Human-Kind. Isn’t that lovely. We have moved away from the patriarchal term mankind – ‘man’ who has not always been ‘kind’, necessarily – toward equality between the sexes and acknowledging gender fluidity. Noah touches on this. If you’re interested in the evolution of humanity and how we are capable of co-operating as a global community, give this book a go. You may experience information overload – but when condensing 2.4 million years into less than 500 pages, Harari goes alright. I’m someone who didn’t pay attention to history at school so I found this book enlightening, empowering and also disheartening at times. Harari writes about the breakthroughs of the Cognitive, Agricultural and Scientific Revolutions. The power of human imagination, math and language has been instrumental in the development of humankind into an apex predator, and the destruction of everything else.
Related Post
Problematic Thinking Styles (continued)Problematic Thinking Styles (continued)
Hello readers! A few of the cognitive styles below were mentioned in my last post. As humans, we have a tendency to forget things so a bit of revision can be useful.
Many people have cognitive processes that result in overall unhelpful thinking styles that they tend to apply globally across situations and which may result in emotional distress (such as depression or anxiety) or unhelpful behaviours (such as anger or avoidance). Some of the most problematic thinking styles are listed in the extract below.
Mental Filter: This thinking styles involves a “filtering in” and “filtering out” process – a sort of “tunnel vision”, focusing on only one part of a situation and ignoring the rest. Usually this means looking at the negative parts of a situation and forgetting the positive parts, and the whole picture is coloured by what may be a single negative detail.
Jumping to Conclusions: I’m sure you’ve heard people say on television, “Don’t jump to conclusions” or “The truth is we just don’t know yet”. We jump to conclusions when we assume that we know what someone else is thinking (mind reading) and when we make predictions about what is going to happen in the future (predictive thinking).
Personalisation: This involves blaming yourself for everything that goes wrong or could go wrong, even when you may only be partly responsible or not responsible at all. You might be taking 100% responsibility for the occurrence of external events.
Catastrophising: Catastrophising occurs when we “blow things out of proportion” and we view the situation as terrible, awful, dreadful, and horrible, even though the reality is that the problem itself is quite small. A helpful restructuring of this cognition is to ask yourself if the situation will still be awful, terrible, or dreadful in a month. There may be ongoing consequences or stress involved if you lose a job or a relationship ends, so validate the experience you are having but also take a look at the big picture. What’s the worst that could happen? Why is the worst so “bad”? And if you are being realistic about the issue, reach out for some help if you can.
Black & White Thinking: This thinking style involves seeing only one extreme or the other. You are either wrong or right, good or bad and so on. There are no in-betweens or shades of grey.
Should-ing and Must-ing: Sometimes by saying “I should…” or “I must…” you can put unreasonable demands or pressure on yourself and others. Although these statements are not always unhelpful (e.g. “I should not get drunk and drive home”), they can sometimes create unrealistic expectations.
Overgeneralisation: When we overgeneralise, we take one instance in the past or present, and impose it on all current or future situations. If we say “You always…” or “Everyone…”, or “I never…” then we are probably overgeneralising.
Labelling: We label ourselves and others when we make global statements based on behaviour in specific situations. We might use this label even though there are many more examples that aren’t consistent with that label.
Emotional Reasoning: This thinking style involves basing your view of situations or yourself on the way you are feeling. For example, the only evidence that something bad is going to happen is that you feel like something bad is going to happen. I live with anxiety and it can be debilitating at times. I use my “wiser thinking” or “rational thinking” to evaluate whether I am operating from an emotional mindset. You might ask yourself: “What’s the evidence?”, “Does the past necessarily predict the future?”, “Am I angry or fearful right now because that might be clouding my judgement?”. It can be helpful to talk to someone who isn’t caught in your emotional headspace, or perhaps wait for the emotion to subside to think about the situation again.
Magnification and Minimisation: In this thinking style, you magnify the positive attributes of other people and minimise your own positive attributes. It’s as though you’re explaining away your own positive characteristics.
(CCI, 2008)
Beyond “Lazy”: Finding the Right Word for What’s Really Going OnBeyond “Lazy”: Finding the Right Word for What’s Really Going On
“I’m just lazy.” It’s one of the most common things we say about ourselves, and it’s almost always inaccurate — or at least, it’s not the full story. “Lazy” is a character judgement. It implies a fixed trait, a moral failing, something the person simply is. In reality, what looks like so-called “laziness” from the outside is usually a specific, nameable process happening underneath: low energy, fear, overwhelm, disconnection from meaning, or a nervous system that’s stuck.
Swapping “lazy” for “unmotivated” is a good first step, but it can still flatten quite different experiences into one vague label. Below are some more precise alternatives, what they actually describe, and examples of how they show up in real life.
When the problem is getting started
Low activation
This describes difficulty initiating action even when the desire is genuinely there. The want exists; the ignition doesn’t turn over.
Example: Someone wants to reply to a mate’s text, has wanted to all day, keeps thinking about it — and still hasn’t opened the message by evening. It’s not that they don’t care.
Avolition
A more clinical term for a reduced capacity to initiate and follow through on goal-directed behaviour. It’s heavier and more diagnostic, yet accurate. It is commonly linked to major depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.
