Information

Have humans always had problems with motivation and laziness?

Have humans always had problems with motivation and laziness?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I originally wanted to ask a question "Is there a drug for motivation or laziness", but google search revealed that people have been asking this question for years and there's no drug that is currently prescribed to fix those issues.

This makes me interested in the the following question: Did "motivation issues" or laziness always exist for humans, or is it something that became a much bigger problem because of the modern lifestyle or cuture?

For example, I'm thinking of peasants of "ye olde days", who had to work really hard to get by, or early factory workers, who apparently did 12+ hour shifts from a very early age. Those people had no drugs or cognitive-behavior therapy to correct their issues.

Maybe there's some "laziness scale" that could be used to look at historic trends in laziness and motivation?

UPDATE: it would be very interesting to examine if a correlation exists between laziness and workforce moving from working physically/outdoors(ex: farmers) towards working mentally indoors(office workers) over the years.

I would define laziness or motivational issues as "I will do this tomorrow" attitude (procrastination) or promising to do something, but delivering excuses as to why the task wasn't done. The task never gets started.


A possible way to try to answer this, is to analyze usage of words such as lazy versus words such as diligent over the years. As a toy example, I used Google Ngram viewer to compare the frequency in which the words lazy, indolent and slothful are used in the main part of a sentence, to the frequency in which the words diligent, industrious, and laborious are used in the main part of a sentence (link).

It seems that indeed people were more hard working back in the 1800's, and are more lazy today. Or at least, that is what is what is reflected in what book authors write.

A similar trend exists if we omit the "main part of a sentence" thing, and simply look at the frequency of appearance of these words (link).

Word analysis is pretty powerful :


The change that is relevant to your question is not that from a rural farming life to an urban office-working one, but the neolithic revolution.

In early prehistory and during the palaeolithic period, our ancestors lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers. They did nothing but hunt and gather food. When they were sated, they relaxed. Because they had no fridges, food could not be stored, so there was no purpose in "working" more than was necessary for the momentary satisfaction of hunger or repairing of tents and hunting gear.

"Laziness" can be seen as a result of the necessity of sustaining the ecosystem that the hunters were dependent upon:

Hunting results in rapidly diminishing returns - it is a risky, arduous and time-consuming business. This is reflected in the fact that predatory animals tend to be spectacularly lazy. Lions, for example, sleep or doze for at least twenty hours a day, and spend another two hours growling and grooming. They hunt for only about two hours a day. Kalahari bushmen have similar been shown to hunt for only about six hours a week [sic!]. 'Laziness' is a way of life for the big predator. (Tudge, 1998, p. 33)

Then, about 10.000 years ago, the first humans settled down and began agriculture. From this moment onwards, each day was filled with hard labor.

… farming changes the rules of the game. Farming manipulates the environment with the express purpose of overcoming its natural restraints. The more you manipulate, the more food you can produce. The harder farmers work the more food they can produce. Laziness is emphatically not favoured. A hunter who works twice as hard as average may get twice as much food in the short term, but will soon come unstuck as his prey disappears. But the farmer who works ten times as hard as his neighbor will indeed produce ten times as much food - and in favourable circumstances can sustain this tenfold increase indefinitely. (Tudge, 1998, p. 33)

Motivation for paleolithic hunter-gatherers was simply the need to not go hungry. It was not something that you did not have. You either hunted or died. The very concept of motivation does not fit such a life, because action sprang directly from your basic needs. While those needs were satisfied, there was no need for action: "laziness, nomadism and sharing were all integral parts of the Aboriginal life-style" (Ward, 1988).

Hunter-gatherer life is the garden Eden that Adam was sent forth from: "thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread". Rowley-Conwy, in his aptly titled article "The laziness of the short-distance hunter" (1984), argues that for one Mesolithic community in western Denmark at least, "farming was not adopted until problems arose with the hunter-gatherer economy".

If you want to study how problems with motivation came about, you'll need to go look at the difference between nomadic hunter-gatherer and settled farmer life.

Evolutionary psychology assumes "that our minds and bodies are adapted for an ancestral environment", and "that we suffer the consequences of poor fit between our inherited natures and many of the constructed environments in organizational society" (Nicholson, 1997).

Geary and Bjorklund (2000) think that motivation depends on the type of ability that is necessary for performance:

… much of formal education is "unnatural" in that much of what children are taught involves tasks never encountered by our ancestors (Brown & Bjorklund, 1998; Geary, 1995). Although humans apparently have been using language for thousands of years, it is only in this century that the majority of people on the planet are literate. Geary (1995) referred to language and other evolved forms of cognition, such as those represented in Figure 1 [nonverbal behavior, language, facial processing, theory of mind, kin, in-group, out-group, social ideologies, flora, fauna, movement, representation, engineering], as biologically primary abilities, and skills that build upon these primary abilities but are principally cultural inventions, such as reading, as biologically secondary abilities. Biologically primary abilities are acquired universally and children typically have high motivation to perform tasks involving them. In contrast, biologically secondary abilities are culturally determined, and often tedious repetition and external motivation are necessary for their mastery. From this perspective, it is understandable that many children have difficulty with reading and higher mathematics. (emphasis added)

And from this perspective it is also understandable that most of us aren't very motivated to perform those of our daily chores that require biologically secondary abilities, and I would surmise that the motivation declines as we move towards abilities that build upon abilities that… are more and more removed from our biologically primary concerns.


Sources:

  • Geary, D. C., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child Development, 71, 57-65. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00118
  • Nicholson, N. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: Toward a new view of human nature and organizational society. Human Relations, 50, 1053-1078. doi:10.1177/001872679705000901
  • Rowley-Conwy, P. (1984). The laziness of the short-distance hunter: The origins of agriculture in western Denmark. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 3, 300-324. doi:10.1016/0278-4165(84)90005-9
  • Tudge, C. (1998). Neanderthals, Bandits, and Farmers: How Agriculture Really Began. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Ward, R. (1988). Aboriginal communists. Labour History, 55, 1-8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/i27508887

Although it would be hard to experiment on dead peasants, I believe that theStatus Quo Biaspromotes the idea that laziness is a human trait. You can see the orignal research here, or just google the term.

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59.


It seems that what you are getting at might be related to “akrasia” or “weakness of the will” (those two are slightly different ideas). Roughly, it's the experience that you know something to be the right course of action, want (in some sense) to follow it but still do not succeed in actually doing it. Since classical Greek philosophers have written about it, it would seem to have been an experience humans made before modern times.

Another relevant observation is that being unable to do things one wishes to do and feeling bad about it is an important aspect of depression or even simply sadness. One would (hopefully!) not apply a pejorative word like laziness to someone who is suffering but that could be interpreted as a form of “motivation problem”. Since depression (or “melancholia”) has also been described a long time ago, this is further evidence that all this did not appear in modern times.


Your question "I will do this tomorrow" is well studied under term procrastination. As you can see on wikipedia page:

There are a lot of causes and "how to measure"…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination

It is true that some form of procrastination was noticed in ancient Greeks, but it is became very important in industrial revolution with concept of time was valued more…