental domain. But we do not know. It is possible that there is something that unites both of these things.

One thing that possibly unites both is that effort has a characteristic feeling. If you make a certain face, like furrowing your brow, it does not feel good. People describe the feeling of effort as unpleasant, aversive, irritating and frustrating, as well as something that induces anxiety. That feeling is the same whether you are physically or mentally exerting. But when you are really trying to run, you are physically exerting and that is painful, but you are also trying to push yourself. Your body is screaming to stop, but your mind is asking you to continue.

The same thing applies to mental effort. Your mind might say that you cannot do this anymore, but you just keep doing it. So, those feelings and, maybe, the verbal statements you tell yourself are similar. So, maybe, there is some language in one’s appetite for physical and mental effort. But right now we do not have any empirical evidence.

Q. If people put in effort towards something, does that mean that they are less likely to feel lazy?

A. Say we give people a list of all the possible things they could do in their daily life, like emailing, commuting, Zoom meetings, doing homework, eating, drinking, sleeping—all the various things that people do—and then ask them to say how effortful or challenging each of these activities are. And then we ask people how much meaning and joy do they derive from doing these tasks. What we find is that the more effort a task requires, the less joy people derive from it. So, doing homework is less pleasurable than watching television. Going to a party is more pleasurable than doing your taxes. But, then, when we ask people how meaningful these tasks are, we find the opposite. We find that the more effort they exert on a task, the more meaning they ascribe to it.

What do we mean by meaning? We mean it is important, it is significant and it structures life. It seems like people derive some meaning. And again, maybe, that just has to do with things like statistical learning or cultural learning.

But we have done some studies where we give people a hard task versus an easy task that is meaningless. And then we ask them how meaningful was that task? The harder they work, the more meaning they say they got from a task. But you can also just think about it a little bit more deeply, like a crossword puzzle, as some people really believe that is meaningful. Why is it meaningful? They are just putting letters in boxes and solving problems that no one cares about. It is not a particularly useful skill.

Q. How much of a role does interest towards a particular activity, regardless of whether it is physical or mental effort, play in this?

A. Interest matters a great deal. So, as I mentioned with the law of least effort, when the rewards are equal, people prefer to engage in less effort than more effort. But when we include interests, the rewards are not equal anymore.

If I like math and derive pleasure from it, math is more rewarding for me. So, therefore, the effort is more justified. So, we are more willing to exert effort for the things that we like.

We are more willing to exert effort for the people we like. But that is still very consistent with the law of least effort, because now the reward is not only objective, there is a subjective component to reward. So, how much do I like this thing? I am a professor, I like reading and thinking. My son does not. Does this mean I am lazy and he is not? No. For him, the effort would not be worth it. For me, it is. I gain more value.

My son, on the other hand, loves soccer. So, he plays soccer all the time. He exerts a lot of effort towards the sport. I do not. In this case, I might come out lazy because I do not want to play soccer. But the fact is that I do not value soccer to the same extent as my son.

(as told to Rohini Krishnamurthy)

This is the sixteenth 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