Example: A person who used to cook every night now can’t manage to put a frozen meal in the microwave, despite being hungry and having no external barrier.
Task paralysis / overwhelm-driven inaction
The task itself feels too big, too undefined, or too loaded, so the person freezes rather than starts.
Example: A person needs to “sort out their finances.” There’s no single first step, so nothing happens — not because they don’t want order, but because the whole thing feels like an unclimbable wall.
When the problem is energy or capacity
Low energy / depleted
Sometimes it’s simpler than motivation — the person is running on empty. This is especially relevant with burnout, chronic illness, or the tail end of a stressful period.
Example: A person who was previously proactive at work is now struggling to answer emails, not because the job has changed, but because they’ve been running on adrenaline for six months and have nothing left.
When the problem is avoidance
Avoidant coping
Here, the “laziness” is really a strategy — often an unconscious one — to dodge a task that triggers anxiety, shame, or fear of failure. The inaction is protective, not apathetic.
Example: A person keeps “forgetting” to start an assignment they actually care about, because starting means risking it not being good enough.
Procrastination
Useful when the issue is delay rather than total refusal — the person will eventually do the thing, but keeps pushing it to the edge. Procrastination gets treated like a single thing, but it’s usually a surface behaviour with several different engines underneath it. Here’s what tends to actually be driving it:
- Fear of failure (or fear of judgement): if the work is never finished, it can never be judged as not good enough. Delay protects self-esteem.
- Fear of success: less talked about, but real — finishing well can raise expectations, invite more responsibility, or change a relationship dynamic the person isn’t ready for.
- Perfectionism: not “I might fail” so much as “it has to be right, and I don’t yet know how to make it right.” The standard is so high that starting feels premature. Perfectionism is frequently a strategy for managing fear of judgement (and fear of failure), not a standalone driver in its own right. The logic is If I can make this flawless, no one can criticise it → if no one can criticise it, I’m safe from judgement → therefore I must make it flawless before I let it be seen. “It has to be right” isn’t really about the work — it’s a control mechanism aimed at the anticipated judgement. The satisfaction or reward is real too, but it’s often secondary. It’s a learned reward layered on top: the relief of having pre-empted criticism gets experienced as “getting it right” rather than “avoiding exposure.”
- Emotion regulation, not time management: this is the reframe from the procrastination research (Tim Pychyl, Fuschia Sirois) that’s shifted a lot of clinical thinking: procrastination isn’t primarily a planning failure, it’s an attempt to avoid a negative feeling attached to the task right now, at the cost of a bigger problem later. The person is regulating today’s mood at the expense of tomorrow’s outcome.
- Task aversiveness: sometimes it’s simpler — the task itself is boring, tedious, ambiguous, or otherwise unpleasant, and there’s no emotional complexity beyond “I don’t want to.”
- Temporal discounting: a cognitive-behavioural angle. Humans are wired to weight immediate rewards over future ones, even when the future cost is much larger. The person isn’t choosing badly on purpose; the brain is built to prefer now.
- Autonomy/control conflict: sometimes procrastination is a quiet act of resistance — doing the task on someone else’s timeline feels like a loss of control, so delay becomes the only lever the person has left.
- Low self-efficacy: the person doubts their ability to do the task well or at all, so starting feels pointless or exposing.
Example: A person always finishes reports the night before they’re due, every time, despite genuine intentions to start earlier.
When the problem is follow-through, not starting
Low follow-through / inconsistent follow-through
The person starts fine but struggles to sustain the behaviour over time. This is more behavioural and less about character, which tends to land better if you are already hard on yourself.
Example: Someone joins a gym, goes three times enthusiastically, then stops — not from laziness, but because the initial motivation (novelty, resolution energy) wasn’t backed by a system to sustain it.
Difficulty sustaining effort
Similar to the above, but useful when the task requires ongoing, low-grade output rather than one big push.
Example: A person can write a brilliant first page of a project but can’t sustain the plodding, unglamorous middle section.
When the problem is meaning or direction
Disengaged
This applies when the task doesn’t feel connected to anything the person actually values or wants. It’s not an energy or fear problem — it’s a “why would I” problem.
Example: A person who says they’re “too lazy” to network for a job they don’t actually want, in an industry someone else has pushed them into.
Ambivalent
Borrowed from motivational interviewing, this names a genuine internal split — part of the person wants to do the thing, and part doesn’t, and both parts are real and legitimate. It’s a particularly useful reframe because it doesn’t pathologise the resistance; it treats it as information.
Example: A person wants to leave a relationship and doesn’t want to leave it, in roughly equal measure — and the “laziness” they report about making a decision is really that unresolved tension.
Why the re-labelling matters
The value of a more precise term isn’t just semantic tidiness — it changes the intervention. “Unmotivated” invites a pep talk. “Avoidant coping” invites a conversation about what the task threatens. “Low activation” invites behavioural scaffolding (breaking things into smaller steps) rather than willpower-based advice. “Ambivalent” invites exploring both sides rather than pushing harder on one.
Rather than substituting one label for another, it can help to ask what’s underneath the “laziness” for them specifically. Low energy, fear of failure, unclear goals, overwhelm, and disconnection from meaning can look identical from the outside — someone just not doing the thing — but they call for very different responses. Naming the actual mechanism tends to land better than any single re-labelling word ever could.
