Slightly tangent:
The question if humans are inherently lazy or not is wrong. To understand motivation you need to grasp back to evolutionary principles. People work hard to ensure procreative success, but will spare energy when possible.
In process management terms, ideally you couple the sense of genetic urgency to the job. But realistically a lot of jobs obviously have no connection to procreative success. In that case assume the employees are lazy.
Ah, the spherical cow theory of human psychology. I believe they call that "Theory Epsilon".
Are you going to try to convince us that (e.g.) Steve Wozniak was lazy? Or are you going to try to convince us that the still-childless Mr. Wozniak drove himself furiously to invent the Apple I and II as part of a strategy to improve his procreative success?
Evolutionary psych is a field that has useful things to say, but only to the extent that it avoids being the 21st-century version of cocktail-party Freudianism. ("Of course higher mathematics is about sex! Of course classical music is about sex! Of course your relationship to your mother is about sex! Of course that hat is about sex! Everything is about sex!")
The OP said, "People work hard to ensure procreative success, but will spare energy when possible."
I have no children, have zero desire to have children, have only moderate tolerance for children. I'm lazy about some things, driven about others. It has nothing to do with procreation. It might be related to sex, though, insofar as I hate being bored, and sex (when done right) is anything but boring.
Sigh, what you dismiss as cocktail-party Freudianism is social psychology that you fail to understand.
You are taking the idea of sexual motivation too directly.
Sexual motivation underlies status awareness, which in turn drives ambition. Steve Wozniak was status aware, but his perceived social environment was computer hackers. Therefore inventing the Apple I and II put him right at the top of his social circle, which exemplified by you mentioning him.
5 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 17.5 ms ] threadIn process management terms, ideally you couple the sense of genetic urgency to the job. But realistically a lot of jobs obviously have no connection to procreative success. In that case assume the employees are lazy.
Are you going to try to convince us that (e.g.) Steve Wozniak was lazy? Or are you going to try to convince us that the still-childless Mr. Wozniak drove himself furiously to invent the Apple I and II as part of a strategy to improve his procreative success?
Evolutionary psych is a field that has useful things to say, but only to the extent that it avoids being the 21st-century version of cocktail-party Freudianism. ("Of course higher mathematics is about sex! Of course classical music is about sex! Of course your relationship to your mother is about sex! Of course that hat is about sex! Everything is about sex!")
The OP said, "People work hard to ensure procreative success, but will spare energy when possible."
I have no children, have zero desire to have children, have only moderate tolerance for children. I'm lazy about some things, driven about others. It has nothing to do with procreation. It might be related to sex, though, insofar as I hate being bored, and sex (when done right) is anything but boring.
You are taking the idea of sexual motivation too directly.
Sexual motivation underlies status awareness, which in turn drives ambition. Steve Wozniak was status aware, but his perceived social environment was computer hackers. Therefore inventing the Apple I and II put him right at the top of his social circle, which exemplified by you mentioning him.